Ukraine's 'Trump Tower' Test
Durable peace will only come in a deal that would allow the president’s family to consider a big real estate investment in Kyiv.
Donald Trump’s latest peace proposals look heavily tilted toward Russia, with only vague security commitments intended to mollify Ukraine. But if the American president really thinks the agreement will bring a lasting settlement, there’s one sure way to demonstrate his confidence.
Trump Tower Kyiv!
A just peace looks impossible given that Ukrainians seem destined to relinquish territory to their attackers. But a durable peace remains within reach and would trigger a historic investment boom. A world-class office building would pay handsome returns.
The country still has Europe’s second-largest natural gas reserves, its largest titanium and lithium reserves and an agricultural sector that helps feed the world even in wartime. On top of that, Ukraine’s ample rare-earth deposits and its rapidly growing defense industry will make the country a backbone of Europeans’ efforts to take charge of their own security.
While the cost of rebuilding the country was estimated at $525 billion a year ago, the United States, the European Union, the European Investment Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have all pledged money to jump-start the process. Progress toward Ukrainian membership in the European Union would surely draw expanding flows of private investments, too.
All of these mining executives, bankers, agricultural experts, entrepreneurs and government advisors would be thrilled to settle into a shiny -- yet architecturally appropriate -- Trump-branded edifice on Kreshchatyk, the Ukrainian capital’s leafy main avenue.
They just need to know that as far as they can see into the future, there’s no more risk of being targeted by Russia’s ground-launched cruise missiles or large-scale drone swarms.
This means more than ending the fighting. This requires confidence that these two countries will find ways to heal the deep scars this war has opened. And for the foreseeable future, it will require a military balance based on more than trust. If Russia demands guarantees against the outlandish notion that NATO might attack its territory, Ukrainians (and their investors) need to believe that a third Russian invasion is out of the question.
Vladimir Putin may not have read my recent column about his strategic blunder in alienating the most pro-Russian U.S. president since John Quincy Adams. Still, he understood that rebuffing Trump’s latest peace efforts had backed Russia into an uncomfortable corner. With the American president balking at a second summit in Budapest and sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft starting to bite, Putin understood that he had to find some way to reopen the conversation with Washington.
So just imagine how thrilled the Russian leader must be to have his envoy Kirill Dmitriev and Trump’s fellow real estate developer Steve Witkoff circling around a framework for talks that enshrine Russia’s top demands: full control over Donetsk and Luhansk, strict limits on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces and a ban on foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. All sanctions on Russia would be lifted, Putin would rejoin expanded G-8 summits with the leaders of Europe and Japan, and the U.S. would collaborate with Russia on data centers, artificial intelligence and Arctic mining.
No, really.
In a separate document, the U.S. outlines security guarantees it would extend to Ukraine, including intelligence support and “other steps judged appropriate” in case hostilities resume. The Trump administration’s hope, apparently, is that with Ukrainian forces losing ground, winter approaching and a corruption scandal gaining traction, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will at least engage in talks around this framework.
They just need to know that as far as they can see into the future, there’s no more risk of being targeted by Russia’s ground-launched cruise missiles or large-scale drone swarms.
But none of this comes close to passing the “Trump Tower test.” Left with so many levers to intimidate Ukraine, how could Putin and his successors resist aggravating tensions around language rights, church property and anything they deem threatening? How soon before they start hinting at renewed military action to enforce the rights of Russians or drive out malign Western influence? What are the odds of an attack inside Russia by real or invented Ukrainian extremists that would justify new hostilities?
Ukrainian security need not mean NATO membership. Committing to send U.S. troops to defend eastern Ukraine doesn’t look credible anyway. Promises by European countries to lead a “Coalition of the Willing” in Ukraine’s defense in a future conflict seem more realistic, but may not be enough on their own. But a settlement that allows robust Ukrainian armed forces, European security pledges and U.S. arms supplies could well add up to deterrence that lasts.
Short of that, it’s hard to imagine the Trump family even considering real estate deals in Kyiv, which means it’s hard to take this peace proposal seriously.