A discussion on March 7, 2025, at “Dialogue Works” moderated by Nima Alkhorshid, saw Colonel Larry Wilkerson express cautious support for Trump’s declared intention to end the Ukraine war, emphasizing the urgent need to stop the escalating human losses. Wilkerson stated, “Trump was determined and focused on ending this war and that’s a positive in my view. we have too many casualties.”
Wilkerson estimated the losses on the Ukrainian side to be around one million and on the Russian side, 300,000 to 350,000 and described the situation as “absurd.” However, he also highlighted the complexity of achieving peace and noted that a simple ceasefire would not be sufficient. He drew parallels to the Korean War in the 1950s, where fighting continued during negotiations and emphasized the need for a peace that would be part of a comprehensive European security concept.
Former Ambassador Chas Freeman expressed skepticism about Trump’s approach, questioning the diplomatic finesse required to effectively end the conflict. While acknowledging Trump’s “healthy instincts” in wanting to stop the war, Freeman argued, “That requires a level of diplomatic finesse that has been largely absent in this administration.”
Freeman advocated for a political framework similar to the Austrian State Treaty of 1955, which guaranteed neutrality and took into account both Russian and Western security concerns. He also rejected the idea of a military solution and criticized European politicians, such as Polish Prime Minister Tusk, who demand a military buildup with Russia as “misguided.”
Both experts agreed that ending the Ukraine war is a crucial step, but differed in their assessment of the success of Trump’s leadership. Wilkerson sees the moral obligation to stop the bloodshed, while Freeman emphasizes the need for a more inclusive and diplomatically grounded strategy.
Regarding the future of NATO and European security, both Wilkerson and Freeman expressed concerns about the direction of the alliance and the broader European security architecture. Wilkerson criticized NATO’s expansion under previous US administrations, including Bill Clinton and argued that it was driven by internal political and economic interests rather than strategic necessity. He stated, “It went with Bill Clinton all down the drain. because Bill Clinton wanted to expand NATO to put money in the arms industry.”
This expansion, according to Wilkerson, alienated Russia and contributed to the current crisis, as Russia historically sought a place in Europe but was repeatedly rebuffed. Freeman concurred with this assessment and lamented the collapse of initiatives like the Russia-NATO Council, which he described as a “tragedy.” He advocated for a more inclusive European security framework and stated, “The only way Europe can enjoy peace and stability is through an inclusive, not exclusive, order.”
Freeman also criticized the growing animosity of some European nations towards Russia and noted that “it’s now the neighbors in Europe who are more belligerent than we [the US]” although the United States historically drove anti-Russian sentiment in the region.
Both experts saw potential in Trump’s apparent shift of focus from the Transatlantic to the Pacific, with Wilkerson remarking, “We (the US) have finally solved an internal conflict. we’re now clearly focused on the Pacific.” However, Freeman warned that this change may not be effectively implemented and described US policy in the Pacific as “unresolved.” Both experts agreed that the future of NATO depends on Europe taking more responsibility for its own security – a trend they consider long overdue – but warned against a militarization that comes at the cost of social programs and diplomatic efforts with Russia.