The End of War That Could Guide Trump in Meeting with Putin

Donald Trump now threatens 'serious consequences' if Vladimir Putin does not agree to a ceasefire. Perhaps he has learned from history after all, especially how the Korean War ended.

Many historical parallels have been drawn ahead of Donald Trump's fateful meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.

Some fear a repeat of Munich 1938, where Ukraine's fate is decided without its participation, forcing concessions that only fuel appetite for new Russian aggression.

That concern has perhaps been somewhat alleviated after Donald Trump's talks on Wednesday with European leaders and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Among Ukrainians, the relief was so great after the video meeting with Trump that they applauded. Trump had said he hoped to convince Putin to agree to a ceasefire, followed by direct talks between Putin, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and possibly Trump himself.

Trump also stated that he accepted that Ukraine must receive some form of security guarantees to prevent Russia from resuming the war later.

Even the Ukrainian side realizes that a ceasefire will mean that Russia retains control of parts of eastern Ukraine, but it will be an occupation that Ukraine will never recognize.

In short, the fighting would cease, and we would have a frozen conflict line. Much like the ceasefire that silenced the guns after the three-year-long Korean War from 1950 to 1953.

There are undeniably some parallels with that conflict. Even there, the front lines stalled after initial large offensives from both sides during the first year of the war.

The war began when Harry Truman was the American president, but it was his successor Dwight Eisenhower who convinced the parties to agree to a ceasefire.

Eisenhower had—just like Trump—campaigned on ending the war. He called it a 'tragedy' that must end. Much like Trump.

And yes, Eisenhower eventually got his way. It took half a year, until July 27, 1953.

President Eisenhower had some help from the fact that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin died in March that year. Stalin had always sided with the North Koreans, advocated an aggressive line, and supported China's entry into the war.

But Stalin's death did not solve everything. South Korea's leader Syngman Rhee wanted to continue the war, but Eisenhower threatened to cut off fuel supplies to his ally.

Trump initially put significantly more pressure on Ukraine than on Russia and has called Zelenskyy as much of an obstacle to peace as Putin. Arms deliveries have been stopped.

Trump reiterated this week his irritation that Zelenskyy refers to the country's constitution, stating he cannot cede Ukrainian territory.

But Ukraine is now the more accommodating party. The ceasefire that Trump seeks, Ukraine agreed to back in March.

So it is Putin and Russia that are the major headache. Putin has no objection to continued war, especially now that Russian troops have made a minor breakthrough on the Donetsk front in recent days.

But President Eisenhower did not just pressure his ally. Through Indian intermediaries, he warned North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union that he was considering nuclear weapons to end the war.

Several key members of Eisenhower's administration wanted to go that route. The threats worked. A ceasefire was achieved.

'Has tools in the arsenal'

Threatening Putin with nuclear weapons is, of course, a terrible idea, but Trump has other tools in his arsenal that can seriously damage the already pressured Russian economy.

The Senate, for example, has a package ready with 500 percent tariffs against India and China for their large imports of Russian oil. Russia has three trillion kronor in frozen assets abroad (mostly in Europe) that could be used to support Ukraine.

Trump talks about 'serious consequences,' and it can work if Putin believes he is serious. The risk, of course, is that Putin does not, if Trump really raises his voice in Alaska.

There was a ceasefire but no formal peace on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea received security guarantees from the USA and eventually became a democracy with a frequently flourishing economy, a member of the Western camp.

Many Ukrainians would be satisfied with a similar result. Sixty-nine percent now want a negotiated settlement, while only 24 percent want to continue fighting to victory, according to a recent Gallup poll.

Gallup asked the same question in 2022. Then the numbers were reversed. Twenty-two percent wanted to negotiate, 73 percent to fight for victory.