A bullet grazed Trump's ear.

He was saved by a miracle.

A debate where they discussed whether immigrants ate cats and whether Kamala Harris' dad was a Marxist.

This election has been quite a show.

Of course, every show has an ending.

The United States has spoken loud and clear.

Donald Trump has won the election and will return to the Oval Office on January 20th.

Now, after a very long marathon and terribly intense campaign, what is known as the transition period begins.

A period that this time around will be anything but calm.

Right now the Oval Office is a cockpit of an airplane flying through a huge storm, hostages in Gaza, Israel's wars, China's continual harassment of Taiwan and, of course, the war in Ukraine.

There's a lot to be done.

Both the Biden administration and the president-elect's team will have no respite in the coming months.

Yet, of all the open conflicts, the situation in Ukraine is by far the most fragile and desperate.

The future of Ukraine and its President Zelensky lies ultimately in the hands of the United States.

And now, with the election of Trump, uncertainty has blanketed the horizon.

This is the promise that Trump has repeated over and over again in recent months, to end the war in just 24 hours.

Of course, you don't have to be a visionary or even a geopolitical expert to know that this can probably only be achieved by paying a very high price.

Giving Russia more than it asks for and putting the Ukrainian government between a rock and a hard place.

A government that wants absolutely nothing to do with ceding territory to Russia, nor with reaching a false peace that would give Moscow the opportunity to recharge its batteries and prepare for a new attack.

Zelensky on Trump's peace plan.

No one can push Ukraine to give up territory for peace.

If one person in the world, and this person is Donald Trump, can stop the war in 24 hours, the question is at what price and who will pay?

Zelensky said in an interview with BBC.

VisualPolitik community, with the victory of Donald Trump, the time has come to ask yourself a few questions.

How will the war evolve from now on?

In what ways could Trump bring the conflict to a close in 24 hours?

Who is going to benefit most from the new US policy?

Well, we're going to see all that and more in this video.

So fire up your engines and let's get started.

At the end of September, as if he were a visionary, Volodymyr Zelensky went to Washington to knock on several doors.

The Ukrainian president met with Joe Biden, congressional leaders, as well as Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

Zelensky wanted to present everyone with his plan for victory, a strategy document explaining how Kyiv believes they could win the war and what they need to do to achieve it.

As you probably all know, Donald Trump has been very critical of both Ukraine and Zelensky himself.

But at the time, the Ukrainian leader had enough instinct to meet with the candidates, even if it meant having to deal with Trump, a guy who frequently criticizes Ukraine, justifies Russia's actions and says glowing things about Putin.

But we already know all this.

The question is, what on earth did the plan for victory say?

Well, let's take a look.

The first thing Zelensky envisages in his plan is that NATO should present his nation with an unconditional invitation for Ukraine to join the alliance as soon as the fighting is over.

In other words, an absolutely binding commitment.

Secondly, Ukraine is calling for increased delivery of military equipment, to armor the achieving any victory, and to enable Ukraine to advance in the occupied areas.

Not only that, but Zelensky also proposes to turn Ukraine into a kind of arsenal for the West, the perfect base for non-nuclear deterrence against Russia.

In exchange for aid, and this is the fourth point of the plan, Ukraine would give US and European companies a free hand to exploit a huge amount of Ukraine's critical resources, uranium, titanium, lithium, graphite, gas and many other such raw materials.

You give me weapons, I guarantee you preferential access to valuable resources.

And that's not all.

As the fifth and last point of this curious plan, Zelensky made the US leaders another offer.

He must have told them something like this.

Let's see, in Ukraine we've become a military power, we have a lot of equipment, an emerging and promising ammunition and military equipment industry, and tens and tens of thousands of troops with combat experience.

We offer them to you.

Once the war is over, if you help us, Ukraine could take care of supporting the security of a lot of European countries and thus free up a lot of American troops so that you can focus on your number one priority, China.

If the partners agree, we plan to replace certain military contingents of the US armed forces stationed in Europe with Ukrainian units after the war.

In other words, Ukraine would use its troops to replace those of the United States in Europe and, at the same time, keep its army well oiled, just in case at any moment they have to join a war waged by the United States.

Donald Trump was most likely indifferent to the first three points.

Make America Great Again Republicans consider Age to Ukraine to be a big waste and certainly aren't exactly fans of organizations like NATO.

However, what perhaps did capture the attention of the current president-elect were the last two points.

Ukraine is offering them free and preferential access to their most and also a lot of troops to support their missions around the world, starting by allowing them to withdraw a large part of the 100,000 troops that the United States has deployed in Europe.

Well, after presenting this plan to Donald Trump, Zelensky posed with the president-elect in front of the cameras and openly said in front of Trump that they would both like Ukraine to win this war.

And this may seem like a small thing to you, but the president-elect did not at all.

That was considered a breakthrough because, in the debate between presidential candidates, Trump avoided answering Kamala Harris about whether or not he would like Kiev to defeat Moscow.

Note the details.

Zelensky was smart enough to find a point of consensus.

The war has to stop, but we can't let Putin win either.

Maybe there's a middle ground.

In truth, Zelensky didn't have much choice.

And something he did get in the following weeks, Trump came to refer to the Ukrainian president as an honorable leader who was unprotected by the Biden administration.

Even if he did go back to blaming it all on Zelensky again.

But, you know, Trump's kind of like that.

But the point is that Zelensky has a plan, but Trump's team also claims to have one.

In this regard, Trump's Vice President, J.D.

Vance, speaks bluntly.

Vance says Trump's plan to end war in Ukraine could include creating demilitarized zone.

In a podcast interview, J.D.

Vance also said a peace settlement could involve barring Ukraine from joining the NATO alliance.

So we have the Zelensky plan and the Trump plan.

Both plans envisage the war ending, but to what extent are they compatible?

Ukraine didn't talk about negotiating with Moscow, at least until it had a position of strength, but Trump seems to want to shelve the conflict as soon as possible.

So what can the US ask of Ukraine and Russia?

Well, Trump's intentions regarding Ukraine are not yet known.

Zelensky made him an offer, and both the president-elect and his vice president are aiming for a negotiated exit.

The Wall Street Journal has leaked that Trump's plan might include freezing the war, establishing a demilitarized zone along the new border, and continuing to support Ukraine with weapons to deter future attacks.

It would be a Korean-style solution.

But nothing is confirmed yet.

And that brings us directly to a very clear question.

But does that mean that they do or do not accept the Ukrainian offer?

What can we expect their position to be?

Well, to try to understand, or at least approximate, how Donald Trump will act towards Ukraine, we first need to know who will be responsible for implementing his foreign policy.

Right now, we don't exactly know that either.

But what we do know is the three names of those who are likely to be crucial in understanding the role that the United States will seek to play in Europe over the next four years.

The first of these is Elbridge Colby, who is currently known as none other than the architect of Trumpist foreign policy.

And of course, he's expected to be a part of the new government at a high level.

Well, in 2021 he published the book entitled The Strategy of Denial, American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict.

In it, he describes how he believes the United States should act in the world.

And take note, because he gives us many clues.

There is thus no strategic need to add new states to the alliance.

Washington could reasonably support adding easily defensible states.

But it should not agree to add Georgia or Ukraine to NATO, because both are highly exposed to Russian attack while offering no meaningful advantage.

It's the same thing J.D.

Vance has said on several occasions.

Coincidence?

Difficult to say.

But Colby argues in his book that NATO far exceeds Russia's military power and therefore Putin cannot project his power onto any member state.

Therefore, according to him, it would be pointless to expand the alliance because it has already served its strategic purpose.

Ukraine is not useful because the deterrence on Moscow is already complete.

The first point of Zelensky's plan is complicated.

Colby is very clear, Russia for the United States is nothing more than a distraction.

According to this Trump strategist, it has to turn its attention to the three rival powers.

China, China and China.

Of course, if that were the position, Ukraine's idea of offering to become a key component of deterrence might not fit with the plans of the future White House.

But Colby is not the only guy who stands out.

Among the senior officials surrounding Trump we also have Keith Kellogg, who previously worked as the president's national security advisor.

Well, when NATO met in Washington last July, Kellogg organized several meetings with leaders of member countries to begin building ties.

Then the European and American press confirmed a common message for all of them.

Trump will make each country of the alliance spend 2% of its GDP on defense.

Period.

Which is also no longer very far from the new post-war reality in Ukraine.

In the same vein, we find Rick Grenell, who already worked with Trump as US ambassador to Germany.

Well, it was precisely at this stage that Grenell was known for threatening Merkel that the US would withdraw troops from the country if Germany did not increase its defense spending.

In fact, several German parliamentarians went so far as to call for his expulsion.

I think we can say that, with Grenell, Berlin and Washington had their worst relations in a long time.

Staunch Trump ally Richard Grenell to end tumultuous tenure as US ambassador to Germany.

Wolfgang Kubicki, vice president of the German parliament, at one point said Grenell was acting as if the United States were still an occupying power here.

Well, it's suspected that Grenell, along with Kellogg, would be in charge of managing relations between the White House and Europe, with one very clear objective.

That the European NATO countries begin to empty their wallets, including paying for the deployment of American troops.

And naturally, the question is, if the new administration is going to be so obsessed with money, is it really going to be willing to fund Kiev?

Well, there are doubts.

Within Trump's circles, it's said that any defense initiative in Europe is tantamount to wasting resources and money.

That if Europeans want to protect themselves, they will have to pay for it themselves.

So, let me say it again, this makes points two and three of Zelensky's plan complicated.

But that's not all.

Zelensky has offered the United States certain privileges, but he has competition.

The president-elect has already said on occasion that he would like to lift economic sanctions on Russia with the idea of strengthening the use of the dollar.

Shall we translate?

There have been many economic interests that have been the U.S. has given Ukraine since the beginning of the war, much of it has been spent on huge arms contracts from within the United States.

We're talking about billions spent by the Pentagon to replenish ammunition and equipment delivered to Ukraine.

We're talking about the money that the U.S. government puts up to pay the companies that then deliver their military production to Ukraine.

And we're also talking about investments to increase the capacity of the U.S. military industry.

This has some political benefits.

First, assistance to Ukraine is increasing U.S. military production as the Pentagon renews its arsenals.

This may eventually prove critical to maintaining a well-oiled and well-supplied military.

In other words, if you want the U.S. military to maintain its advantage over Chinese forces, you need to have a robust military-industrial complex.

And that basically happens by placing orders.

Therefore, much of the money that has gone to and also economic incentives.

This in itself feeds point two and three of the Zelensky plan.

In this case, as you can see, it's a bit of a mixed blessing.

But, VisualPolitik community, Trump's plan may have another problem.

THE LAST WINTER Trump will return to the White House on January 20th, in the middle of winter, just at the time when the fighting is generally less ambitious and more static.

A good time to try your luck with a ceasefire agreement.

However, there's one problem.

Game theory.

The president-elect already knows the Russian demands for stopping the war.

That Ukraine renounce NATO membership and withdraw its troops from the occupied regions.

Along those lines, the U.S. could force Ukraine to accept those conditions with a very clear threat.

Either you accept or I withdraw all support and Russia will come for you.

However, the Republicans couldn't afford to see Russian soldiers parading through Kiev or invading new areas of Ukraine.

And for Zelensky and the Ukrainian government, that may be an advantage in negotiating their position.

And so we're back to square one.

That could cause the conflict to drag on and Trump would have to maintain military support for Ukraine at the risk of seeing Russian advances that would sink his reputation.

Of course, this is just one possibility, which perhaps the Ukrainians will study.

But let's not fool ourselves either.

The truth is that Trump's coming to power leaves Ukraine in a position of enormous weakness.

And this is concerning, because if Russia gets its way, won't that be a clear incentive for the satraps of half the world to follow in Putin's footsteps?

The only way to avoid this is to reach an agreement that is not a gift to Russia.