U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing for a resolution to Russia’s three-year war in Ukraine, but what that looks like remains deeply contested. Experts and policymakers have outlined several potential paths—each carrying profound consequences for the war’s outcome and global stability.
One approach, advocated by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), is a maximum pressure strategy to force Russia into genuine negotiations. This plan demands an immediate flood of Western weapons to Ukraine, harsher sanctions targeting Russia’s financial sector, and the release of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s defense. CEPA insists Ukraine and Europe must be at the negotiating table, with European peacekeepers enforcing a future ceasefire.
Another route, proposed by the German Marshall Fund’s Josh Rudolph, leans on tactical negotiations with Russia but from a position of American strength. His recommendations include escalating economic warfare by driving down oil prices, hitting Moscow with more sanctions, and ensuring Europe shoulders more of the financial and military burden. He also suggests fully arming Ukraine, deploying 100,000 European peacekeepers, and tying U.S. military aid to economic incentives for American workers.
The economic argument plays a major role in a separate proposal from the American Enterprise Institute, which warns that a Russian victory would cost the U.S. far more in the long run. The think tank estimates that abandoning Ukraine could force an $808 billion increase in U.S. defense spending over five years, while an accelerated commitment to Ukrainian victory would stabilize Europe and allow Washington to focus on countering China.
A middle-ground approach, outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, reflects divisions within the conservative movement. It suggests limiting U.S. support to military aid while making Europe take full responsibility for Ukraine’s economic needs. The report also frames China—not Russia—as the real long-term threat, arguing that U.S. strategy must shift accordingly.
As peace talks loom, Trump faces the challenge of choosing between these competing visions. His decision will define not just Ukraine’s fate, but the future of American power and alliances worldwide.
