“Ukraine: Harvard Political Scientist Graham Allison Believes in a Ceasefire Through Donald Trump,” Michael Brächer, Der Spiegel, 02.04.25.¹

• I believe this terrible [Russian-Ukrainian] war will soon come to an end. In fact, I would bet that we will have a ceasefire within the next six months...with the help of a powerful partner: China. Trump has shown that he thinks highly of Chinese President Xi Jinping and hopes for his assistance. After meeting Zelenskyy and Macron at the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral, he tweeted: “China can help.” Since then, Trump and Xi have spoken on the phone several times. According to media reports, there have also been phone calls between Trump and Putin as well as Xi and Putin. To me, it looks as though the puzzle pieces are coming together.
  • [I foresee] an end to the war on the battlefield in the form of a pause in fighting and possibly even a formal armistice. The United States and China will tell each party to the conflict: “Enough.” The fighting will end roughly along the current front line, maybe with slight adjustments. Because the U.S. and China are working together on this solution, the parties can hope that it won’t just be a brief interruption. That is especially important for Ukraine, which fears that Putin could use a ceasefire to prepare for the next phase of the war. China’s role as a guarantor of the ceasefire could be very significant.
  • [Ukrainians] have no other choice [than to agree to such a deal]. Trump has already made it very clear to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy that he wants this war to end now. Trump believes that this war would never have happened if he had been president, because he would never have toyed with the idea of bringing Ukraine into NATO. And he has made it clear that he will no longer cover the costs of the war. Trump has repeatedly emphasized that far too many people have already died in Ukraine, that the longer the war continues, the more Ukraine will lose, and that Ukraine therefore will not be in a better position for a deal a year from now than it is today.
• From the beginning, he [Trump] has made it clear that he doesn’t care whether the war ends along today’s front lines or 100 kilometers closer to Kyiv. He wonders, “Why should someone like Zelenskyy decide on my interests?” The international order and human rights are not big concepts in his vocabulary. To him, there are strong powers and weak powers, and the weak have to submit to the strong because they have no alternative. He is an old-school realist.
• If the war had ended last year, Ukraine would be better off today. And if we wait another year, it will be in an even worse position than now.
• Whether Vladimir Putin attacks Latvia, Poland or Germany next isn’t really determined by how the war in Ukraine ends. What deters Putin is the deterrent posture of other states. Deterrence is the product of capability multiplied by credibility. If Europeans and Americans in NATO expand their military capabilities—and if the promise to respond to an attack on one state as if it were an attack on all is credible—then, in my opinion, the probability that Putin will invade a NATO country is nearly zero.
• [When asked if Trump really means it when he threatens to withdraw from NATO:] I don’t think so. But he sees the other NATO members as free riders, and he has a point. Compared to Russia, Europe has four times the population and twelve times the GDP. But it doesn’t have the necessary military capabilities to defend itself, and it isn’t united... But there is something he overlooks. The U.S. allies in Europe and Japan pay less for defense than they should, but together with the United Nations, they form the foundations of the U.S.-led international order. That order has allowed us to live for the past 79 years without a war between great powers. 

Read the full interview at Der Spiegel (in German).

Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the interviewee. Photo by AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka.