Crimea has been burning for three consecutive days following a successful strike by Ukrainian forces

A Divided Response to Trump’s Negotiation Efforts

Three years have passed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Now, U.S. President Donald Trump, who has begun negotiations with Russia to end the war, has sparked controversy with his claim that the invasion was “avoidable.” Trump’s remarks have been met with fierce criticism from Democratic leaders, including Senator Richard Blumenthal, who called them “utterly despicable,” “pathetic,” and “weak.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer further accused Trump of echoing Russian propaganda.

Trump’s comments highlight the ongoing debate within U.S. politics over the origins of the war and the best path forward. His critics argue that supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression is a matter of defending democracy and international law. The mainstream strategic elite across the Western world maintains this stance, backing Ukraine in what has become a devastating and increasingly unwinnable war.

The war in Ukraine has resulted in millions of deaths and injuries, the displacement of millions more, and the destruction of thousands of schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure. Entire cities have been reduced to rubble, and Ukraine’s economy has suffered immensely. Despite billions in Western aid and military assistance, Kyiv has struggled to regain lost territory, and the war appears to have reached a deadlock.

While Western leaders continue to advocate for military and economic support to Ukraine, some argue that the war could have been avoided in the first place. Trump and his administration contend that had the U.S. assured Russian President Vladimir Putin that Ukraine would not join NATO and halted military and economic aid to Kyiv well in advance, the invasion might never have happened.

NATO

The roots of the Ukraine war go back decades, long before 2022. One of Russia’s primary grievances has been the expansion of NATO—a military alliance that was originally formed to counter the Soviet Union.

During the early 1990s, after the dissolution of the USSR, Moscow was given security assurances by top Western leaders. Declassified documents reveal that U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, French President François Mitterrand, and British Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major all assured the Soviet leadership that NATO would not expand eastward.

However, these assurances were never formalized in a binding treaty. By 1999, NATO admitted Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, despite warnings from high-profile figures such as diplomat George Kennan, who called NATO expansion “the most fateful error of American policy.” The expansion continued under President George W. Bush in 2004, bringing seven more countries—including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—into NATO.

The turning point came in 2008 when NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members” of the alliance. Putin immediately called this a direct threat to Russia, and the following months saw increasing tensions. In 2014, after the Western-backed ousting of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Russia annexed Crimea, marking the first major military conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Putin’s Perspective: A Rejection of NATO’s Expansion

For Putin, NATO’s expansion represents a fundamental threat to Russian security. While the United States has long enforced the Monroe Doctrine—prohibiting foreign military alliances in the Western Hemisphere—Russia views NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe as a similar existential threat.

Western actions, including military aid to Ukraine, intelligence support, and missile deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic, only reinforced Putin’s belief that Russia’s security was under siege. The U.S. has historically rejected foreign military alliances near its borders—most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In that light, Putin’s opposition to Ukraine’s NATO membership was not surprising.

Professor Anatol Lieven explains that following the Cold War, “NATO prudence evaporated.” The West viewed the Soviet collapse as an absolute victory, leading to what he describes as “strategic and ideological hubris.” The newly independent Eastern European states, fearing Russia, pushed aggressively to join NATO. However, from Moscow’s perspective, this expansion was a betrayal of the post-Cold War agreements.

The War Could Have Been Prevented?

Trump’s argument that the war was “avoidable” is based on the idea that the U.S. could have prevented it by addressing Russia’s security concerns diplomatically. In December 2021, Putin proposed a treaty that would have limited NATO’s expansion and prevented Ukraine from joining the alliance. The proposal did not require Ukraine to cede any land or sovereignty but aimed to maintain a security balance in Eastern Europe.

Instead of engaging with Russia’s demands, the Biden administration rejected the treaty outright. Instead, the U.S. ramped up military assistance to Ukraine, with Biden approving an additional $200 million in arms in December 2021. Simultaneously, NATO increased its troop presence in Eastern Europe, stationing thousands of soldiers in Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states.

By early 2022, as Russian troops massed near Ukraine’s borders, tensions escalated rapidly. The U.S. established a secure military communication line between Kyiv and NATO forces, and Ukraine intensified its calls for NATO membership. For Putin, these developments confirmed his worst fears, and on February 24, 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion.

The Minsk Agreements: A Missed Opportunity for Peace?

Long before the 2022 invasion, diplomatic efforts to resolve tensions between Russia and Ukraine had been made. The 2015 Minsk Agreements, brokered by France and Germany, sought to grant autonomy to the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk while keeping Ukraine’s territorial integrity intact. The agreement required Ukraine to negotiate directly with separatist leaders and provide them with a special status.

However, Ukraine never fully implemented the Minsk Agreements, with President Volodymyr Zelensky vowing in 2021 to reclaim all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. Western support for Ukraine emboldened Kyiv to reject compromise, and the situation escalated into full-scale war.

Trump’s Approach: A Path to Peace?

As Trump seeks to negotiate an end to the war, he faces intense opposition from Democrats and foreign policy hawks who argue that any deal with Russia would be a betrayal of Ukraine. However, given the current state of the war—an unwinnable, prolonged conflict—some experts believe that a diplomatic resolution is necessary.

A settlement could involve Ukraine committing to neutrality, preventing it from joining NATO, while Russia withdraws its forces. While such an agreement would be difficult, it might be the only realistic way to prevent further bloodshed.

The Ukraine war remains one of the most devastating conflicts of the 21st century, with no clear end in sight. While the mainstream Western narrative blames Russia entirely, Trump’s assertion that the war was “avoidable” is not without merit. The failure of diplomacy, the disregard for Russia’s security concerns, and the relentless push for NATO expansion all contributed to the current crisis.

As Trump attempts to negotiate a peace deal, the world watches closely. Will the war finally come to an end through diplomacy, or will the cycle of escalation continue? Three years after the first Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, the answers remain uncertain.