WSJ recently published an article outlining a proposed peace plan shared by Trump’s transition team, with details from three sources close to the president-elect. Here are a few thoughts on this plan: The plan suggests solidifying the front line and establishing an 800-mile demilitarized zone, which both sides would agree to uphold. However, this proposal seems to be naive for a simple reason: a demilitarized zone requires an enforcing presence to ensure compliance. Without a security force on the ground, it risks being ignored or frequently violated. For instance, the Korean Demilitarized Zone has only been maintained due to a longstanding presence of troops, including U.S. forces. Given that a foreign military presence is not part of the proposal, it’s unclear who would enforce this arrangement. Next point: Kyiv would pledge not to join NATO for at least 20 years. This approach doesn’t significantly differ from the previous administration's stance, which saw Ukraine’s NATO membership as a non-starter. As I’ve outlined before, this could potentially be a point of compromise for Ukraine, but only if it secures comparable security guarantees - either through agreements with other countries or a formal treaty. Without such a treaty, Ukraine would risk remaining in a vulnerable buffer zone, facing either a slow erosion of its sovereignty or a second invasion. The reason why the Ukrainian army won't be enough to deter Russia I will explain in the next point. Without alternative security guarantees, a 20-year freeze on NATO membership is a poor deal, and it’s doubtful Ukraine could maintain its independence for two decades under those conditions. Final Point: In exchange for Ukraine forgoing NATO membership, the U.S. would continue providing substantial military support to deter future Russian aggression. While this is theoretically viable, it would require much higher aid levels than Ukraine currently receives. The incremental pace of Russia’s military advance shows that current support is insufficient as a deterrent. The article adds, “We can do training and other support, but the heavy lifting should be European. And we’re not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British, and French to step up.” If European countries are expected to supply aid on this scale, it’s questionable whether they would agree to it. On paper, this may sound effective, but in practice, it lacks a reliable mechanism to secure consistent, large-scale support from countries like Poland. Beyond its GDP limitations, Poland has already made significant contributions from its military stocks. In essence, the plan reads as follows: Ukraine won’t join NATO, but we’ll provide arms - if European nations agree to foot the bill. And if they don’t, well, too bad. This sounds like a veiled attempt to abandon Ukraine, while looking victorious, a significantly weaker stance than Jake Sullivan’s approach. And certainly, this won’t bring an end to the war in 24 hours.