President Donald Trump’s effort to end Russia’s war in Ukraine by pressuring the victim rather than the aggressor is likely to fail. His approach suggests a misunderstanding of the facts that many American voters already recognize: Vladimir Putin has not responded to calls for restraint, Russian attacks continue to kill Ukrainian civilians, and rewarding Moscow with concessions is unlikely to produce peace. Treating Russia’s leader as a partner while Ukraine remains under attack is not only factually inaccurate but also strategically risky and morally troubling.
The central problem with this approach is that it rewards aggression. When the United States offers sanctions relief or other benefits to Russia in exchange for vague promises, Putin sees confirmation that pressure works. History has repeatedly shown that accommodating an authoritarian leader who uses force to expand influence does not create stability. Instead, it encourages further demands and gives the aggressor more room to pursue its objectives.
There is a recent precedent for this mistake. In June 2021, Putin watched President Joe Biden pause $100 million in lethal security assistance to Ukraine while seeking deliverables for a planned US-Russia summit. The following year, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The lesson is clear: concessions made in pursuit of diplomacy with Moscow do not necessarily prevent conflict. They can instead signal weakness and create opportunities for further aggression.
Threatening to withhold security assistance, intelligence support, or access to vital satellite communications may not break Ukraine’s determination to defend itself. Ukraine has demonstrated extraordinary resilience since Russia’s invasion began. However, reducing American support could allow Putin to make battlefield progress that he has so far been unable to achieve. That would not shorten the war; it would likely extend it, increase Ukrainian suffering, and make any eventual peace more difficult to secure.
There is also little evidence that easing pressure on Russia would meaningfully reduce fuel prices for American consumers. Russia’s limited diesel supply may change hands, but that does not guarantee lower prices at the pump. Sacrificing support for Ukraine in the hope of temporary economic relief would be a poor trade. A Russian victory would carry far greater consequences for US economic security, national security, and global influence than higher diesel prices.
Whatever the outcome of the midterm elections, Putin remains an adversary of the United States. He is aligned with China, Iran, and North Korea in efforts to divide America from its allies and weaken its position around the world. This is not a partisan claim. It reflects the reality of Russia’s conduct and its relationships with other authoritarian powers. Putin has directed cyberattacks against US government agencies, businesses, and critical infrastructure. Russia has also helped Iran target American personnel and facilities in the Middle East.
Most Americans, including many Republicans, understand this reality. They sympathize with Ukraine’s defenders, with children abducted by Russian forces, with elderly Ukrainians enduring cold and hardship, and with persecuted Christians. They also understand that America’s strategic interests are closely aligned with Kyiv’s. Supporting Ukraine is not charity; it is a practical investment in preventing a larger conflict and preserving a stable international order.
If President Trump is serious about ending the war, he should listen to the judgment of the American people rather than to advisers who appear to believe diplomacy means flattering adversaries. Putin is not a humanitarian. He is a leader who has used military force, cyber operations, disinformation, and political pressure to advance Russian interests at the expense of others. A just peace requires recognizing who started the war, who continues it, and who must be deterred from repeating it.
Ukraine’s importance as a security partner is also clear. Ukrainian forces have developed innovative battlefield tactics against a larger and better-equipped aggressor. Their experience with drones, electronic warfare, and rapid battlefield adaptation has made Ukraine a valuable source of knowledge for the United States. Ukraine has been described as the “Silicon Valley of warfare” because of its ability to test and improve military technology under real combat conditions.
Senior US Army leaders who visited Ukraine, including former Secretary Dan Driscoll, General Chris Donahue, and Lieutenant General Curtis Buzzard, understood this value. Their firsthand exposure to Ukraine’s battlefield innovation showed why cooperation with Kyiv matters. By contrast, senior Pentagon policy officials do not appear to have made similar visits, and that gap in understanding has had consequences.
Pentagon officials involved in restricting US assistance to Ukraine should explain how abandoning a partner with unmatched battlefield drone expertise will help the United States achieve drone dominance. They should also explain why President Trump blames Ukraine for shortages of Tomahawk cruise missiles when the United States has not provided any Tomahawks to Ukraine. These arguments create confusion and distract from the real issue: maintaining a coherent strategy that strengthens American security.
The lack of strategic clarity extends beyond Ukraine. The Pentagon has undercut NATO allies that are meeting military spending targets faster than the United States. This is evident in the policy office’s view that supporting Baltic allies is wasteful and in its failure to commit funds already appropriated for the Baltic Security Initiative. Those funds support the US defense industrial base, equip allies on NATO’s front line, and encourage allies to invest even more in American-made weapons.
Europe is America’s largest trading partner and an important engine of economic growth. A war outcome that makes it easier for Russia to threaten Europe would directly harm US interests. Helping Ukraine resist Russian aggression is therefore not separate from American prosperity or security. It is connected to both.
European countries are also contributing more to Ukraine’s defense than the United States. Through the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List, or PURL, allies can purchase American-made weapons for Ukraine. However, the Trump administration is using this mechanism to pressure allies to reimburse the United States for security assistance that Congress has already funded. This approach weakens allies’ purchasing power, damages American credibility, and undermines US leadership. It may even push allies to reduce their reliance on American military equipment over time.
Securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine requires moral clarity. The United States must assign responsibility where it belongs: Russia launched the invasion, Russia continues the violence, and Russia must not be rewarded for aggression. Peace cannot be achieved by asking Ukraine to surrender territory, sovereignty, or security while Moscow retains the ability to attack again.
It also requires speaking the language Putin understands: strength. Putin responds to leverage, unity, and credible deterrence. A policy based on weakness, hesitation, or flattery will not bring him to the negotiating table in good faith. It will only convince him that patience and pressure will eventually produce the concessions he seeks.
The good news is that many Senate Republicans reject retreat and appeasement. They support a strong national defense, continued assistance for Ukraine, and a firm commitment to NATO. They recognize that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran pose serious challenges to American interests. They also want the president to work with Congress to restore American strength and global leadership.
President Trump has ambitious hopes for a lame-duck legislative agenda, including one-time defense spending. Rather than relying on short-term measures, the administration should work to incorporate defense priorities into full-year appropriations. Passing such an agenda will require cooperation with Republicans who understand the difference between allies and adversaries. Ending deference to Putin may be a basic requirement for year-end legislation.
The war in Ukraine is not simply a distant European conflict. It is a test of whether aggression can be rewarded, whether alliances can be maintained, and whether the United States will defend the principles that underpin global stability. Coddling Putin will not bring peace. Strength, clarity, and steadfast support for Ukraine offer the better path toward a peace that lasts.