Social Europe

  • EU Forward Project
  • YouTube
  • Podcast
  • Books
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

Ukraine: Putin ante Portas and Trump in the White House

Frank Hoffer 6th December 2024


Ukraine stands at a crossroads: as the war grinds on with devastating costs, the path to a ceasefire may lie in difficult compromises.

u4219834676 Create an abstract illustration to accompany an a a41190bf 6b28 4df0 809c 097ce2c80037 2

After more than 1,000 days of war, with countless dead and wounded, destroyed infrastructure, and bombed-out homes, villages, and cities, Ukraine faces a choice: either negotiate a ceasefire from a position of weakness or attempt a decisive turnaround on the battlefield. The latter, however, is hardly conceivable without more Western weapons and, bluntly put, Western troops.

Despite Western humanitarian, financial, and military aid, the situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate. Meanwhile, the spiral of escalation persists—both in real and rhetorical terms. While it remains crucial to remember who initiated this conflict, who is the aggressor and who is the defender, in the logic of war, it ultimately does not matter who started it. The logic of war demands ever more soldiers and ever heavier weapons until the enemy is defeated. Generals, in turn, often assure politicians that victory is possible with increasingly determined military action.

This escalation has only been slowed because the West fears the ultimate risk of a major war, potentially involving nuclear weapons, should Russia see no other way to avert defeat. Those advocating for Ukraine to be given everything it needs, including the freedom to strike targets deep within Russia with Western missiles, consider Putin’s nuclear threat a mere bluff. However, the longer the war drags on, the more a certain nonchalance towards the risk of nuclear weapons use emerges among those favouring unconditional military support—partly due to a refusal to appear intimidated by Putin.

Every empty threat increases the risk that Russia could eventually conclude that action must follow words to be taken seriously. It is unwise for the West to assume that Putin himself knows the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be folly. Common sense dictates that we must consider our opponent’s distorted worldview. Christoph Heusgen, head of the Munich Security Conference, recently argued on Deutschlandfunk radio that Putin’s nuclear threats should not be taken seriously because China has declared its opposition to such an escalation. This position seems naive, relying on the assumption that the West need not fear Putin’s threats because Xi Jinping will intervene to protect us.

Understanding when Putin is bluffing and when he may feel compelled to resort to the ultimate escalation is one of the most challenging decisions for political leaders. This is likely the main reason why President Biden and, subsequently, Chancellor Scholz have expanded arms supplies only gradually, rather than committing to unlimited military aid. Whatever one may think of this cautious approach, it is not a strategy for the future, as Ukraine is visibly bleeding dry in this war of attrition and can sustain it for only a limited period.

The question of additional soldiers is the Achilles heel of the Ukrainian resistance, and it is even more pressing than the need for more weapons. Increasingly, reports point to the total exhaustion of Ukrainian troops, severe recruitment problems, and growing desertion or avoidance of conscription through flight and corruption. Unlike Putin, Ukraine does not have authoritarian allies who can simply send young men to the front without regard for domestic sentiment or public concerns.

If Ukraine is to win, or at least negotiate from a position of strength, it will require not only Western weaponry but also Western soldiers. According to Le Monde, the UK and France are considering such a move, though it is more likely to involve trainers, technical maintenance of weapons, and possibly fighters from private security firms like Blackwater. It is difficult to imagine that Ukraine’s allies will find the political support necessary to send their own troops into the conflict.

Realising that western troops are at least for the foreseeable future out of question, President Zelenskyy has likely decided, given the current front line situation and Donald Trump’s return to the White House, to abandon the goal of liberating occupied territories and instead seek a ceasefire along current lines, along with NATO membership for Ukraine.

Negative front line developments and Trump’s eagerness to end the war have forced as well as enabled Zelenskyy to pursue path between escalation and surrender, despite strong nationalist forces in Ukraine that insist on continuing the fight until all occupied territories are liberated.

The chances of freezing the conflict might have been better in 2022, after the liberation of Kherson, than they are now, when Ukraine must negotiate from a position of weakness. All the more reason for the West to act decisively now, so that Zelenskyy’s difficult but correct decision opens the door to saving Ukraine rather than delivering a Russian victory.

Donald Trump’s presidency may offer an opportunity for a ceasefire. He has a clear and straightforward message: Putin can either choose a ceasefire, in which he retains the territories he has conquered while allowing for a free and independent Ukraine, or face an escalation of the war. No one—not even Putin—can be certain how Trump will react if this offer is rejected. It is, however, safe to assume that Trump will not want to start his presidency with a defeat. Europe should firmly support Trump’s efforts to secure a ceasefire, while insisting that not only the weapons fall silent but also that the security of a free Ukraine is assured.

Given its own military shortcomings, Europe has little choice but to offer Trump the option of assuming the lion’s share of the financial burden for both maintaining a security framework to guarantee the ceasefire and, if necessary, ramping up arms supplies should the ceasefire fail. From both a European and Ukrainian perspective, any solution must include security guarantees for Ukraine. If direct NATO membership is not feasible due to Russian resistance or disagreements within NATO itself, major European powers will need to step up, providing credible security assurances in cooperation with the United States.

But is there any willingness on the Russian side to negotiate? Is Putin prepared to abandon his maximalist demands for regime change and the disarmament of Ukraine? It is impossible to judge from the outside whether the prospect of a ceasefire will shift public sentiment in Russia and embolden more voices to speak out against the war. It remains to be seen whether relatively neutral states such as India, Brazil, and South Africa—and even China—will encourage Russia to negotiate in light of Ukraine’s proposal.

For Putin, Zelenskyy’s proposal represents an opportunity to end the war, which is also costly for Russia and has resulted in numerous casualties. The unpredictability of Trump might be a risk Putin is unwilling to face. In any case, Zelenskyy’s concession can only lead to ceasefire negotiations if Putin believes Ukraine will not soon be forced to capitulate regardless. Europe must therefore leave no doubt about its firm support for Ukraine.

Europe will need to mobilise hundreds of billions of Euros for this effort. Trump will only provide protection against Putin in exchange for substantial financial compensation, if at all. Attempting to finance solidarity with Ukraine by cutting necessary investments in infrastructure, climate action, and social justice will only fuel the arguments of those who want the war to end, regardless of Ukraine’s fate. For Germany, this means either suspending its debt brake or increasing state revenues, perhaps through a one-off 10 per cent ‘freedom tax’ on all assets above one million euros.

The price for a ceasefire based on military realities would thus be threefold: Ukraine would lose 20 percent of its territory, at least temporarily; Europe would pay billions for American military assistance; and Donald Trump, possibly the most dangerous adversary of American democracy, would score a significant foreign policy victory. Given the alternatives, this remains the glimmer of hope between capitulation and Armageddon.

Frankl Hoffer
Frank Hoffer

Frank Hoffer is non-executive director of the Global Labour University Online Academy.

Harvard University Press Advertisement

Social Europe Ad - Promoting European social policies

We need your help.

Support Social Europe for less than €5 per month and help keep our content freely accessible to everyone. Your support empowers independent publishing and drives the conversations that matter. Thank you very much!

Social Europe Membership

Click here to become a member

Most Recent Articles

u4219834664e04a 8a1e 4ee0 a6f9 bbc30a79d0b1 2 Closing the Chasm: Central and Eastern Europe’s Continued Minimum Wage ClimbCarlos Vacas-Soriano and Christine Aumayr-Pintar
u421983467f bb39 37d5862ca0d5 0 Ending Britain’s “Brief Encounter” with BrexitStefan Stern
u421983485 2 The Future of American Soft PowerJoseph S. Nye
u4219834676d582029 038f 486a 8c2b fe32db91c9b0 2 Trump Can’t Kill the Boom: Why the US Economy Will Roar Despite HimNouriel Roubini
u42198346fb0de2b847 0 How the Billionaire Boom Is Fueling Inequality—and Threatening DemocracyFernanda Balata and Sebastian Mang

Most Popular Articles

startupsgovernment e1744799195663 Governments Are Not StartupsMariana Mazzucato
u421986cbef 2549 4e0c b6c4 b5bb01362b52 0 American SuicideJoschka Fischer
u42198346769d6584 1580 41fe 8c7d 3b9398aa5ec5 1 Why Trump Keeps Winning: The Truth No One AdmitsBo Rothstein
u421983467 a350a084 b098 4970 9834 739dc11b73a5 1 America Is About to Become the Next BrexitJ Bradford DeLong
u4219834676ba1b3a2 b4e1 4c79 960b 6770c60533fa 1 The End of the ‘West’ and Europe’s FutureGuillaume Duval
u421983462e c2ec 4dd2 90a4 b9cfb6856465 1 The Transatlantic Alliance Is Dying—What Comes Next for Europe?Frank Hoffer
u421983467 2a24 4c75 9482 03c99ea44770 3 Trump’s Trade War Tears North America Apart – Could Canada and Mexico Turn to Europe?Malcolm Fairbrother
u4219834676e2a479 85e9 435a bf3f 59c90bfe6225 3 Why Good Business Leaders Tune Out the Trump Noise and Stay FocusedStefan Stern
u42198346 4ba7 b898 27a9d72779f7 1 Confronting the Pandemic’s Toxic Political LegacyJan-Werner Müller
u4219834676574c9 df78 4d38 939b 929d7aea0c20 2 The End of Progess? The Dire Consequences of Trump’s ReturnJoseph Stiglitz

Eurofound advertisement

Ageing workforce
How are minimum wage levels changing in Europe?

In a new Eurofound Talks podcast episode, host Mary McCaughey speaks with Eurofound expert Carlos Vacas Soriano about recent changes to minimum wages in Europe and their implications.

Listeners can delve into the intricacies of Europe's minimum wage dynamics and the driving factors behind these shifts. The conversation also highlights the broader effects of minimum wage changes on income inequality and gender equality.

Listen to the episode for free. Also make sure to subscribe to Eurofound Talks so you don’t miss an episode!

LISTEN NOW

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Spring Issues

The Spring issue of The Progressive Post is out!


Since President Trump’s inauguration, the US – hitherto the cornerstone of Western security – is destabilising the world order it helped to build. The US security umbrella is apparently closing on Europe, Ukraine finds itself less and less protected, and the traditional defender of free trade is now shutting the door to foreign goods, sending stock markets on a rollercoaster. How will the European Union respond to this dramatic landscape change? .


Among this issue’s highlights, we discuss European defence strategies, assess how the US president's recent announcements will impact international trade and explore the risks  and opportunities that algorithms pose for workers.


READ THE MAGAZINE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

WSI Report

WSI Minimum Wage Report 2025

The trend towards significant nominal minimum wage increases is continuing this year. In view of falling inflation rates, this translates into a sizeable increase in purchasing power for minimum wage earners in most European countries. The background to this is the implementation of the European Minimum Wage Directive, which has led to a reorientation of minimum wage policy in many countries and is thus boosting the dynamics of minimum wages. Most EU countries are now following the reference values for adequate minimum wages enshrined in the directive, which are 60% of the median wage or 50 % of the average wage. However, for Germany, a structural increase is still necessary to make progress towards an adequate minimum wage.

DOWNLOAD HERE

KU Leuven advertisement

The Politics of Unpaid Work

This new book published by Oxford University Press presents the findings of the multiannual ERC research project “Researching Precariousness Across the Paid/Unpaid Work Continuum”,
led by Valeria Pulignano (KU Leuven), which are very important for the prospects of a more equal Europe.

Unpaid labour is no longer limited to the home or volunteer work. It infiltrates paid jobs, eroding rights and deepening inequality. From freelancers’ extra hours to care workers’ unpaid duties, it sustains precarity and fuels inequity. This book exposes the hidden forces behind unpaid labour and calls for systemic change to confront this pressing issue.

DOWNLOAD HERE FOR FREE

ETUI advertisement

HESA Magazine Cover

What kind of impact is artificial intelligence (AI) having, or likely to have, on the way we work and the conditions we work under? Discover the latest issue of HesaMag, the ETUI’s health and safety magazine, which considers this question from many angles.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Social Europe

Our Mission

Team

Article Submission

Advertisements

Membership

Social Europe Archives

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Miscellaneous

RSS Feed

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641