Putin confirmed that the next trilateral Russian-US-Ukrainian talks will be held in Abu Dhabi from 10-11 November. Earlier that same day, Trump’s Special Envoy to Russia Jared Kushner published a detailed post on X about his boss’ envisaged peace. It included the “five principal goals” of “permanent security consultations, reliable crisis communications, greater military transparency, reciprocal measures to reduce escalation risks, and an enduring framework for long-term European security and stability.”
Kushner also declared that “Any arrangements must fully respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independent decision-making of every nation. Each country will retain authority over its own security and alliances, and no country would have a veto over another’s sovereign choices. NATO will remain central to European collective defense, and this initiative would build upon existing institutions and commitments.” This vision for the post-war European security architecture is actually quite realistic.
In fact, the gist of the one that was recently detailed here could suffice, albeit with one important modification in light of Kushner stating that the US will “fully respect…(the) independent decision-making of every nation.” Instead of the US demanding that all pre-1997 NATO members withdraw their forces from all post-1997 ones, possibly exempting its own in Poland where it’s exploring a permanent military base, it won’t explicitly make this a condition for peace but could coerce them into this decision.
The way of doing so was outlined here a week after the abovementioned analysis, and it’s for the US to declare that it’ll radically curtail its export of energy to the EU by a specific date in the near future in order to redirect fuel to the domestic market. So as not to leave them in the lurch, they’d be told to resume Russian pipeline imports in which the US would have partial stakes as a “political safeguard” per a deal with Russia if the EU releases its frozen assets as proposed here, which would compensate.
The redeployment of pre-1997 NATO states’ forces to post-1997 NATO states would be punished by Russia cutting off US-invested pipeline exports with Washington’s approval. Likewise, the US could coerce Ukraine into socio-political concessions regarding the linguistic and religious rights that Russia has demanded as part of its denazification agenda by announcing that it’ll soon radically curtail EU-funded “Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List” (PURL) arms exports in order to bolster the US’ own stockpiles.
Reducing domestic fuel prices and bolstering stockpiles with a view towards possibly using Ukrainian-destined equipment in Ibero-America in alignment with the National Security Strategy’s prioritization of the region (Third Gulf War-depleted stockpiles aren’t of much use there) are America First policies. They’re therefore sensible, in line with Trump’s agenda, and importantly “plausibly deniable” means for coercing European NATO and Ukraine into these crucial concessions that are required for a lasting peace.
Russia is expected to implement the legal workaround proposed here in summer 2025 to formally end the conflict without obtaining full control over the disputed regions due to prioritizing this post-war European security architecture. Russia’s restored complex economic interdependence with the EU and Ukraine in which the US would have stakes coupled with a resource-centric strategic partnership with the US would keep the peace. All of this is realistic if Trump has the will to coerce Europe and Ukraine.
