Americans Back Ukraine — Trump’s 'Peace' Blueprint Risks Rewarding Putin

Never in modern American history has a president been so persistently out of step with public opinion on a major foreign-policy question as President Donald Trump has been on Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Both the president and many Americans oppose sending U.S. ground troops into protracted conflicts. But they sharply diverge on the endgame: who should prevail, what should be sacrificed, and what the moral and geostrategic stakes are.

For Trump, the paramount goal appears to be ending the war quickly — and winning credit for doing so. He has framed a negotiated settlement as a humanitarian achievement that could burnish his legacy. That calculus, critics argue, places personal and political gain ahead of Ukraine’s sovereignty and of long-term Western security interests.

Why most Americans see it differently

Many Americans assess the conflict through a different lens: international norms, the conduct of the parties, and the long record of Russia’s behavior. Vladimir Putin’s history — a former KGB officer, nostalgia for a larger Soviet-era influence, a brutal campaign in Chechnya, broken assurances to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity after 1997, the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the 2014 seizure of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and the 2022 full-scale invasion accompanied by widespread reports of atrocities — leads most observers to view promises from Moscow as unreliable.

Elements of the proposed plan and the risks

Reports about the administration’s preferred terms would require Ukraine to cede Crimea and much of the territory Russia seized in 2014, surrender large portions of the Donbas that Russian forces have not fully captured, reduce the size and capabilities of its armed forces, and renounce future NATO membership. In return, Russia would pledge not to resume attacks.

Kyiv has consistently rejected those terms, and NATO and European Union members have backed Ukraine’s position. Many in Europe are unwilling to repeat the appeasement lessons of the past; they view a negotiated settlement that rewards conquest as emboldening, not pacifying, an aggressive power.

Politics, flattery, and leverage

Trump has repeatedly spoken admiringly of Putin, calling him “strong” and “brilliant.” Reports that some of his negotiators encouraged Russian interlocutors to flatter the president only reinforced perceptions that his posture toward Moscow is unusually accommodating. That dynamic matters because the credibility and durability of any deal depend on how seriously all parties regard enforcement and verification — and how willing they are to resist future aggression.

“You don’t have the cards.”

When Trump made that remark to President Volodymyr Zelensky, he signaled that the primary leverage Ukraine possessed came from international military assistance — much of it provided by the United States. Days later, the temporary suspension of U.S. military aid underscored that point. Trump’s later comment — “I guess they’ll just have to continue fighting” — implied the prospect of Ukraine fending for itself without reliable American support.

That scenario appears to rest on a bet that Europe will not mobilize sufficiently and that an increasingly isolated, cold, and exhausted Ukraine will eventually yield. Many analysts view that bet as risky: abandoning Kyiv could weaken deterrence across the continent and encourage further aggression.

A historical reminder

As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of its founding, the Revolutionary era offers a reminder: limited resources do not always determine outcomes — resolve can. The Founders lacked many conventional advantages but were willing to fight for liberty, inspiring allies to support them. The author hopes that Europe and the West will again find the resolve to defend the principle that borders cannot be won by force.

About the author: Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the Secretary of Defense (2005–2006) and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (2009–2010). He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies and serves on the advisory boards of the Global Taiwan Institute and The Vandenberg Coalition.