Grok 3 (beta) is now free. It’s supposed to be the smartest LLM out there so I asked it:

What’s the best way forward for peace in the Ukraine?

Here is Grok’s response:

The best way forward for peace in Ukraine is a complex and debated question, with no single solution universally agreed upon. However, based on current dynamics and informed perspectives, a sustainable peace likely hinges on a combination of military strength, diplomatic negotiation, and long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, while addressing Russia’s actions and the broader geopolitical context as of February 21, 2025.

One widely supported approach is empowering Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength. This means continued and enhanced military support from Western allies—more weapons, resources, and training—to shift the battlefield balance and deter further Russian escalation. The idea is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, responds primarily to force rather than goodwill. If Ukraine can impose significant costs on Russia, it might compel Moscow to consider a ceasefire or settlement that doesn’t equate to Ukraine’s capitulation. For instance, Ukraine’s recent Kursk offensive and drone strikes on Russian infrastructure demonstrate how a stronger Ukrainian position can alter the conflict’s trajectory, potentially bringing Russia to the table.

Diplomacy remains critical, but it must be realistic. Ukraine’s leadership, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has emphasized that any peace deal requires credible security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression—ideally NATO membership, though this faces resistance from key members like the U.S. and Germany. Alternatives like bilateral security pacts with firm commitments (e.g., from the U.S.) or a multinational peacekeeping force could serve as stopgaps, though their effectiveness is questioned without long-term enforcement mechanisms. Negotiations should start with achievable steps—local ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, or securing food exports—building momentum toward broader territorial and sovereignty discussions, rather than aiming for an immediate grand bargain that risks collapsing under maximalist demands from either side.

Russia’s stance complicates this. Putin’s terms—Ukraine ceding occupied territories, abandoning NATO aspirations, and demilitarizing—amount to surrender, not peace, and are designed to leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attacks. Historical precedents like the Minsk agreements show that ceasefires without enforcement often fail. Thus, peace must avoid rewarding aggression or compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty, a principle echoed by many Western leaders and analysts who argue that a weak deal would embolden authoritarian powers globally.

The human cost—thousands dead, millions displaced, and ongoing rights violations—underscores urgency, but rushing to a flawed agreement could prolong instability. A just peace likely requires Russia’s withdrawal to pre-2022 lines (or at least pre-2014 borders, including Crimea, though this is less feasible short-term), coupled with Ukraine’s integration into Western security structures over time. This balances immediate de-escalation with deterrence against future threats.

In short, the best path forward combines arming Ukraine to hold its ground, pursuing phased diplomacy with clear red lines, and securing enforceable guarantees—acknowledging that peace without strength risks being temporary, while strength without talks prolongs suffering. The war’s end remains uncertain, but Ukraine’s resilience and Western resolve will shape its terms.

Then I asked:

Is this Trump’s approach?

Grok responded:

You’re asking whether the approach I outlined for peace in Ukraine aligns with Donald Trump’s strategy, given the context of the ongoing war and his recent actions as of February 21, 2025. Based on available information and Trump’s public statements, I can assess how my previous response compares to what’s known about his approach, without reproducing or altering my prior answer.

Trump’s stated intentions for Ukraine, since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, emphasize a rapid end to the conflict through negotiations, often framed as a signature achievement of his presidency. He’s claimed he could resolve the war “in 24 hours” during his campaign and has since initiated direct talks with Vladimir Putin, starting with a notable call on February 12, 2025, followed by outreach to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His team, including figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, has been tasked with launching peace talks, with reports of planned meetings in Saudi Arabia as early as mid-February 2025. This aligns with a push for immediate diplomacy, consistent with my suggestion of phased negotiations starting with achievable steps like ceasefires.

However, Trump’s approach diverges in key ways from the broader strategy I described. My response emphasized empowering Ukraine militarily to negotiate from strength, with sustained Western support and security guarantees like NATO membership or robust bilateral pacts—aiming for a peace that deters future Russian aggression. Trump, conversely, has signaled concessions that lean toward Russia’s demands. His Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly dismissed Ukraine reclaiming all pre-2014 territories (including Crimea) as “unrealistic” and ruled out NATO membership as part of any deal, suggesting a freeze along current lines instead. Reports of a leaked “100-day plan” from Ukrainian outlet strana.today indicate Trump might push Ukraine to cede occupied territories, withdraw from Russia’s Kursk region, and accept neutrality—terms that echo Putin’s preconditions rather than a bolstered Ukrainian position.

Trump’s rhetoric also hints at economic leverage over military buildup. He’s threatened Russia with tariffs and sanctions to force a deal, while suggesting Ukraine compensate the U.S. with natural resources for past aid—ideas absent from my outline, which focused on deterrence through strength. His February 19, 2025, BBC interview, where he said Russia “has the cards” due to territorial gains, suggests a willingness to accept a settlement favoring Moscow’s current position, contrasting with my call for Russia’s withdrawal to pre-2022 or pre-2014 lines.

On diplomacy, Trump’s unilateral outreach to Putin—often sidelining European allies and initially excluding Ukraine—clashes with my emphasis on inclusive, phased talks with firm red lines. European leaders and Zelenskyy have protested this, insisting on Ukraine’s central role, though Trump later clarified Kyiv would be involved. Still, his approach seems more deal-driven than principle-driven, prioritizing speed over the long-term stability I highlighted.

So, is this Trump’s approach? Not entirely. While we share a focus on negotiation as a path forward, his emerging strategy tilts toward quicker, Russia-friendly concessions—freezing lines, dropping NATO aspirations, and limiting U.S. military commitment—whereas I advocated for a stronger Ukraine backed by sustained Western resolve to ensure a durable peace. Trump’s moves reflect his dealmaking persona, but they risk a temporary truce over the lasting resolution I described. The details of his plan are still fluid, with talks ongoing, but current signals suggest a narrower, more pragmatic scope than the comprehensive framework I proposed.

Then finally I requested:

Outline 3 key points of advice you would give Trump to improve his strategy, briefly outlining pitfalls in his approach and why your advice is worth following.

Grok responded:

Here’s tailored advice for Donald Trump to refine his Ukraine peace strategy, based on the gaps between his emerging approach and a framework for sustainable peace as of February 21, 2025. Each point addresses a pitfall in his current trajectory and explains why the tweak could yield a stronger outcome.

1. Bolster Ukraine’s Leverage Before Talks, Don’t Rush a Weak Deal
   Pitfall: Trump’s push for a quick resolution—freezing lines and conceding territory—risks locking in Russian gains, signaling that aggression pays off. His February 19, 2025, BBC comment that Russia “has the cards” underestimates Ukraine’s resilience and hands Putin a propaganda win without forcing real compromise.
   Advice: Ramp up military aid—drones, long-range missiles, air defenses—for three to six months before finalizing talks. This strengthens Ukraine’s hand (e.g., replicating the Kursk surprise) and pressures Russia into a fairer bargain, avoiding a Minsk-style flop that unravels fast.
   Why It’s Worth It: A deal from strength deters future invasions and burnishes Trump’s image as a tough negotiator, not a capitulator—key for his legacy and global credibility.
2. Secure Enforceable Guarantees, Not Just a Handshake
   Pitfall: Trump’s plan, as leaked via strana.today, leans on neutrality and troop pullbacks without ironclad security for Ukraine. Excluding NATO or firm U.S. commitments leaves Kyiv exposed—Putin’s violated every post-1991 agreement (Budapest Memorandum, Minsk) when it suited him.
   Advice: Push for a binding multilateral pact—think U.S.-UK-France troop rotations in Ukraine or automatic sanctions triggers if Russia reattacks. Pair it with economic carrots for Moscow (e.g., phased tariff relief) tied to compliance.
   Why It’s Worth It: This balances Trump’s dealmaking flair with durability, preventing a repeat war that could tank his “peace in 24 hours” brag and drag the U.S. back in later.
3. Loop in Allies Fully, Don’t Go Lone Wolf
   Pitfall: Sidelining Europe and initially Ukraine (e.g., his solo Putin call on February 12) alienates partners who’ve bankrolled much of the war effort—$100 billion-plus from the EU versus U.S. aid. It risks fracturing NATO unity and leaving Trump isolated if talks falter.
   Advice: Host a broader summit—Saudi Arabia works—where Zelenskyy, NATO leaders, and Putin’s team hash it out together. Let allies co-own the process, sharing costs and credit.
   Why It’s Worth It: Unity amplifies pressure on Russia and spreads responsibility. Trump still gets the spotlight as the deal’s architect, but with less blowback if Putin balks—smart politics and strategy.

These tweaks elevate Trump’s approach from a rushed fix to a robust win, aligning his instincts with the war’s brutal realities. They’d give him a shot at a historic triumph that lasts, not just a photo-op that fades.

Grok seems quite intelligent.

I wonder how long it will be before AI models become the most valuable political and economic advisors we can use?

I was especially impressed with the eloquent wisdom shared in the last paragraph in Grok’s first response to me, “In short, the best path forward combines arming Ukraine to hold its ground, pursuing phased diplomacy with clear red lines, and securing enforceable guarantees—acknowledging that peace without strength risks being temporary, while strength without talks prolongs suffering. The war’s end remains uncertain, but Ukraine’s resilience and Western resolve will shape its terms.”

If you asked me, we (and more specifically those with power and influence) should already be paying attention to what these intelligent machines have to say.

__

*The two images shared with this post were created by Grok to go with the questions I asked above.