SCOTT RITTER: Trump’s Doomed Plan for Ukraine

“I’m not looking to hurt Russia,” President Donald Trump recently declared in a statement he posted on his TruthSocial account. “I love the Russian people, and always had a very good relationship with President Putin.”

Trump, however, comes from the school of “hard love,” where punishment is applied to achieve the desired results.

And punishment was on Trump’s mind as he expressed his love and admiration for the Russian people and their leader, Vladimir Putin.

“I’m going to do Russia,” Trump wrote, “whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.”

The odd use of capitalization aside, one would imagine that if you are in the business of expressing your love in a public fashion, you might want to make sure that your facts align with the reality of that for which you’ve declared amorous intent.

Otherwise, you will find yourself living in a fantasy world of your own construction, populated not by your ostensible paramours, but rather figments of your imagination.

If you’re sincere about doing the Russian people and Vladimir Putin a “big FAVOR,” you might want to make sure it’s a favor they want to receive.

Calling the Russian economy “failing” considering the plethora of data showing it is anything but that, probably isn’t the best way to start date night.

“If we don’t make a ‘deal,’ and soon,” Trump threatened, “I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries.”

“We can do it the easy way,” Trump warned, “or the hard way.”

But what happens if Russia, like any jilted lover, opts for the “hard way”?

In short — nothing good for the United States or Trump.

First and foremost, any “deal” Trump puts on the table has to be realistic. In short the Russians must believe that they will be in a better position taking the deal than they would be turning it down (something Trump, ostensibly a master negotiator, should know).

The “deal” that Trump is putting on the table, however, is a non-starter.

There have been recent reports in the media about the existence of a “100-day Peace Plan.”

According to these reports, the proposed agreement prevents Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO, instead of officially declaring itself to be neutral. The agreement would open the door for Ukraine to become a member of the European Union by 2030, and tasks the EU with taking responsibility for post-war reconstruction. 

There would be no “demilitarization.” Rather, Ukraine would maintain its army at its present size and continue to receive military support from the U.S. and NATO. Ukraine would need to likewise cede territories occupied by Russia to Russia and recognize the sovereignty of the Russian Federation.

But there are many elements of this “leaked” plan which simply ring false — such as linking finalization of the plan to May 9 — Victory Day, one of the most important holidays on the Russian calendar. This year May 9 will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Allied Victory — the Soviet victory — over Nazi Germany.

The chances of Vladimir Putin sullying this solemn occasion by buying into a peace “deal” which allows the Banderist nationalists — whose ideology and history are closely linked with Nazi Germany — to survive after Putin declared “de-Nazification” as a primary goal for the Special Military Operation are slim to none.

Kellogg’s ‘Peace Plan’

What we do know is that Donald Trump’s designated special envoy for Ukraine — retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg — has floated a “peace plan” to the president which has been apparently well received. The elements of this plan are drawn from a paper Kellogg authored back in the spring of 2024 — a paper as nonsensical and lacking in fact-based argument as one could imagine. 

The core elements of this plan involved the establishment of “normal” relations with Russia and its president — basically stopping the Russophobic demonization that was prevalent during the Biden administration.

Once the U.S. and Russia were talking again, to then open negotiations with both Russia and Ukraine about bringing an end to the conflict.

The “carrot” for Russia included postponing Ukraine’s membership in NATO for 10 years, allowing Russia to retain the Ukrainian territories it currently occupies and gradually lifting sanctions to lead the way to the normalization of relations with the United States — all subject to the conclusion of peace agreements acceptable to Ukraine.

For Ukraine, the “deal” offered both continued military assistance from the U.S. and NATO and bilateral security guarantees. While Ukraine is not required to officially recognize Russia’s control over the conquered territories, it would need to refrain from changing the status quo by force.

If Russia refused to cooperate, the U.S. would impose crippling sanctions.

And if Ukraine refused the “deal,” the U.S. would cut off all military aid.

This “deal,” while never formally expressed, had been hinted at before and after Trump’s electoral victory in November 2024. 

And it took no one with any insight into Russia’s goals and objectives regarding the Special Military Operation by surprise when Russian President Vladimir Putin summarily rejected this “deal” in an answer to a media question on Dec. 26, 2024.

Three days later Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov likewise threw cold water on the Kellogg “peace plan,” declaring that Russia was “not happy with the proposals made by members of the Trump team to postpone Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and to station British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.” 

The Hard Way

But what exactly does “the hard way” mean?

According to Scott Bessent, Donald Trump’s new Treasury secretary, the answer lies in ratcheting up sanctions on the Russian oil industry. “I will be 100 percent on-board for taking sanctions up” that target the major Russian oil companies, Bessent said during his Senate confirmation hearing. 

But Bessent will be working against a history of the U.S. and its European allies overselling sanctions as a tool to tear down the Russian economy (the opposite, in fact, has happened.) Moreover, given Russia’s status as a leading oil producer, any successful application of sanctions could have a negative economic impact on the U.S.

This is something that seems to have escaped the attention of Keith Kellogg, Trump’s “peace deal” guru. Noting that, under the Biden administration, the United States and its allies imposed a cap of $60/barrel on Russian oil (the market price for oil hovers around $78/barrel), Kellogg observed that, despite this, “Russia earns billions of dollars from oil sales.” 

“What if,” Kellogg mused during an interview on Fox News, “you lower the price to $45 a barrel, which is essentially the breakeven point?”

The question is, “breakeven point” for whom?

The concept of “breaking even,” when it comes to Russia, has two separate fiscal realities. The first is what the price of oil needs to be for Russia, which is heavily dependent upon the sale of oil for its national economy, to balance its national budget.

This number is assessed to be around $77/barrel for 2025. Let there be no doubt — if the price of oil dropped to $45/barrel, Russia would face a budget crisis. But not an oil production crisis. You see, the second “breakeven point” for Russia is the cost of production of a barrel of oil, which currently is set at $41/barrel.

Russia would be able to produce oil without any interruptions if Kellogg were able to achieve his goal of cutting the price of oil to $45/barrel.

To achieve the goal, Trump would have to get the Saudis onboard the oil-price-manipulation bandwagon.

The problem is the Saudis have their own “breakeven point” realities. To balance its budget, Saudi Arabia needs oil to be selling at around $85/barrel. But the cost of oil production in Saudi Arabia is very low — hovering around $10/barrel.

Saudi Arabia could simply flood the market with cheap oil if it wanted.

So could Russia.

How about the United States?

The Permian Basin, in West Texas, accounts for all of the U.S. growth in oil production since 2020. 

In 2024, for new wells to be profitable in the Permian Basin, the breakeven point was around $62/barrel. For existing wells, this number was around $38/barrel. 

If drilling were to stop in the Permian Basin, U.S. oil production would decline by 30 percent over the course of two years.

In short, if Keith Kellogg were to successfully implement his “plan” to cut the price of oil to $45/barrel, he would effectively destroy the U.S. oil economy.

And if you destroy the U.S. oil economy, you destroy the U.S. economy.

Russia can ride out $45/barrel oil far longer than the U.S. can.

Donald Trump would do well to pay the wildcat oil producers of the Permian Basin — the ones who have sunk everything they own into a business venture that hinges on the promise of $78/barrel for the foreseeable future, and ask them how they feel about $45/barrel oil.

The bottom line is that if Keith Kellogg and Donald Trump made such a trip, they’d quickly understand the errors of their way.

Because if Donald Trump opts to go the route of “the hard way” with Russia, the consequences for him and the American people will be among the hardest imaginable.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.