The Trump administration has structured its Ukraine peace process around a trade: Kyiv gives up the rest of the Donbas in exchange for security commitments from the United States and Europe. But this formula exaggerates the significance of territory for Russia and the importance of Western assurances for Ukraine, while neglecting the central challenge in ending any conflict - what political scientists call the credible commitment problem.
Samuel Charap of the RAND Corporation and Jennifer Kavanagh of Defense Priorities have laid out this argument in Foreign Affairs, as "Hvylya" reports. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky himself described the formula in March: "The Americans are prepared to finalize guarantees at a high level once Ukraine is ready to withdraw from Donbas." Vice President J.D. Vance framed the negotiations even more bluntly: "The Russians want certain pieces of territory, most of which they've occupied but some of which they haven't. So that is really where the meat of the negotiation is."
The core problem, Charap and Kavanagh argue, is that neither side can trust the other to honor a deal. Moscow fears Ukraine will become a forward base for NATO or attempt to retake territory by force - and occupying the Donbas does nothing to resolve those concerns. Kyiv, meanwhile, has no reason to believe the West will fight Russia in the future when it refuses to fight now. "If Kyiv goes along with the formula being discussed, it would thus surrender valuable defensive terrain and end up getting little in return," the authors write.
The administration placed talks on hold amid the Iran crisis, but the authors contend the process had already stalled for a deeper reason. Structuring negotiations as a real estate transaction - land in exchange for paper guarantees - sidesteps the question that determines whether any peace holds: can each side credibly commit to its promises?
Charap served on the State Department's Policy Planning Staff during the Obama administration. Kavanagh directs Military Analysis at Defense Priorities and teaches at Georgetown University. Both argue the United States must shift to a comprehensive approach that addresses the underlying threat perceptions driving the war, rather than seeking shortcuts through territorial bargains.