Alarming Trump Plan Risks Rewarding Putin's Brutal Conquest in Ukraine

For three years, Ukraine has stood as a beacon of defiance against Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked aggression, its people enduring unimaginable loss to protect their sovereignty. Now, as President Trump nears his 100th day in office, his administration is racing to broker a peace deal that could force Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a recent interview, framed this as a necessary step to end a war with 'no military solution.' But this approach reeks of capitulation, trading justice for a fragile truce that emboldens authoritarian regimes worldwide.

The images are seared into our collective conscience: Ukrainian children killed by Russian missiles, families fleeing their homes, cities reduced to rubble. Since 2022, nearly 39,000 civilians have perished, and over 12.7 million people face dire hardship. Yet, the Trump administration seems ready to prioritize a quick resolution over the moral imperative of holding Russia accountable. This is not diplomacy; it’s a betrayal of the very principles of freedom and self-determination that Ukraine’s fight embodies.

Rubio’s insistence that both sides must 'give something up' ignores the asymmetry of the conflict. Ukraine is defending its right to exist; Russia is the aggressor, illegally occupying land and committing atrocities. To suggest equivalence between the two is to distort reality. A peace deal that legitimizes Russia’s gains risks setting a dangerous precedent, signaling to other autocrats that might makes right.

The administration’s urgency to wrap up negotiations within days, as Rubio hinted, only deepens the unease. Why the rush? Is it to claim a political victory, or to pivot resources elsewhere? Whatever the motive, sidelining Ukraine’s voice in favor of a deal that could fracture its future is a moral and strategic failure.

One of the most perplexing aspects of Trump’s strategy is his reluctance to wield economic sanctions against Russia. Since 2022, the U.S. and its allies have imposed over 16,000 restrictions, crippling Russia’s economy with a 2.1% GDP contraction and soaring inflation. These measures have frozen $500 billion in Russian assets and forced Moscow to redirect trade to countries like China and India. Yet, Trump has hesitated to impose new sanctions, even as he publicly muses about 'dealing differently' with Putin.

Rubio’s explanation that sanctions would 'close the door to diplomacy' rings hollow. Sanctions are not just punitive; they’re a proven tool for deterrence. By withholding them, the administration weakens its leverage, allowing Russia to exploit gaps in global enforcement. Russia’s oil exports, for instance, now bypass price caps, fueling its war machine. If Trump is serious about ending the war, why not tighten the economic noose to pressure Putin into meaningful concessions?

Advocates for robust deterrence argue that sanctions signal resolve, not just to Russia but to other adversaries watching closely, like China. Rubio himself warned in 2022 that allowing Russia to keep illegally claimed land could embolden Beijing. His pivot to diplomacy-first rhetoric feels like a convenient sidestep, abandoning a strategy that, while imperfect, has tangibly weakened Russia’s war effort.

The human toll of this war demands unwavering U.S. support for Ukraine, not a rush to compromise. Over 6.8 million Ukrainians have fled their country, and 3.6 million are displaced within its borders. Landmines litter the landscape, and civilian infrastructure lies in ruins. The elderly, disabled, and children bear the brunt of this crisis, with reports of rising conflict-related sexual violence and isolated communities cut off from aid.

Since 2022, the U.S. has provided over $118 billion in aid, enabling humanitarian organizations to deliver food, shelter, and medical care. But Trump’s willingness to suspend military support to pressure Kyiv into accepting a deal threatens to unravel this lifeline. A negotiated settlement that leaves Russian-occupied regions under Moscow’s control could trap millions under oppressive rule, where forced passportization and cultural erasure are already rampant.

Those who argue for a swift peace deal often cite the need to stop the killing. But peace without justice risks perpetuating suffering. A deal that cedes territory to Russia could embolden Putin to push further, as he has never recognized Ukraine’s right to exist. Verification mechanisms, as Rubio vaguely referenced, are no substitute for sustained international pressure to ensure Russia’s compliance.

The Trump administration’s claim to be the only entity capable of mediating this conflict is both arrogant and misleading. Third-party mediation has a storied history, from the Treaty of Westphalia to the Iran nuclear deal, but its success hinges on neutrality and trust. The U.S., under Trump, is neither neutral nor trusted by all parties. Its willingness to entertain Russian demands, including recognition of Crimea’s annexation, alienates Ukraine and European allies who see this as a departure from the rules-based international order.

Countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia have tried mediating, with limited success, precisely because their geopolitical agendas clouded their impartiality. Trump’s approach, driven by a transactional desire to claim a win, mirrors this flaw. By sidelining Ukraine and the EU, the administration undermines the very stakeholders who must live with the deal’s consequences. A true mediation would amplify Kyiv’s voice, not pressure it into concessions.

Supporters of Trump’s strategy argue that his direct engagement with Putin offers a unique opportunity to de-escalate. But this ignores the long-term cost: a weakened U.S. credibility that could embolden adversaries elsewhere, from Beijing to Tehran. If the U.S. abandons its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, what signal does that send to allies in the Asia-Pacific or NATO?

The war in Ukraine is not just a regional conflict; it’s a test of whether democratic values can withstand authoritarian aggression. Trump’s push for a quick deal may reduce immediate bloodshed, but it risks entrenching a precedent that rewards conquest. Instead, the U.S. must recommit to supporting Ukraine’s fight, not just with words but with sustained aid, tougher sanctions, and a diplomatic strategy that centers Kyiv’s agency.

This is not about prolonging war but about ensuring a peace that lasts. Ukraine’s resilience has already reshaped global perceptions of democracy’s strength. By standing firm, the U.S. can reinforce a world where borders are not redrawn by force. Anything less is a surrender to Putin’s vision, and that is a price too steep to pay.