Antagonizing Trump, Vance Will Cost Zelenskyy

This article honors Richard V. Allen (1936-2024) and Lee Edwards (1932-2024).

I first met President Ronald Reagan's former National Security Adviser Richard "Dick" Allen in 2011.

Dick Allen worked for both President Richard Nixon and for Reagan. He believed that Reagan's policies were more successful than Nixon's détente because Reagan understood the importance of human rights in securing lasting agreements with the Russians.

That conversation shaped my thinking, especially in my later collaboration with Allen and Lee Edwards in 2018 when we co-wrote an article on North Korea.

I first met Edwards in 2013 at an event for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. He was committed to preserving the memory of those who suffered under communist regimes.

Both men believed that a country's freedom should never be negotiable.

To ensure Ukraine's survival, President Zelenskyy must balance Reagan's idealism with Nixon's pragmatism.

To be blunt, President Zelenskyy cannot afford to antagonize President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance any further.

More importantly, Zelenskyy must accept that any negotiated settlement will require territorial concessions. Russia is unlikely to return seized land absent a total military defeat.

At the same time, President Zelenskyy should adopt Reagan's Jackson-Vanik strategy, which helped bring down the Soviet Union by allowing Soviet Jews to leave the country. In the 1970s, there was a joke in the Soviet Union where General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev told Premier Alexey Kosygin that Jackson-Vanik was unacceptable.

Brezhnev said, "If we allow the Jews to leave, then everyone will want to leave! You and I will be the only two people left in the Soviet Union."

Kosygin responded, "Speak for yourself, Leonid!"

President Reagan understood that improving human rights was the only way to ensure the Russians would honor their commitments.

Before his first summit with Gorbachev, Reagan said:

"The rights of the individual and the rule of law are as fundamental to peace as arms control. A government that does not respect its citizens' rights and its international commitments to protect those rights is not likely to respect its other international undertakings. And that's why we must and will speak in Geneva on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves."

As Trump negotiates a deal with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, he must recognize that human rights are necessary for any sustainable agreement. Weakening authoritarian control within Russia and North Korea can yield long-term benefits for Ukraine.

The first step would be addressing the presence of approximately 12,000 North Koreans fighting for Russia in Kursk.

As part of any settlement, Russia and North Korea should agree to repatriate these soldiers, and their families, to South Korea. This move would not only honor their sacrifices, but it could also create an internal debate about freedom in Russia.

Likewise, the U.S. should demand that Putin release all Russians imprisoned for protesting the war. This Jackson-Vanik-inspired policy would embolden internal opposition to authoritarianism while creating a pathway for gradual reform.

However, diplomacy cannot rely solely on punitive measures. If the West wants to reach a lasting agreement, it must provide Russia with incentives to comply.

One possibility is phased sanctions relief tied to Russia's adherence to any settlement. The United States and its European allies could gradually lift sanctions if Russia honors the agreement over several years.

Another key issue is the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets held in the West. These assets could be released incrementally if Russia complies with a peace deal.

Russia will not stop this war until a deal is reached.

If they continue seizing land, they will not return it. Even if Putin achieves some of his objectives, freedom can still prevail.

To understand Russia's current leadership, one must consider its historical context. Putin's generation grew up in the era of Без отцовщина (without fathers).

The Soviet Union's immense military losses in World War II left many children to be raised without fathers, shaping a deeply authoritarian worldview.

I knew many Russians from Putin's generation who grew up in this situation. Each coped differently.

Some of them found a purpose in life by working for the government or joining the military, and the security services. According to Russian political scientist Ekaterina Schulmann, this explains why Putin's generation was the "most Soviet" in Russian history.

Although Putin was raised by both parents, he was shaped by a society filled with fatherless children seeking structure and stability. However, younger Russians are increasingly detached from Soviet ideology.

Over time, this generational shift may create internal pressure for reform. If the U.S. and its allies play the long game, future Russian leaders are likely to be more pro-Western.

The Trump administration can prevent World War III and preserve freedom in Ukraine for generations to come.