Trump could win Nobel Prize if he strikes Ukraine deal – but peace won’t be easy

Donald Trump and his Republican allies have introduced a new mantra regarding the Ukraine-Russia war: they claim they will craft a “responsible peace deal.” However, as the incoming administration assumes office, they may face a far more complex challenge—a situation that could be aptly described by the ancient term “Gordian knot.”

According to Greek mythology, King Gordius of Phrygia tied a knot so intricate that it could only be undone by the future ruler of Asia. Today, the phrase symbolizes an almost unsolvable problem—an apt metaphor for achieving peace in Ukraine. Unlike the failed ceasefires of the 2014 and 2015 Minsk agreements, the goal would be a durable accord that respects Ukraine's sovereignty, deters future aggression, and satisfies the core demands of both sides.

This monumental task is likely more difficult than the incoming president imagines. Beyond strategic considerations, Trump may view the challenge through a personal lens: could brokering peace earn him a Nobel Peace Prize, outshining Barack Obama with a tangible accomplishment?

For Russia, a favorable deal might involve solidifying control over seized territories, including the entirety of Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, and barring Ukraine from NATO or EU membership. Such terms align with Vladimir Putin's vision of Ukraine as a neutral buffer zone, allowing him to frame the outcome as a victory despite the war's heavy toll.

Ukraine, weary from nearly three years of relentless conflict, might seek to halt all-out war. Yet, any agreement undermining its sovereignty would be intolerable. Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO remain central, though in the absence of membership, Kyiv would demand NATO-like security guarantees to attract the foreign investment necessary for its post-war reconstruction, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This insistence is rooted in past betrayals, notably the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for broken promises of sovereignty protection.

The Minsk agreements’ failure underscores Kyiv’s skepticism toward unenforceable deals. Ukraine fears that an unjust peace would merely give Russia a reprieve to rearm and launch further aggression, exacerbating instability in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. Russia’s deepening ties with North Korea, Iran, and China only amplify these concerns.

The stakes are high. A hasty or one-sided agreement could embolden Moscow and signal a betrayal of Western commitments to Ukraine. Conversely, granting Ukraine NATO membership—despite its risks—may be a more sustainable solution than allowing Russia to annex Ukrainian territory, a move that would destabilize global peace and embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide.

In 333 BC, Alexander the Great faced the Gordian knot and famously cut through it with his sword, sidestepping the need for patient untangling. Similarly, Trump’s promise of a swift peace deal within 24 hours suggests he might favor a dramatic, decisive approach. Yet, a quick resolution risks producing an “irresponsible peace deal” that neither ends the conflict nor ensures enduring stability.