Introduction: A fresh pivot for Europe
Recent discussions around a potential Peace in Ukraine under a compromise framework have ignited debate across European capitals. Zachary Paikin, a research fellow in the Grand Strategy program at the Quincy Institute, argues that if approached prudently, a Trump-era approach to a negotiated settlement could become a strategic opportunity for Europe. This analysis weighs risks against strategic gains, focusing on deterrence, alliance cohesion, energy security, and political legitimacy for a post-war order that upholds European stability.
Context: From decisive conflict to negotiated settlement
For more than a year, European policy has wrestled with the best path to end the conflict while preserving core values and international law. A compromise peace framework, potentially backed by the United States, could reduce fighting, stabilize borders, and unlock humanitarian relief. However, the core challenge is not merely ending violence but reshaping incentives so both sides find credible reasons to maintain the ceasefire and pursue durable diplomacy.
Deterrence and reassurance: Europe’s foundational concerns
Deterrence remains a central pillar of European security. A negotiated peace must not erode NATO deterrence or the credibility of sanctions that have gradually altered strategic calculations. European leaders would need clear assurances that Russia’s aggression will not be rewarded and that any settlement preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence. The question for Paikin’s framework is whether a compromise can be constructed without sacrificing the alliance’s credibility or inviting future coercion.
Strategic opportunities for Europe
1) Recalibrated security commitments: A negotiated settlement could channel resources toward defense modernization, cyber resilience, and strategic redundancy in energy supply. Europe could shift some focus from punitive sanctions to monitoring mechanisms, stabilization funds, and verification regimes designed to prevent renewed aggression.
2) Stronger transatlantic cohesion: If the U.S. demonstrates sustained engagement in peacemaking, Europe could deepen collaboration with Washington on crisis management, export controls, and humanitarian corridors. This alignment has potential to reduce bilateral friction and promote a shared long-term strategy, rather than ad hoc responses to escalations.
3) Energy security and diversification: Negotiated arrangements could ease energy market volatility by reducing the threat of escalation, while accelerating Europe’s transition away from volatile fossil fuels toward diversified sources, renewables, and strategic reserves. A peace framework might also include commitments to fair energy transit and resilience against sudden supply disruptions.
4) Political legitimacy and regional governance: Any peace accord would need robust governance mechanisms to ensure Ukraine’s political and economic sovereignty. European institutions could champion post-conflict reconstruction, rule-of-law reforms, and transparent electoral processes to bolster legitimacy on both sides of the border.
Risks and cautions: Avoiding a hollow settlement
There are substantial caveats. A compromised peace risks entrenching a frozen conflict or rewarding aggression if not paired with verifiable verification, safe corridors for aid, and ongoing monitoring. Paikin emphasizes that Europe must insist on credible enforcement and transparent accountability mechanisms, with a durable timeline for review. Moreover, the political optics matter: a peace that appears transactional could fuel populist backlash within European countries and undermine public support for international engagement.
How Europe can lead in a new peace paradigm
European leadership should prioritize three pillars: first, robust verification and enforcement structures that survive political changes; second, a coherent security architecture that integrates NATO with EU-level crisis management; and third, an economic package that supports Ukraine’s reconstruction while aligning with European climate and resilience goals. The aim is not a quick settlement at any price, but a durable peace that preserves essential values and strengthens regional resilience.
Conclusion: A strategic opportunity with careful stewardship
Trump’s compromise peace in Ukraine could usher in a pivotal moment for Europe if pursued with disciplined diplomacy and credible guarantees. As Paikin notes, the balance between deterrence, alliance solidarity, and pragmatic diplomacy will determine whether this opportunity translates into lasting strategic gains or a fragile pause that leaves Europe exposed to future shocks. The European Union, in concert with its allies, has a chance to steer a peace process that safeguards sovereignty, stabilizes the region, and reinforces a rules-based international order.
