Trump’s controversial peace plan: US president-elect considers 800-mile buffer zone in Ukraine with British troops on patrol – Times of India

As the war in Ukraine grinds on, former President Donald Trump is reportedly pushing a bold plan to freeze the conflict and end Russia’s invasion. But is it a viable path to peace, or an appeasement that risks sacrificing European security? The proposed strategy, involving an 800-mile buffer zone and a two-decade freeze on Ukraine’s Nato ambitions, is stirring strong reactions across the globe, reported the Telegraph.
Trump’s peace blueprint, unveiled after his recent election win, calls for a halt to the current front lines of the war, with European and British troops taking on peacekeeping roles. In exchange for Ukraine’s neutrality—foregoing Nato membership for 20 years — Trump would commit to sending weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia.
However, the US would not send troops or fund the peace mission. As one of Trump’s aides told The Wall Street Journal: “We can do training and other support, but the barrel of the gun is going to be European.”
The 24-hour promise
One of Trump’s most striking campaign promises was his claim that he could end the war within “24 hours” of taking office. While many viewed the assertion with skepticism, Trump’s supporters argue that his knack for swift negotiations could offer a game-changing solution. Yet, the complexity of the Ukraine conflict, with its deep-rooted geopolitical tensions, raises questions about whether such a rapid resolution is even possible.
Freeze on the frontline
According to a report by the Telegraph, Trump’s proposal would see Ukraine agree to freeze its territorial boundaries, accepting the current front lines as a temporary solution. In return, the US would supply Ukraine with weapons to maintain a deterrent against Russia, but would stop short of directly engaging in the conflict. “We’re not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British, and French to do it,” Trump’s staffer reportedly said, underlining the administration’s strategy to minimize US involvement.
This plan marks a dramatic shift in US foreign policy, with Trump proposing to relinquish some leadership in the war, shifting the burden to European powers. Yet this has sparked unease among European leaders, who fear the erosion of Nato’s collective defense principles and the broader impact on transatlantic alliances.
Zelenskyy’s rejection of appeasement
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not backing down. In a speech at a European Union summit, he fiercely rejected any plan that might allow Russia to claim victory. “Peace is a reward only for the strong,” Zelenskyy warned, doubling down on his commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and Nato membership.
His firm stance on territorial integrity has garnered support from European leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron, who emphasized Europe’s need to “write its own history” without yielding to Moscow.
Even European Commission President Ursula von Der Leyen echoed this sentiment, advocating for a unified response to Russian aggression—similar to Europe’s collective effort during the Covid-19 pandemic.
European leaders question feasibility
Back in Europe, skepticism is mounting. Former UK Chancellor George Osborne questioned whether European nations could continue supporting Ukraine without US involvement. “It’s not our children who are dying. Is it realistic to expect a complete victory for Ukraine without US support?” Osborne asked, highlighting the financial and human toll the war has taken on Europe.
Trump’s peace plan also faces pushback from within his own camp. Some of his closest advisers, like Vice President-elect JD Vance, have suggested that Russia should retain its current territorial gains, while Ukraine stays independent and neutral. However, even within Trump’s team, the risk of undermining Ukrainian sovereignty remains a point of contention.
Putin’s strategic goals and the Kremlin’s stance
On the Russian side, President Vladimir Putin has shown cautious optimism toward Trump’s approach, congratulating him on his election victory and hinting at the possibility of peace talks. At the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Putin praised Trump’s efforts to rebuild US-Russia relations. “I think we’ll speak,” Trump told NBC News, signaling that a conversation with Putin could be imminent.
However, Russia’s military advances complicate any immediate peace agreement. Putin continues to frame the war as part of a broader strategy to reshape the post-Cold War world order. “The calls of the West to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a country with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, demonstrates the exorbitant adventurism of Western politicians,” Putin remarked.
Ukraine’s stance on Nato
While Ukraine has expressed a willingness to negotiate, its commitment to Nato membership remains non-negotiable for the time being. Zelenskyy has ruled out territorial compromises, insisting that Nato is the only guarantee against further Russian encroachment. However, political analysts suggest that Ukraine might consider delaying its Nato ambitions if it can secure alternative security guarantees.
Volodymyr Fesenko, a Ukrainian political analyst, suggested that the pressure of losing US aid could push Ukraine to make difficult concessions on Nato—though this would come at a steep cost to Ukraine’s national identity and security.