President Trump’s recent remarks to Politico reflected Kremlin-aligned talking points and pushed a diplomatic approach that emphasizes economic incentives over military and intelligence counsel. Trump has urged Ukraine to consider a 28-point plan that would require territorial concessions — a demand Zelensky firmly rejects. Public opinion and Congress largely back continued U.S. support for Ukraine and NATO; the 2026 NDAA restricts force reductions in Europe and funds Ukrainian security assistance. Without binding, enforceable guarantees — including credible deterrents — Ukraine remains vulnerable to future Russian aggression.
Trump Echoes Kremlin Lines on Ukraine — Zelensky Rejects Territorial Concessions
In a recent Politico interview with Dasha Burns, President Trump repeated talking points that align closely with the Kremlin’s narrative about how the war in Ukraine should end. His comments — including a claim that "it's Russia" with the stronger negotiating position and an accusation that President Volodymyr Zelensky is "using war to not hold an election" — risk reinforcing Russian talking points that question Ukrainian legitimacy.
That framing undercuts U.S. credibility and obscures a basic reality: the violence will not stop until Russia stops attacking. Over the past months, Russian strikes have produced heavy casualties and widespread damage to Ukrainian cities and critical energy infrastructure. On one recent Saturday alone, Ukraine faced 704 missiles and drones; its air defenses intercepted about 87 percent, but the remaining strikes inflicted damage and loss of life.
Economic Levers, But Where Are The Military And Intelligence Voices?
The president — known for his focus on deals and economic leverage — appears to be prioritizing financial incentives and negotiations while marginalizing military and intelligence advisers. Senior uniformed leaders, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, senior CIA and DIA analysts, and experienced career diplomats are reportedly absent from the core negotiating team. Instead, envoys such as Steven Witkoff and Jared Kushner have been associated with offering incentive packages aimed at keeping Vladimir Putin at the table.
The 28-Point Plan And Zelensky’s Red Line
Trump has reportedly pressed Ukraine to consider a 28-point peace plan linked to Kirill Dmitriev, a negotiator viewed as close to the Kremlin. Kyiv rejects any proposal that requires territorial concessions — above all, ceding the Donbas. President Zelensky and his government insist they will not give up Ukrainian territory.
“Under our laws, under international law, and under moral law, we have no right to give anything away. That is what we are fighting for.”
Ukrainian leaders argue that only binding, enforceable security guarantees — most plausibly the physical presence of NATO forces or a similarly credible deterrent — would prevent future invasions. They view vague or unverifiable assurances as insufficient.
Public Opinion, Congress, And U.S. Policy
Public sentiment and congressional action complicate the White House’s apparent pivot. A 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey found broad U.S. support for Ukraine: most Americans want Ukraine to prevail and favor continued weapons shipments; a clear majority distrusts Russia to honor peace agreements. In Congress, bipartisan elements of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) aim to constrain rapid reductions in U.S. forces in Europe and to sustain funding for Ukraine’s defense.
The NDAA prohibits the Department of Defense from reducing U.S. forces permanently stationed in Europe below 76,000 for more than 45 days unless the Pentagon certifies consultation with NATO allies and that the drawdown is in the U.S. national security interest. It also bars the U.S. European Commander from relinquishing the NATO Supreme Allied Commander title and allocates $400 million per year for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in both 2026 and 2027.
What’s At Stake
Analysts warn that requiring Ukraine to accept limits on its military, restrictions on munitions and weapons systems, or a ban on NATO forces on Ukrainian soil would leave Kyiv vulnerable to renewed aggression. European partners are increasingly taking responsibility for regional security while many continue to support Zelensky — even as U.S. policy signals a potential shift.
This analysis was authored by Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet, who served 30 years as a military intelligence officer and led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014, and by Mark Toth, a national security and foreign policy writer.
