In discussions about global geopolitics, few topics stir as much interest as the ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine. The prospect of a future deal involving the United States, specifically influenced by a figure like Donald Trump, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. What could such a deal entail? Commentator Victor Davis Hanson explores the possible outlines of an agreement, based on recent discussions and observations.
Russia’s Perspective: Selling the War to Its People
Vladimir Putin has consistently shaped narratives to justify Russia’s actions in Ukraine. For any agreement to resonate domestically, Putin must present it as a win for Russia. This could involve highlighting two key points:
- Crimea’s Permanent Status
Putin might argue that his decision to go to war ensured Russia’s hold over Crimea “forever.” He could reference Crimea’s historical ties to Russia dating back to 1787, emphasizing that it was only detached due to what he might call “a mistake” by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. The rhetoric would likely frame Crimea’s status as a restoration of Russia’s rightful territory. - Blocking Ukraine’s NATO Membership
Another point of emphasis for Putin could be preventing Ukraine’s integration into NATO. The Kremlin has long viewed NATO expansion as a security threat. For Russian audiences, this could be framed as a major geopolitical victory, ensuring Ukraine remains outside the military alliance.
Ukraine’s Position: Seeking Security and Sovereignty
For Ukraine, any deal must yield tangible benefits, especially after enduring months of destruction and warfare. A possible agreement might involve a few key promises to the Ukrainian government and people:
- Access to the European Union
While NATO membership could remain off the table, Ukraine might be offered a path to join the European Union. This integration into Europe could provide economic and political support, helping Ukraine rebuild and align closer with the West. - Demilitarized Zones
To limit future conflicts, the deal could include the establishment of demilitarized zones along certain contested areas. This might help reduce tensions and create a buffer between Russian and Ukrainian forces. - Enhanced Military Support
As part of the agreement, Western allies, including the United States, might commit to arming Ukraine significantly. This would enable the country to protect its sovereignty more effectively in the future.
What Might the Agreement Look Like in Practice?
The contours of such a deal may result in a mix of concessions and guarantees. Some potential outcomes include:
- Russia’s Withdrawal to Pre-2022 Positions
Part of the agreement could require Russian forces to retreat to the positions they held before February 24, 2022, the day the war escalated. However, this would leave contested areas like Crimea firmly under Russian control. - Commitments to Peace
Both sides might agree on a long-term peace framework to avoid future conflicts. This could involve international monitoring and guarantees from powerful nations to uphold the deal. - Adjusting Alliances
Ukraine’s path to NATO could remain blocked, but its integration with the European Union might accelerate. This would allow Ukraine to gain economic benefits while potentially scaling back military ambitions.
The Role of the United States
A U.S.-brokered deal, especially under Donald Trump, could come with unique dynamics. Trump has previously emphasized reducing America’s involvement in foreign wars while negotiating deals he views as beneficial to all sides. His approach might focus on finding practical compromises while minimizing new military commitments for the U.S.
Trump is also likely to position himself as a peacemaker. Preventing further NATO expansion and balancing relations with Russia would likely be part of his strategy. If he’s involved in brokering a deal, it could reflect his broader foreign policy stance of prioritizing negotiation over confrontation.
Challenges in Reaching a Resolution
While such a deal might appear feasible on paper, implementing it in reality remains complex. Both sides have deeply entrenched interests, and public opinion in Ukraine, Russia, and the West will heavily influence the outcome. Additionally, reconciling the desires of multiple stakeholders—some seeking justice and others stability—adds to the difficulties.
Final Thoughts
The potential for a negotiated resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war remains a subject of intense speculation. A deal involving Crimea, NATO membership, and enhanced support for Ukraine seems possible, but nothing is guaranteed. Leaders on all sides would need to navigate political, military, and public pressure to make such an agreement work.
As the global community watches closely, one thing is clear: any resolution will have lasting consequences on the regional and global order. Whether Trump plays a role in brokering this peace is yet to be seen, but the idea of a deal shaped by his unique approach to diplomacy is undoubtedly intriguing.
Video Summary generated with assistance from AI.
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
