History classes are often full of students learning about how wars begin. Only some of them teach lessons about how wars end. Now, as Ukraine weighs up an ugly peace deal with Russia, that second field of study is more important than ever. And none of the lessons are easy.

IllustrationCredit: Dionne Gain

The peace terms issued to Ukraine are monstrous, of course. The 28 points overseen by US President Donald Trump hand most of the gains to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. If the draft terms were to be made final, they would represent an American betrayal of its European friends in favour of their enemy.

Trump’s willingness to capitulate is appalling but not surprising after this jarring year of his second term. (Yes, it feels longer than 10 months.) The world, including Australia, can see that America is an unreliable ally – and that Ukraine is in an invidious position. It cannot trust Trump, it cannot trust Putin, but it cannot dismiss a chance for peace.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky might hope for a return to the ideals of honour and strength in Washington, but that means waiting for the presidential election in November 2028. Even then, he cannot be sure who will rule. He has to work with the weak, erratic and amoral occupant of the White House. And with the assassin in the Kremlin.

“A peace deal requires agreements, and you don’t make agreements with your friends, you make agreements with your enemies,” said Richard Holbrooke, a US diplomat who helped negotiate a peace in the Balkans in the 1990s. Variations of that remark are attributed to leaders as diverse as South African archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. Because, of course, it is true.

So how should leaders end their wars? An American strategist, Fred Iklé, posed........

© WA Today