How Trump can exert influence the day after a cease-fire in Ukraine

Change is imminent in Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, with the new Trump administration set to take office soon. Everything Vladimir Putin is doing now, including threats of nuclear strikes, signals his anticipation of inevitable pressure from Washington aimed at ending hostilities.

This change is long overdue. The Biden administration’s “controlled escalation” approach to military aid has resulted in a protracted stalemate in the war. 

Putin has no illusions about President-elect Donald Trump. He knows that, unlike Biden, Trump will not rely on pre-set red lines. He will not make himself predictable and give Moscow room to maneuver. Trump and his foreign policy team will be much harder for Putin to outwit. 

Therefore, we can expect Putin to feign concessions and send conciliatory messages following this current stage of escalation. He may even agree to some form of cease-fire as a gesture to the new administration. 

In light of such developments, it is crucial to examine the pattern of Russian cease-fires, from conflicts in Georgia and Chechnya in the 1990s to Syria and Ukraine after 2014. Russia often exploits “cease-fires” to regroup, weaken its adversary, and prepare for a more forceful offensive. A genuine cease-fire will be an extremely complex achievement, requiring meticulous oversight by the U.S. and its allies. 

It is vital to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Minsk agreements, during which European leaders, led by then-Chancellor Merkel, were so eager for a deal that they accepted a flawed arrangement. This ultimately turned into a disaster, culminating in the full-scale invasion of 2022. 

Even if Putin accepts a lasting cease-fire, he will undoubtedly intensify efforts to oust President Volodymyr Zelensky. While democratic governments naturally rotate over time, Ukraine is not in a typical electoral cycle. Under the current circumstances, the fall of Zelensky would almost certainly lead to Ukraine’s collapse as an independent state.

What Russia has failed to achieve militarily, it will attempt through hybrid warfare. Here, the experience of Georgia serves as a warning.

In 2008, Putin invaded Georgia. But due to our resistance and steadfast U.S. support, Russian forces were stopped short of our capital and failed to achieve their stated goal of publicly executing me. 

Frustrated, Putin asked Georgian journalists at a press conference, “When is your next election?” and escalated his hybrid campaign to remove my administration from power. He invested heavily in propaganda and destabilization efforts. Unfortunately, the Obama administration viewed our government as an obstacle to its “Russia reset” policy. 

When billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, a Russian oligarch with strong ties to Moscow, challenged my party in elections, Washington turned a blind eye to his mass vote-buying and election manipulation.

We peacefully transferred power to a leader determined to entrench himself permanently, as demonstrated by blatant electoral fraud in subsequent parliamentary elections. Despite condemning these irregularities, the Biden administration has been slow to impose financial sanctions on Ivanishvili, undermining its credibility. 

This hesitancy emboldens a regime that has derailed Georgia’s European integration, established ties with China, courted Iran and now collaborates closely with Russian intelligence, according to U.S. officials. 

This pro-Russian regime not only imprisoned me on politically motivated charges but now plans to prosecute me for opposing Russia’s invasion — a move clearly meant to intimidate President Zelenskyy. Moreover, the regime has adopted a “foreign agents” law inspired by Moscow’s tactics to suppress dissent. 

While Georgia represents a significant setback for U.S. influence in the region due to its strategic location and history as a reform success story, it pales in comparison to the global disaster that a Russian takeover of Ukraine would entail.

If Russia installs a leader akin to Ivanishvili in Ukraine, the country would become a launchpad for further aggression against Europe. Millions more Ukrainians would flee, overwhelming the resources of Europe, the U.S., and Canada. Worse still, Russia could force hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened Ukrainians to join its war efforts against Poland, the Baltic states, and beyond. 

These risks do not mean that Ukraine should stall its democratic process. However, elections can only proceed once safeguards are in place to prevent Russian meddling. 

There are no simple solutions. We are confronting an axis of evil that views this conflict not as a war against Ukraine, but against the U.S. and the West as a whole. Ultimately, this is a battle of Putin versus Trump. 

I know Trump personally and have always rejected the “Russian collusion” theories. Trump, particularly after his decisive electoral victories, is the last person who would look up to Putin.

Having also dealt with Putin directly, I know that Trump is an extremely uncomfortable adversary for him. This gives the U.S. a position of strength as it confronts a Russia bogged down in a draining war.

If the incoming administration fully embraces America’s supremacy, I believe there is a genuine opportunity for peace through strength. 

Mikheil Saakashvili is the former president of Georgia, chairman of the National Reforms Council of Ukraine and a political prisoner.