"Lightly armed peacekeepers won't deter Putin": Western perspectives on Ukraine's future under Trump.

Currently, there are no specifics regarding the conditions of potential negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, as well as the "peace agreement" that U.S. President Donald Trump wishes to establish. Western analysts are contemplating how this might unfold, particularly what security guarantees could be offered to Kyiv and how the U.S. and Europe can avoid mistakes during this critical period.

International observer for "Telegraph," Olga Kirillova has analyzed what Western experts and analytical centers are saying.

Trump's Areas of Interest in Ukraine

Expert from the American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Heidi Crebo-Rediker writes: U.S. President Donald Trump must realize that Ukraine is primarily a promising investment opportunity for the economic interests of the United States, rather than a burden on American resources.

"Ukraine possesses vast reserves of critically important minerals and rare earth elements, an advanced defense industry, as well as a strong technology and cyber sector.

The Trump administration should agree to a comprehensive strategic partnership in the area of critical minerals and rare earth elements, develop a strategic cooperation agreement in defense production, and support joint U.S. and Ukrainian investments in defense technologies even before negotiations with Russia," the expert notes.

In her view, this would help strengthen Ukraine's negotiating position, enhance the U.S., and reduce Washington's dependence on Beijing.

"Protecting Ukraine's economic assets and its ability to meet its own security needs, as well as those of the U.S. and Europe, must become a key element in the ceasefire process.

Russia understands this well, which is why it seeks to control or destroy Ukraine's wealth, both above and below ground. Any agreed solution must ensure that Ukraine's resources remain out of Russia's reach, and thus China's, and be available on terms acceptable to Ukraine, the U.S., and their NATO allies. The independence and sovereignty of Ukraine should be a priority for the U.S., not just for Ukraine's sake — it is also beneficial for America itself," Crebo-Rediker believes.

For instance, Ukraine's lithium and titanium reserves are among the largest in Europe. Ukraine also holds significant deposits of cobalt and nickel — key components for battery production and aerospace alloys used in the defense industry.

Moreover, Ukraine is one of the leading producers of natural graphite in Europe.

"Although key mines remain under Kyiv's control, ongoing hostilities threaten their stable operation. Outside Ukraine, nearly the entire graphite market is controlled by China, which has imposed export restrictions to the U.S.

A similar situation exists with gallium — Ukraine is the fifth-largest producer of this rare metal and a primary producer of neon gas. Gallium, essential in semiconductor and LED production, has also fallen under Chinese export restrictions regarding the U.S… A favorable ceasefire would allow the U.S. to eliminate dependence on China by securing a new, reliable supply source — Ukraine," the American expert argues.

At the same time, if Ukraine remains independent and sovereign and is able to meet its military needs after the war, it will have one of the most modern and competitive defense industrial bases in Europe.

"Given Donald Trump's desire to modernize the U.S. military, accelerate the innovation cycle, and focus on low-cost autonomous weapon systems, collaboration with Ukrainian drone and defense technology manufacturers opens a unique opportunity to create a joint Ukrainian-American defense innovation complex.

This could even become part of Congressional initiatives and the recently established Government Efficiency Department under Elon Musk, aimed at reducing costs while enhancing efficiency," Crebo-Rediker suggests.

Alongside this, Ukraine is rapidly transforming into a global center for military technology research and development — a sort of "military Silicon Valley," becoming a key hub for creating innovative systems based on artificial intelligence.

"Supporting Ukraine is not just an act of solidarity. It is a strategic investment in the security and prosperity of the U.S. and Europe. To pass up this opportunity is unacceptable," the expert concludes.

Four Conditions Under Which Ukraine Could Lose

Analyst Michael Peck in a piece for the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) writes that the current situation in Ukraine is alarming, "but not catastrophic."

"Russia currently occupies about 18% of the country, which before the war covered approximately 600,000 square kilometers. These losses are significant, but not necessarily fatal. The Russians themselves understand this best: by 1942, Nazi armies had captured a significant portion of the western Soviet Union, including a large part of the USSR's coal, iron ore, and steel industries, as well as about half its population.

Moreover, when Germany invaded in June 1941, many in the U.S. and Britain expected the Soviet Union to fall within weeks. Yet, by May 1945, the Third Reich had capitulated," Peck draws parallels.

Thus, in 2024, Russia seized 4,168 square kilometers of Ukrainian land, including part of Russian territory reclaimed in the Kursk region. However, such figures cannot be labeled as military success.

"To capture less than one-fifth of Ukraine, Russia suffered over 800,000 losses. Just to seize 4,168 square kilometers last year, it lost approximately 102 soldiers for every square kilometer…

If this were the Western Front of 1916, historians would call the Russian offensive a Pyrrhic victory. The battles for small Ukrainian towns and little-known villages have taken on almost mythical proportions not because they were decisive, but because Ukraine managed to hold them for so long despite the enemy's numerical superiority," the expert analyzes.

In his opinion, there are four conditions under which Russia could achieve victory: the collapse of the Ukrainian army, the rise of a capitulation government in Kyiv, the cessation of Western aid, or some "remarkable improvement" in the effectiveness of Russian troops.

"All of these scenarios are possible, but none currently seem likely. In the absence of such changes, Putin's forces will continue to face a grueling war, which Russia can only sustain at the cost of enormous human and financial losses. Russia has more resources than Ukraine, but they are not limitless — just like the patience of Russian society.

It is entirely reasonable to ask whether Ukraine can endure the current situation in the long term. Can it win? That depends on how we define victory.

If victory means completely driving Russian troops from Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and the annexed eastern regions, that seems unlikely.

But if victory means Ukraine exiting the war as an independent, economically and politically viable state, then it is more than achievable. Ukraine has not won yet, but it is far from defeated," Peck notes.

Options for Deploying Western Troops in Ukraine

A group of experts from the American analytical center RAND Corporation asserts: if the war in Ukraine ends in a ceasefire, lightly armed peacekeepers will not be able to help Ukraine deter the Russians from a renewed attack. The best example to emulate could be the U.S.-led forces in South Korea, which, like Ukraine, faces a significant hostile threat.

"Even if a ceasefire is reached in Ukraine, Putin's Russia is unlikely to abandon its revanchist goals. North Korea poses a similar threat to South Korea," the article states.

In 1953, the Korean War ended with an indefinite ceasefire, and both sides retreated from the ceasefire line. However, no "final peace settlement" has been achieved, and today powerful U.S.-led UN forces maintain the defense of South Korea.

According to the authors, the war in Ukraine could follow a similar path.

"Ukraine should focus on maintaining a strong army and encouraging the West to deploy combat forces in Ukraine that can help deter and defend against the aggressor," they write.

However, Western peacekeepers with limited mandates will not be sufficient for this. For instance, in 1995, lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers failed to prevent the massacre in Srebrenica (the mass murder of about 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men by Bosnian Serbs — Ed.).

For reference: the next target for Bosnian Serbs was the nearby Muslim enclave of Žepa, which was guarded by 79 Ukrainian peacekeepers from the 240th Separate Special Battalion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Ukrainian military found themselves in a difficult situation when Serbian troops surrounded the settlement and intensified shelling, while the local population demanded protection at any cost. During this time, Colonel Nikolai Verkhoglyad, then Deputy Commander of the Sarajevo sector, arrived in the enclave. He began negotiating with both sides about the conditions for evacuating civilians. Despite the complexity of the situation, Verkhoglyad managed to convince both sides to reach a compromise and "press" Ratko Mladić, the commander of the Bosnian Serb army, to agree to evacuate all residents of the enclave.

The evacuation lasted about three days. To ensure the safety of the Bosniaks, Ukrainian peacekeepers were placed in every bus with evacuees. A total of 10,000 people were evacuated from Žepa, including refugees from Srebrenica and other areas.