As the time of Trump is near, the world is actively discussing possible peace discussions between Ukraine and Russia. But what peace can be with people who want to destroy the other country and nothing less? Ukraine must have reliable security guarantees, not just written on paper but backed by real strength. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We have discussed this with Paul Niland<\/strong>, founder of the Lifeline Ukraine mental health help service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 Today, I\u2019ve spoken on the episode more about the security guarantees possible for Ukraine when entering peace talks with Russia. We had a dialogue between President Zelenskyy and President-elect Trump in Paris, and Reuters sources cited that it was a good, productive conversation. President Zelenskyy seemed ready to discuss some security guarantees and possible outcomes of the current situation. What do you think about that? Is it possible?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 I think the best security guarantee Ukraine can aim for is the destruction of the enemy’s military capacity. That\u2019s the only real security guarantee for Ukraine: stopping Russia\u2019s ability to continue its war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When it comes to international dialogue about security guarantees, we must remember that Ukraine has already had multiple guarantees for its sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, some signed with Russia. Chief among them is the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine gave up the world\u2019s third-largest nuclear stockpile under it. While the U.S. and the UK have been staunch allies since the full-scale invasion, Russia blatantly tore up its obligations under the memorandum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If another international treaty is required to ensure Ukraine\u2019s security, the details must be carefully scrutinized. However, the simplest and most effective solution is Ukraine\u2019s membership in NATO. NATO\u2019s protections would provide lasting security, and that is what the majority of Ukrainians want. While there may be objections from some NATO members, once Ukraine secures victory, these obstacles must be overcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 What about the Putin regime in Russia? Could the war end if the regime crumbles? For example, we\u2019ve seen the rapid fall of regimes like Assad\u2019s in Syria under pressure from well-organized rebels. Could this be possible for Putin\u2019s Russia?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 When you mention the fall of Putin, it brings a smile to my face. I’ve even seen bags in Kyiv with slogans like, \u201cSex is great, but what about the death of Putin?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding Assad, the speed of his regime’s collapse was shocking, even to the rebels themselves. They advanced rapidly, filling the void left by Assad\u2019s departure. Putin\u2019s regime could face a similar fate. Regimes that seem invincible can crumble astonishingly fast when the tipping point is reached.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prigozhin\u2019s brief mutiny demonstrated this vulnerability. He took military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don without resistance and began a march toward Moscow. Although he didn\u2019t succeed, it revealed cracks in the regime. Putin\u2019s paranoia is based on real threats: coups, uprisings, or even internal military rebellion. His regime is unstable, largely due to the catastrophic miscalculation of invading Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 But this all takes time and resources. Will Ukraine have enough of both while waiting for the regime to collapse? President-elect Trump has hinted that U.S. support for Ukraine may shrink, potentially forcing negotiations before Ukraine is ready.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 We have a few months before Trump\u2019s inauguration. During this time, the Biden administration is working to send as much military aid as possible to strengthen Ukraine\u2019s position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Trump reduces support, it\u2019s possible some Republicans will argue that Ukraine should be allowed to finish the job, given Russia’s current state. Their losses are staggering\u2014760,000 dead or wounded soldiers since February 2022. Many believe Russia\u2019s military is incapable of sustaining more damage, and Ukraine should deliver the final blow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, Trump\u2019s stance on negotiations is concerning. Russia\u2019s demands\u2014like annexing more territories\u2014remain unacceptable. If Trump\u2019s administration sees backing off as a loss for the U.S., it might lead to an increase in support to ensure a position of strength for both Ukraine and the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 Long-range strikes, like hitting Russian depots and airbases, seem crucial to breaking their resolve. Could this be key to ending the war?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 Absolutely. Long-range strikes targeting logistics, depots, airbases, and command centers could significantly weaken Russia\u2019s capacity. Figures like Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges have been advocating for providing Ukraine with every tool necessary to strike effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump might authorize these measures to avoid being seen as weak or losing. While I have many criticisms of Trump, his dislike of being perceived as a loser could work in Ukraine\u2019s favor. Framing this conflict as one where backing down equates to losing could push his administration toward doubling down on support for Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n