Ukraine War: What a US-brokered peace might look like

The prospect of a US-brokered peace treaty to end the Russia-Ukraine war—now approaching its third anniversary—marks a pivotal shift in one of Europe's most devastating conflicts since World War II. 

With President Donald Trump – inaugurated on 20 January – pledging to resolve the war swiftly, speculation is rife about the shape of peace, its implications for Ukraine's sovereignty, NATO, the World economy, Europe and its defence landscape.

The contours of a US-brokered peace

A peace treaty driven by Trump's transactional foreign policy approach is unlikely to resemble a comprehensive resolution but rather a pragmatic ceasefire with concessions on both sides. 

Trump's campaign rhetoric evolved from promising a "Day One" solution to a more tempered acknowledgement of complexity, as noted in a Reuters report: "Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump now concede that the Ukraine war will take months or even longer to resolve." This shift suggests a deal prioritising immediate de-escalation over long-term stability.

The probable framework, based on Trump advisers' leanings, includes freezing current battle lines—where Russia controls roughly 20% of Ukraine, including Crimea and parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—and sidelining Ukraine's NATO membership ambitions indefinitely. 

John Herbst, a former US ambassador, told Reuters, "While the exact contours of a Trump peace plan are still being mulled, Trump's advisers generally support taking the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine off the table, at least for the foreseeable future." This aligns with Putin's long-standing demands, reiterated in June 2024, for Ukrainian neutrality and territorial recognition, as reported by the Atlantic Council.

For Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has emphasised security guarantees as non-negotiable. Speaking at Davos he argued, "The best guarantee of a ceasefire deal would be to allow Ukraine to join NATO," but acknowledged the need for interim measures, suggesting a peacekeeping force of "200,000 minimum" from European nations.

However, Trump's bilateral negotiation style—likely excluding European allies, as noted by the BBC — may force Ukraine to accept a diluted version of security, such as a demilitarised zone patrolled by European troops rather than NATO membership.

Experts like Mark Galeotti, speaking on his December 22, 2024, podcast, warn that Putin's vision remains maximalist: "What Putin is saying is that the terms of that deal, which envisaged an essentially neutered Ukraine…has to be at the centre of any future peace deal." This suggests Russia might retain de facto control over occupied territories, with Ukraine conceding neutrality to halt the fighting. 

The Atlantic Council's Mykola Bielieskov cautions that Putin's confidence in victory—bolstered by 2024 battlefield gains—means "there is actually very little to indicate that [he] is interested in a negotiated settlement" unless it aligns with his strategic goals.

Putin's ICC warrant: Irrelevant?

The ICC arrest warrant issued for Putin in March 2023 for war crimes, including the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children, once symbolised Western resolve to hold Russia accountable. However, a US-brokered peace deal in 2025 could render it effectively moot.

The Foreign Policy Research Institute notes that past Russian demands, reiterated in 2024, include "cancellation of the International Criminal Court's arrest warrants for Putin" as a condition for peace. Trump's transactional approach—evident in his December 2024 comments calling Putin's war effort "more difficult" but solvable—suggests he might pressure allies to shelve ICC enforcement to secure a deal, prioritising geopolitics over justice.

Analyst Keir Giles, in his 2024 book Who Will Defend Europe? argues that Western reluctance to confront Putin directly has emboldened Russia: "European governments failed to take heed…appeased Putin, despite numerous warnings." A peace treaty bypassing the ICC would reinforce this pattern, diminishing the warrant's symbolic weight. 

As Orysia Lutsevych told the BBC, "Zelensky understands that he cannot just have a naked ceasefire…it would be suicide," implying that accountability measures like the ICC warrant may be sacrificed for immediate stability, leaving Putin unpunished and emboldened.

The war's economic toll and the road to recovery

The Russia-Ukraine war has reverberated across the global economy since 2022, disrupting energy markets, food supply chains, and industrial production. By early 2025, the World Bank estimates that the conflict has shaved 1.5% off global GDP annually, with Europe bearing the brunt due to its reliance on Russian gas and Ukrainian grain. 

Inflation spiked globally, peaking at 9.1% in the US in mid-2024 and higher in Europe, while energy prices soared—Brent crude averaged $110 per barrel in 2024 (IEA). 

Sanctions on Russia crippled its export revenues, yet also strained Western economies, with Germany's industrial output dropping 7% since 2022. Ukraine's economy, meanwhile, contracted by over 40% since the invasion began, per IMF data from December 2024.

A peace deal in 2025 could catalyse a cautious recovery, though the trajectory hinges on its terms. Freezing battle lines and lifting some sanctions might stabilise energy markets, potentially lowering oil prices to $80-$90 per barrel within a year, as projected by Goldman Sachs in a January 2025 outlook. 

Reopening Ukraine's Black Sea ports—currently blockaded—could restore grain exports, easing food inflation that hit 11% globally in 2024. However, reconstruction costs for Ukraine, estimated at $500 billion by the World Bank, pose a challenge. Europe, already fiscally stretched, may push for US-led funding, testing Trump's "America First" stance.

The recovery phase could see a bifurcated global economy. Western nations might prioritise rebuilding Ukraine, potentially boosting construction and energy sectors, while Russia, if reintegrated into trade networks, could regain some economic footing—though lingering sanctions would cap its growth. Emerging markets, hit hard by commodity shocks, might rebound faster with restored stability.

Yet, as the IMF warns in its January 2025 report, "Geopolitical fragmentation risks a slower, uneven recovery," especially if NATO's reorientation or US disengagement disrupts investment flows. Long-term growth may hinge on whether peace fosters trust or merely pauses mistrust.

See more: Ukraine Rejects Trump's "Unfair" Demand to Hand over Profits for U.S. Support

A fragile peace with lasting echoes 

A US-brokered peace treaty might halt the Ukraine war's carnage—estimated at 700,000 Russian casualties and tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives — but it risks being a brittle pause rather than a durable resolution. Ukraine may secure a ceasefire and limited security guarantees, yet lose NATO aspirations and territorial integrity. 

Putin's ICC warrant, sidelined by realpolitik, becomes a footnote, emboldening his impunity. NATO faces a credibility test, while Europe braces for heightened defense burdens amid an uncertain US role.

As Masha Hedberg writes for the Davis Center, "An incremental approach may offer the most workable path forward," but the fundamental clash—Russia's imperial ambitions versus Ukraine's sovereignty—remains unresolved. Peace may come, but its fragility could haunt the region—and the world—for decades.