Opinion | To Really Get Peace In Ukraine, Consider Why Putin Started The War

President Donald Trump is right to want an end to the fighting in Ukraine. And he’s right that the conflict has become a war of attrition that favors Russia.

However, Trump misunderstands a crucial element of the war, and that is that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched it primarily for domestic political reasons, not to respond to any kind of external threat. So if Trump wants to preside over a peace agreement that lasts beyond a few weeks or months, it’s critical to understand how Putin’s domestic political imperatives are driving his actions.

That’s why the key elements of a successful deal to end the fighting aren’t how much territory Russia gets to keep, or how many rare earth minerals Ukraine gives up, or whether Ukraine might one day join NATO — although both sides will debate those vociferously. The crucial provisions that will determine the success or failure of an agreement will be whether they change Russia’s political equation domestically to either increase the likelihood of new Russian aggression, or lower it.

Throughout Putin’s quarter-century as Russia’s leader, his main goal has been to stay in power until his death. This addiction to supreme power has always played an outsize role in his decisions. He has worked to eliminate any potential challenge to his position and has stifled dissent at home. Prominent political opponents, including my father, Boris Nemtsov, and Alexei Navalny, were killed. Free media no longer exists.

Right now, this domestic repression makes it easier for Putin to wage war — and to stay in power. Putin has always seen Ukraine, which has long struggled to separate itself from Russia, as undermining his regime at home. The existence of a democratic and prosperous Ukraine that is allied with Europe could show Russians that there is a better alternative to Putinism. That is why Putin would prefer to eliminate Ukraine as a country.

Being at war also allows Putin to keep Russia in a state of emergency, which gives him multiple advantages: It is a perfect pretext for increased repression, tightened censorship laws and an all-purpose explanation for economic hardships. The elimination of independent media and laws against criticizing the military have made it easier to brainwash the Russian people into believing that an endless war is necessary despite its huge costs in terms of lives and economic hardship.

But also, in an emergency, no one dares to think about the future, let alone demand the government present any plan for the country’s development or question the efficacy of its leadership. Imagine there is no more emergency, no enemies plotting against Russia. What alternative agenda does Putin have to offer that will secure his grip on power?

Trump has said repeatedly that he believes Putin wants peace with Ukraine. But that contradicts U.S. intelligence that indicates that Putin is not interested in any long-term peace deal. Putin has too much to gain by staying on the offensive.

To be sure, Putin probably does want a temporary break in the war. Recruitment of soldiers willing to fight in Ukraine has become incredibly costly, and international sanctions are hurting the overheated economy and his elites. Russian officials are openly speculating about the potential return of Western companies, a signal that sanctions have hurt and they are eager to see them lifted. Putin still believes he will take over all of Ukraine, but to do that he needs time to replenish his arsenal and muster more soldiers.

Another reason Putin might agree to a short-term pause is that the Russian people also favor an end to fighting. In a recent poll by Russian Field, an independent polling firm, 56 percent of respondents said they are in favor of peace talks; 55 percent said they would support a ceasefire without any specific terms, and 76 percent said they would support Putin's signing a peace agreement with Ukraine.

But there is a difference between halting the fighting and securing long-term peace. And it’s clear that Putin’s long-term goals for himself and his country mean that he has no interest in a long-term peace. The most plausible scenario is that Putin will use any pause to restore Russia’s military capabilities. Once he achieves that, the logic of his regime suggests that Putin will resume hostilities against Ukraine or other countries. That’s why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rightfully insisted on security guarantees.

In fact, it might not be Ukraine that Putin attacks next time. An easier target would be neighboring Belarus, a nation led by an aging dictator, which has borders with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine. Russia’s army has substantial combat experience which makes it a danger to any of its neighbors in the medium term. If Russia takes full control of Belarus, those countries — three of them members of the EU and NATO — will find themselves on Russia’s border and under direct threat.

So how can Trump prevent this? By insisting that a peace deal include provisions that will foster longer-term changes to Russia’s economy and society.

First, a deal should include provisions that prevent Russia from rearmament, something Putin is of course likely to resist. Already, Russia’s military spending outstrips all of Europe's defense budgets combined. Russia’s national economy will undoubtedly continue on a war footing, and Russia will need parts, electronics and machinery to build modern weaponry. Russia will likely push hard for Western sanctions to be lifted, including the current ban on technology exports. But that’s why some sanctions, specifically those that ban Western high-technology exports to Russia, should stay in place. The West should not make it easy for Russia to rearm by lifting the sanctions on high technology.

Second, Russia should pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction. It is Russia that has caused multibillion-dollar damage to Ukraine. The Kyiv School of Economics estimates that the direct damage to Ukraine’s infrastructure has reached $170 billion. Russia should pay for this rebuilding, an idea completely in line with both common sense and Trump’s transactional and reciprocal approach to international relations. Europe and the U.S. have a strong negotiating position on this matter, as Russian assets worth $300 billion are frozen in the West.

The idea that Russia owes compensation to Ukraine is unpopular even within the Russian resistance. But giving Putin a pass on this is not only unfair but would encourage him to act in the same fashion moving forward. Funds that Russia is forced to send to Ukraine are funds that it can’t use to rearm itself. So to put pressure on Russia to assume financial responsibility for Ukraine’s rebuilding, a settlement should tie the removal of certain non-military sanctions to Russian payments to the reconstruction fund.

Third, there are provisions that could lower Putin’s repressions at home and make it harder for him to rally Russian society to war again. One possible way could be reincarnating something like the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which required the Soviet Union to agree to respect certain human rights and permit Jewish emigration in exchange for expanded trade with the United States. In this case, in return for lifting some sanctions, the West could insist that Russia release political prisoners, abandon censorship laws including those outlawing “foreign agents” and other organizations perceived as hostile to the regime, and unblocking platforms like YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.

Promoting human rights may have lost its appeal to some in recent years, but provisions like this would reduce the likelihood of future Russian aggression. I know from my own observation that intensified human rights violations, including unlawful imprisonment, murders and a crackdown on independent media, preceded Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Conversely, empowered people inside the country who don’t fear opposing the government are a natural deterrent against senseless wars. So is a free media.

Many of my non-Russian friends have wondered why Putin hasn’t cared about Russia’s high death toll in Ukraine. The answer is as simple as this: He doesn’t need to, as there is only state-controlled media, and he is not accountable to his citizens. Ignoring the domestic part of Putin’s power equation will only perpetuate his aggression outside Russia.

Under current circumstances, the need for a ceasefire in Ukraine is urgent. But execution matters. If the Trump administration wants a good deal to end the war, it needs to pay attention to the details.