March 3, 2025

by Dr. Walid Phares

and Gazelle Sharmahd

The tense exchanges in the Oval Office last Friday between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump, alongside Vice President J.D. Vance, underscored the complexity of the ongoing war in Ukraine. The discussions will undoubtedly shape global public opinion on a war that has taken a devastating toll on both sides for over three years. As we analyze this critical moment in U.S. foreign policy, a few key principles stand out:

1. The highest priority must be securing a credible ceasefire. Human lives must come first. This is a war between two states (one of them nuclear), not a conflict involving non-state actors, and therefore demands a negotiated resolution.

2. Any long-term agreement will require mutual concessions and strong enforcement mechanisms involving the U.S., EU, and the UN to ensure lasting stability.

A War Without an Endgame

More than three years into this conflict, the question remains: what is the plan to resolve it? Despite tens of billions of dollars in military aid, no nation has put forward a comprehensive strategy to bring the war to an end. Is the goal to continue this conflict indefinitely? Are there serious measures being considered to deter the Kremlin’s long-standing post-Cold War territorial ambitions in Ukraine and beyond? Are there efforts to help the Russian people chart a new path toward integration with the West?

If such solutions exist, they have not been meaningfully implemented. Instead, Western powers continue to fund Ukraine’s defense without a clear horizon while European governments maintain business ties with the Islamic regime in Iran—ties that indirectly fuel the war against Ukraine.

In effect, both sides of the war are being financed while lives are lost daily.

This is not a sustainable long-term solution. If the objective is truly peace and stability, then a more coherent strategy is required—one that addresses both Ukraine’s security and the geopolitical dynamics that triggers Russian military operations.

A Shift in U.S. Strategy

Since his initial presidential campaign, President Trump has promised to end the war in Ukraine starting with a ceasefire. His approach contrasts with the previous administration, which failed to prevent the war and did little to engage both sides diplomatically before the Russian invasion. While providing substantial military and financial aid to Ukraine—totaling nearly $183 billion—the Biden administration lacked a clear diplomatic strategy to end the war. The result has been prolonged suffering for both the Ukrainian and Russian people.

Trump has been clear that Russia’s invasion of parts of Ukraine was unjustified and that U.S. support for Kyiv’s defense was critical. His administration previously provided Javelin missiles to bolster Ukraine’s defense, demonstrating a commitment to deterring further Russian advances. However, now that the Russian offensive has stalled, the administration is pivoting toward a negotiated settlement to prevent further escalation, particularly given the risks posed by Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

The Trump administration argues that a prolonged conflict benefits no one except adversaries of the U.S. in other global arenas—most notably the Islamic regime in Iran.

Settling the War: Hard Choices for a Lasting Peace

Any lasting settlement will require all sides to accept difficult concessions, as has been the case in nearly every historical conflict resolution. It is evident that territorial reconfigurations will have to take place based on the choices of local populations. While there is no doubt that Russia invaded parts of Ukraine in violation of international law, it is equally clear that the populations of these occupied regions must determine their own future through internationally supervised referenda. Ukraine must respect the will of these populations, just as Russia must accept Ukraine’s sovereign right to align itself with international coalitions, including the European Union.

However, if the U.S. is committed to helping end the war, it must demand reciprocal actions from Moscow. A key element of any settlement should be Russia’s complete cessation of military and strategic support for the Islamic regime in Iran.

If the Kremlin is seeking a way out of this conflict, it must also abandon its ties to the warmongering regime in Tehran.

This shift would not only consolidate peace in Eastern Europe but would also reduce instability in the Middle East—particularly by weakening the regime’s ability to finance jihadist-Khomeinist militias and terrorist operations.

Difference Between Russia and Jihadist Regimes

It is crucial to distinguish between states like Russia and jihadist regimes such as the Islamic regime in Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, HTS in Syria, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. While Russia remains a nation-state with aggressive national interests, the Islamic regime in Iran is not a legitimate government but an occupying Islamist force with a radical, genocidal ideology. Unlike traditional authoritarian regimes, jihadist-Khomeinist forces are not governed by national interests or diplomatic calculations but by a theological doctrine of global Islamist domination.

Just as the Nazi regime could never be negotiated with -on long term peace settlements- due to its totalitarian expansionist ideology, the Islamic regime in Iran operates under a similar doctrine—one that can only be confronted, not accommodated. The West’s ongoing negotiations and financial dealings with Tehran only empower a regime that thrives on perpetual war and destruction.

Justice and the Future of Democracy

We all know the Ukraine Government -and many international entities- have accused the Russian Government of President Vladimir Putin of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and all these charges should go in front of legitimate international courts, like in many other conflicts, for justice has to be made for the Ukrainian victims. Allegations have also surfaced regarding political repression and human rights violations within Ukraine itself, including crackdowns on opposition figures and media. These, too, should be addressed by international legal mechanisms—justice must apply to all parties.

Beyond the war, the long-term question is whether democracy can flourish in both Ukraine and Russia. Many in the West, including ourselves, support democratic societies and hope for meaningful reforms across the world. Once the war ends, both Russians and Ukrainians will have an opportunity to pursue greater freedoms. However, for democracy to take root, the war must first end. Peace is the prerequisite for self-determined governance, economic recovery, and political reform.

A Path to Peace

While President Zelensky has every reason to be wary of negotiations with Moscow, Ukraine’s long-term security depends on a sustainable diplomatic solution. A peace agreement should include:

1. A referendum under international supervision to determine the status of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, ensuring that any territorial decisions reflect the will of the affected populations.

2. U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, supported by European defense commitments, to prevent future military conflict.

3. A U.S.-Ukraine economic agreement that fosters investment and integrates Ukraine into Western markets, potentially paving the way for EU membership.

4. A shift in global priorities, allowing the West to focus on greater threats, particularly the destabilizing role of the Islamic regime in Iran and other jihadist forces in the Middle East.

A ceasefire in Ukraine would not only stop further bloodshed but also free up Western resources to confront emerging security challenges elsewhere. If handled strategically, peace in Eastern Europe could lead to a broader recalibration of global power—one that isolates hostile regimes and strengthens America’s standing on the world stage.

For Ukraine and Russia, ending the war will allow for national rebuilding, political reform, and long-term stability. But for Americans, Europeans, and free societies in the Middle East, stopping the war in Ukraine would allow us to focus on the larger battle: ending the global threat of jihadism.

********

Dr Walid Phares is a former Foreign Policy advisor to Donald Trump. Gazelle Sharmahd is a freedom advocate. They are co-Presidents of Educate America platform and co-hosts of the War and Freedom podcast.