OPINION
With the NATO Summit having recently taken place in D.C., there has been a resounding position in the policy community not to offer Ukraine membership in the Alliance.
In an open letter, dozens of foreign policy experts urged NATO to avoid advancing Ukrainian membership at the summit, arguing that it would endanger the Alliance, create a rupture in the coalition, and automatically trigger NATO’s Article 5, which calls on allies to defend the member attacked.
Meanwhile, Former President Donald J. Trump’s advisers have provided him with a potential Peace Plan — one which would include a cease-fire based on the prevailing battle lines.
With the U.S. and Europe not willing to face a direct military confrontation with Russia, there is only one way for the West to avoid combat — by waging an economic war against Russia.
One of the main factors that permits Russia to continue its war in Ukraine is Moscow’s economic strength. So far, Western sanctions have failed to prevent Russia from cashing in its oil and gas revenues.
China has defied the sanctions and is purchasing vast quantities of discounted Russian oil for its processing plants.
Russia shipped a record 107.02 million metric tons of crude oil to China last year, equivalent to 2.14 million barrels per day, far more than other major oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
This past April, Russia's oil and gas revenue almost doubled year on year to $14 billion as prices continued to rise.
Simultaneously, Russian gas is still flowing to the EU, albeit in reduced volumes.
This election cycle has pushed politicians to be cautious, as the European public grows increasingly tired of growing inflation and cost of living.
However, many who took this gamble have found that it has not paid off, since many of these leaders are being voted out in the elections.
Tired of geopolitical turbulence, voters expressed their anger with inflation that still loomed over the EU, as being one issue too many for constituents to handle.
Hence, dancing with Russia has been a mistake, and the only way to end Moscow’s dominance is to attack it economically.
The EU has to find alternatives for the Russian gas, and with Ukraine not planning to renew its gas transit contract with Russia in the new year, the EU has no other choice.
Given Former President Trump’s business acumen, he is likely to see the benefits of taking on Russia in an economic battle.
In 2023, the U.S. supplied 19% of the EU’s LNG, with Europe being the primary export destination for Washington.
Under the new administration, this share can be increased, providing mutual benefits – economic victory for the U.S., and a blow to Russia.
In fact, Trump’s Peace Plan should focus on collapsing the Russian economy.
The Republicans under Ronald Reagan were successful in draining the economy of the Soviet Union by decreasing Soviet access to high technology, depressing the value of Soviet commodities on the world market, and increasing American defense spending.
Today, as Putin wants to revive the Soviet Union, it is time to use historic lessons and bankrupt the Russian economy.
America is the world leader in innovation, and cutting off their adversaries from their technology would be a long-term strategy that would be guaranteed to work.
A striking example of this is Iran, who are still using American helicopters and equipment from before the 1979 revolution, but are unable to maintain them.
This inability to maintain superior American technology is what caused the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash earlier this year, and we will see more such issues caused by a lack of access to American parts and technology early.
Furthermore, giving away Ukrainian territory is not a realistic solution.
In historic terms, awarding Putin with 20% of Ukrainian territory would be tantamount to appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
However, pushing Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, to pay reparations and to ensure that Putin is preoccupied with the collapse of his own economy provides for a feasible Peace Plan.
Economic collapse could also evoke additional domestic challenges for the Russian dictator. A year has passed since Prigozhin’s march on Moscow.
With turbulence at home, such a scenario could repeat itself.
By having to address domestic issues in Russia, Putin is unlikely to have the time to be setting fires in Ukraine, the Balkans or Africa.
Prior to starting the war in Ukraine, the Kremlin set a target on controlling NATO’s expansion (or lack thereof) and ensuring that Russian dominance in the post-Soviet spaces is not undermined.
The West has pledged to stand with Ukraine for "as long as it takes"; however, in reality it was "always delayed and never enough."
Now, NATO’s and the West’s should make it clear: we will support Ukraine in any way it needs, and that means re-establishing lost military deterrence in Europe, beefing up American counter intel and counterterrorism capabilities and forging an economic war with Russia.
The new recipe is the old one which worked.
In January of 1977, a few years prior to his being elected president in 1980, Ronald Reagan bluntly declared, later delivering on his promise, "My idea of American policy towards the Soviet Union is simple — we win and they lose."
Today, it's well beyond time to do the same.
David Zaikin is co-founder of Key Elements Group. He was born in Ukraine, and is based in London. He is a graduate of London Business School. Zaikin is an experienced strategic adviser to a number of leading multinational brands, current and former leaders, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.