President Trump and his administration appear to be cranking up a plan to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine war.  Administration officials understand they will not solve the conflict in 24 hours, and even the 100-day deadline that Trump has supposedly set is hugely optimistic.  It is important that administration officials prepare carefully; traps await them if they do not.

The administration now appears to be dodging one such trap.  On February 1, Keith Kellogg, the new special envoy on the Russia-Ukraine war, said he wanted to work out a ceasefire, followed by an end to martial law and elections in Ukraine, with the winner of the presidential election to negotiate the overall settlement. That plan could have posed major problems for Kyiv.

Immediately after Russia’s 2022 invasion, Ukrainian President Zelensky imposed martial law.  Ukraine’s parliament has regularly extended it.  Martial law has meant suspension of elections, including the presidential election that would have occurred in 2024.  Ukrainian political leaders, pro-democracy NGOs and the public supported the suspension given wartime circumstances.

Why was the plan problematic?  If enacted, it would trigger domestic turmoil in Ukraine. Many Ukrainians would oppose a stand-alone ceasefire that left 18 percent of their country under Russian occupation, particularly given the history of Russia-Ukraine ceasefires.  (Kyiv did not recover a single square foot of its territory after the 2014 and 2015 ceasefires negotiated to end fighting in Donbas in eastern Ukraine, and the Russians frequently violated those ceasefires.)

Moreover, election campaigns could turn fractious, dividing Ukrainians at a time when they need unity in the face of an existential Russian threat.  Russian President Putin would welcome such internal division.  He regards a divided Ukraine as a good thing.

Fortunately, it was reported on February 5 that Kellogg’s plan now includes halting the conflict, presumably through a ceasefire, while also giving Kyiv security guarantees against a renewed Russian assault.  Kyiv ruled out elections after just a ceasefire, but Zelensky has said elections could take place once the fighting halts and his country has strong guarantees for its security.

An end to martial law and conducting elections should be embedded in an overall settlement, one that addresses key issues such as territorial control and security guarantees for Ukraine.  That will require a much tougher and longer negotiation than just trying to secure a ceasefire.

Secretary of State Rubio seems to understand that. On January 30, he said a negotiated settlement could only result from hard diplomacy and would take time.  Given the differences separating Moscow and Kyiv over territory, security guarantees, Ukrainian sovereignty, the size of Ukraine’s military and more, any negotiation will have to deal with challenging complexities, even if one assumed that Putin would negotiate in good faith.

Kellogg reportedly will travel to Kyiv this month as well as visit other European capitals.  That is important.  Before trying to broker anything with the Russians, Washington needs a clear understanding of where Zelensky may have flexibility and where he does not.  Given the direct European interest in the war and the major role the administration apparently expects Europe to play in the settlement, they have to be involved at the outset.  This is part of the preparatory work the administration should do before talking to Moscow if it wants its mediation bid to succeed.  A serious negotiation must have Ukraine and Europeans at the bargaining table; the war cannot be settled just by Washington and Moscow, though Putin may suggest that.

On January 31, Trump said he would speak with Putin and “perhaps do something that’ll be significant” regarding Ukraine.  Administration officials should steer the president away from the idea of an early negotiation with Putin.  The Russian leader would likely drool at the prospect.  Many reports suggest that Trump disdains preparation.  Not Putin.  He masters the minutiae.  And, as a former KGB officer, he is well trained in the art of manipulation.

White House officials will have to urge the president to study the details.  Otherwise, Putin could indeed, as former Vice President Harris predicted, “eat you for lunch.” “Donald, Russia colonized Crimea. Its largest city, Sevastopol, was founded as homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.  Russians have lived there for some 240 years.  It is only right that it be Russian.”  If not properly versed on the history of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the successor states’ acceptance of the then-existing borders, and the many agreements in which Moscow committed to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Trump would likely agree.  Yum, pass the ketchup.

The administration should also prepare by building leverage to push the Kremlin to take a more accommodating position. Asking Congress for new funding for military assistance for Ukraine, working with the G7 to seize frozen Russian Central Bank assets for transfer to a fund for Kyiv, and tightening sanctions by eliminating loopholes would signal Putin that continuing the war will mean higher and higher military and economic costs for Russia.

If the administration is serious about negotiating a durable settlement to end the war, it must prepare for a long, difficult negotiation in which success will often prove elusive.  That means considerable diplomatic work to ready the ground and the issues before Trump and Putin meet.  It will require patience, not one of Trump’s strong suits.  Absent that, the administration’s bid to broker a settlement to bring a genuine and just peace will end in failure.