For Ukraine, Try Trump’s Gaza Tactics: “All Hell to Pay” and a Bold Reconstruction Plan (From RealClearDefense)

The full text of this article is available below and in RealClearDefense here.

When it comes to Ukraine, President Donald J. Trump is taking a page from his successful approach to brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.  In his meeting with France’s President Emmanuel Macron on February 24, Trump rumbled about “World War III” while touting major economic deals to be had after a ceasefire.

The 47^th President of the United States has met success with this tactic before: in Gaza.  As with Hamas, Trump must simultaneously convince Putin that there will be “all hell to pay” if Russia does not agree to end the war, and at the same time, offer a bold, economic reconstruction plan, bigger and better than taking over the Gaza strip. 

This is Trump’s moment to shape the security environment in Eastern Europe, in a way that corrects the deficiencies of the arrangements that ended the Cold War. His plan for a stable post-conflict environment, one that reflects U.S. interests and requirements, must create a viable security environment that Ukraine can maintain and that does not encourage Russia to commit fresh aggressions.

Fortunately, he is in a powerful position, not least because the mere threat of action by his incoming Administration against Hamas was sufficient to goad that organization into a ceasefire with Israel and, in recent days, brought the terrorist organization back into compliance with the agreement. The Israel-Hamas ceasefire underscores the political and persuasive power that Trump can wield. He will need all of those same assets, plus others, in order to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.  

The outlines of a ceasefire agreement are already evident.  Without question, the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia will end without either side achieving a clear-cut victory. Ukraine will survive as an independent state. Russia will hold on to at least some of its conquests, notably Crimea. This was confirmed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in his recent remarks in Europe.  It is likely that Moscow also will insist on retaining control of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The other regions that Russia has seized ought to be returned to Ukraine as part of any peace plan that seeks a stable regional balance.

For the war to end, Putin must be made to recognize Ukraine’s independence.  Lately, he has asserted that Ukraine is not a sovereign state with its own long history, culture and identity. This is demonstrably false. Russia had already recognized Ukraine’s independence and full sovereignty in a range of agreements, some dating back more than thirty years, to the 1994 Budapest Accords.

Putin must also be made to understand that continuing the conflict reduces his chance of holding on to his desired territorial gains, while simultaneously increasing the prospects of military defeat.

What can President Trump do to tip the scales in favor of a negotiated settlement? He has already threatened to impose draconian sanctions and tariffs on Russia if Putin does not end what Trump often characterizes as a “ridiculous war.”

But Putin must be convinced that the United States could swing the military balance against Russia, if he chooses to continue hostilities.

In particular, Trump should warn Putin that he would be willing to supply Ukraine with very long-range conventional weapons if Moscow does not come to the negotiating table. The U.S. Army is working to deploy a set of advanced long-range ground-based strike systems through its Long-Range Precision Fires program. In particular, the Administration could threaten to provide Kyiv with elements of the Typhon Strategic Mid-Range Fires systems, either the Tomahawk cruise missile or the Standard Missile 6.

Security problems will not end after the ceasefire.  Without question, the primary outcome of the war, regardless of how disputed territories are divided, will be to firmly anchor Ukraine to Europe and the United States. Secretary Hegseth called on Europe to guarantee Ukraine’s security by deploying their troops in a non-NATO mission. Troops from NATO nations will be necessary to guard the borders but they will also be a thorn in Russia’s side.  The reconstruction of Ukraine’s war-battered infrastructure and economy will draw it still closer to Europe.

Again, Trump should pivot from Gaza and propose a bold, four-part reconstruction program to Ukraine in return for negotiating peace with Russia. The first part would be a Marshall Plan for that nation. Ukraine, even without some of its eastern lands, is a rich country, with significant industrial capacity, a young, educated population, and agricultural and mineral resources. Investing in Ukraine makes more sense than spending money and time rebuilding Gaza.

Second, the U.S. needs to ensure that Ukraine has the conventional striking power to hold Russia at risk. An array of long-range conventional strike capabilities such as those mentioned above would go a long way to establishing deterrence for Kyiv. Add to that more F-16s and in time, F-35 fighter aircraft. 

Third, Ukraine and the Eastern European members of NATO need the Iron Dome to counter the rampant threat from Russian drones, cruise and ballistic missiles. President Trump has proposed an Iron Dome, similar to that deployed by Israel, for the United States. Europe needs the same defense, and adding customers in Europe would go a long way towards offsetting expenses.

Finally, the U.S. and Europe need to help Ukraine build a modern, Western-oriented military and defense industrial base. Poland’s defense modernization program could serve as a long-term model for the Ukrainian program. Poland has acquired advanced land, air and sea systems from the West, including U.S. M-1 Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, and the F-35 stealth fighter. It is also building the advanced infrastructure to maintain and even modernize these systems.

As the past three years of war have shown, peace through strength truly is the only solution for Ukraine.