‘Make Peace, You Fools! What Else Can You Do?’

By James Soriano

It would take 81 days for the Allies to move from the killing beaches of Normandy to parading down the Champs-Élysées in Paris. The months of June and July 1944 were spent in a brutal and slow fight across the small fields and farms of Normandy. One objective was the city of Caen, barely nine miles from the beaches. Its capture would open the way for the push on to Paris.

Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt was the overall commander of German forces in the West. His job was to slow the Allied advance. He had Caen fortified, and the fighting around the city was fierce. Slowly, the German forces were giving way to the inevitable.

On July 1 von Rundstedt got a call from Berlin. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, chief of the German army, was on the phone. Von Rundstedt briefed him on the deteriorating situation. Keitel was distressed and asked for his opinion about what to do next. Von Rundstedt retorted, “Make peace, you fools. What else can you do?” For his insubordination, von Rundstedt was relieved of his duties the next day.

This story comes back to us after an exchange on April 18 between President Trump and a news reporter. When asked about the lack of progress in the American efforts to broker a cease-fire in Ukraine, Trump retorted,

Now, if for some reason, one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say: “You’re foolish. You’re fools. You’re horrible people”—and we’re going to just take a pass.

Trump was talking about both Russia and Ukraine, but it is clear that the fools he had in mind are in Ukraine. A day earlier, Trump had said that he “is not a big fan” of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and that he hasn’t done “the greatest job” as Ukraine’s wartime leader.

Trump may have believed that he could bring the Ukraine war to an end early in his administration, but now he finds himself in a situation where he may have to “take a pass” on peace efforts. There is practically no chance that Ukraine or Russia can be brought together.

Russia’s terms for peace have taken several forms over the course of the war, but many observers point to a June 2024 speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin as the outline of a peace settlement. Putin said Russia would halt combat operations and enter into peace talks if Ukraine accepts the following conditions:

• Ukrainian forces must withdraw from the four disputed provinces in eastern Ukraine, provinces that Russia annexed in 2022.
• Ukraine and its allies must recognize Russia’s sovereignty over those provinces.
• Ukraine must abandon its plans to seek membership in NATO.
• Ukraine must adopt a policy of neutrality and refrain from aligning with any military bloc.
• Ukraine’s allies must agree to remove the economic sanctions they imposed on Russia.

To Zelensky, accepting these terms would be tantamount to surrender. He is right: The Russian terms amount to a Ukrainian surrender.

In contrast to the Russian position, the Trump Administration has reportedly been urging a cease-fire plan associated with Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. Parts of it have made their way into the news and in opinion pieces, and from what we can piece together, that approach includes the following elements:

• Combat operations would be frozen along the existing line of contact.
• A demilitarized zone would separate the warring factions.
• Russia would have de facto control over those territories in the disputed provinces that it now holds.
• The status of Crimea, which was annexed into Russia in 2014, is not clear, with some reports saying the U.S. would commit to recognizing it as part of the Russian Federation.
• Ukraine would acknowledge the loss of territory but would not be required to extend formal recognition.
• Ukraine would not be admitted into NATO.
• European “peacekeepers,” sometimes referred to as a “reassurance force,” would take up positions in Ukraine’s western provinces. Britain and France have talked about forming such a force, which would exist outside the structure of NATO.

Both warring parties have strong objections: Ukraine because it does not accept the loss of land, and Russia for several reasons, notably because the presence of a European “reassurance force” does not square with its long-held position that NATO’s expansion eastward is one of the “root causes” of the war. The so-called Kellogg Plan does not see the future Ukraine as a neutral state, which is Russia’s vision, but rather as a territory existing under some kind of East-West spheres of influence.

On April 18, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that progress must either be made on a peace deal within a matter of days or the U.S. will close down its peace brokering and “move on.” Speculation on social media expects Trump to make that decision at the end of April.

Note that, from the outset of Trump’s initiative, there has been a disconnect between Washington and Moscow on the sequencing of events. The U.S. thinks of a ceasefire as something that takes place before peace talks begin. But Russia’s position has been to front-load the political settlement before halting military operations. Russia does not want to be left holding the bag if the guns fall silent and there is no progress on achieving its political goals. To the Kremlin, a ceasefire and a political settlement blend into one another.

If the U.S. “takes a pass,” as Trump says, on a peace deal, what will that mean for the future of U.S. support towards Ukraine? At this juncture, we don’t know. There is only speculation. Will Trump get tough on Ukraine and stop the future flow of military aid? Will he get equally tough on Russia and impose even more stringent economic sanctions?

There is more certainty when we consider what might happen on the battlefield. The war will run to its “natural conclusion,” which we can define as an either/or outcome: Either Ukraine accepts Russia’s terms in a diplomatic exchange, or the Russian army will impose them in a military decision.

There is no alternative. There is no middle ground. There is no “compromise.” Russia has the upper hand on the battlefield. The U.S. should know this. Russia is not looking for an exit ramp. To the contrary, along the line of contact, the Ukrainian army is slowly giving way to the inevitable.

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is known for his brutally frank posts on social media. On April 18, he posted his own take on the situation:

American officials have said that if there is no progress on the Ukrainian case, the United States will wash its hands of it. Wisely. And the EU should do the same. Then Russia will figure it out faster.— Dmitry Medvedev.

In 1944, Gerd von Rundstedt figured it out faster than the others in the German government. His advice to Berlin then suffices as advice to Ukraine today: “Make peace, you fools. What else can you do?”