Lucas: Settlement Through Strength, Not Concessions to Russia

(KYIV) – The Kremlin remains unwilling to accept a genuine peace settlement, according to Professor Scott Lucas, who said the Russian dictator is trapped by his own war of choice and faces only bad options.

Professor Lucas, founder and editor of EA WorldView, made the comments in an interview with host Daniel Tkiie. He was responding to recent remarks by General Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Defence Intelligence, who told Bloomberg that he saw progress toward a peace deal with the Kremlin.

While General Budanov expressed optimism that talks were evolving toward a settlement, Professor Lucas said the Ukrainian official was signalling primarily to the United States.

“Look, keep supporting us,” Professor Lucas said, interpreting the general’s message. “We are the ones who really want the settlement here. We are the ones that think you can reach this settlement.”

However, the professor noted that what remained unsaid was the method for achieving such a deal. He argued that a settlement could only be reached through strength, not by giving way to Russian demands.

“You do not reach that settlement with the Russians by giving way to their demands, which is what some people in the Trump administration want to do, such as the real estate developer Steve Witkoff,” Professor Lucas said. “You reach that settlement by keeping Ukraine strong.”

He said this required reinforcing the front lines, establishing a ceasefire based on those lines, ensuring Ukraine retains its fortified defensive belt in the Donbas region, and providing meaningful security guarantees, ideally with United States involvement.

Professor Lucas warned of a significant risk: if the Trump administration concluded that a peace settlement was impossible, Washington might disengage entirely or even begin establishing economic links with the Kremlin.

Turning to the Middle East, Professor Lucas analysed the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, announced by US President Donald Trump. He expressed deep scepticism about its viability, noting that three ships had already passed through the strait during the interview, two of which were sanctioned by the United States and one of which was Chinese flagged.

Citing former senior NATO admiral James Stavridis, Professor Lucas said enforcing a genuine blockade would require at least six American warships inside the strait plus two aircraft carrier groups, totalling roughly 20 vessels. He added that mines would also need to be cleared.

Professor Lucas said the Trump administration had failed to plan for Iran’s central source of leverage: its ability to hold the strait and, by extension, the global economy hostage.

“As long as they have a military and as long as they have some leadership, they are still going to try to hold the Strait of Hormuz and basically hold the global economy hostage,” he said.

He described the US position as contradictory, with Trump at various times threatening to bomb Iran, claiming he could run the strait alongside Iranian forces, and dismissing its importance. Professor Lucas concluded that Washington now realised it had to care about the strait.

The professor said the blockade would further disrupt global oil and gas markets. He suggested a possible but difficult solution: blockading Iranian ports while establishing protected shipping lanes for vessels from non Iranian ports such as those in Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Asked whether Trump was trapped by his own war of choice, Professor Lucas agreed, listing four domestic problems facing the administration: a bungled immigration policy following a failed operation in Minnesota; the ongoing release of the Epstein files; a worsening economy linked to the Iran conflict; and the president breaking his promise to avoid foreign military interventions.

“The Trump folks face a complete mess,” Professor Lucas said. “Either he has a war which is inconclusive or he winds up looking weak. Neither one of those is a good option.”

Returning to Ukraine, Professor Lucas said he preferred not to use the word “leverage” regarding US influence over Kyiv. He noted that intelligence sharing between US agencies and Ukraine likely continued despite the Trump administration’s position, and that military links through NATO remained active.

However, he said Europe and Ukraine now understood that the current US administration would not pressure Russia for a ceasefire, remained too willing to concede territory in Donbas, and was unlikely to resume military or financial aid due to its focus on the Middle East and Iran.

Professor Lucas pointed to Europe’s response, including a 90 billion euro loan to Ukraine. At the current exchange rate, 90 billion euros is approximately 98.1 billion US dollars. He noted that this loan had been made possible following the defeat of Viktor Orban’s allies in Hungary.

He also highlighted President Zelenskyy’s recent statement that Ukraine had become an exporter of military technology, noting that Kyiv was now reaching out to Gulf States for potential energy and financial support.

Reflecting on the mood in Ukraine, Professor Lucas said that during the winter, at the height of Russian missile and drone attacks on energy infrastructure, pessimism had been widespread. However, he said the situation had transformed.

“Here we are two months later,” he said. “We have come through the winter and come into the spring, and we have done so not in a position of weakness. We have got elements of strength that we can build on.”

He concluded that the combination of Orban’s defeat, continued Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil infrastructure, and Ukraine’s demonstrated resilience made for a positive day.