admin
Retired Major General Dana Pittard’s blunt assessment on Fox Report should wake up every American who still believes muddled diplomacy can substitute for strength: the U.S.-circulated Ukraine-Russia peace plan “might stop the fighting” but is “not the foundation of a long lasting peace.” His military common sense cuts through the Washington spin—short-term cease-fires are useful only if they prepare the ground for a durable security order, not reward the aggressor. The clip underscores a simple conservative truth: peace bought with concessions is not peace at all.
Washington’s proposal, reportedly a detailed 28-point draft pushed hard by U.S. officials with a firm timeline, includes concessions that would shrink Ukraine’s military capability and accept territorial losses—terms that many see as capitulation. The plan’s mechanics and the pressure to sign quickly have alarmed European partners and Kyiv officials who warn that such a deal hands victory to Vladimir Putin without guaranteeing future security. Americans who cherish freedom should be deeply suspicious of any blueprint that treats sovereignty as a bargaining chip.
President Zelensky and Ukraine’s leadership face an impossible political calculus: accept a deal that risks national survival or keep fighting with diminishing outside assurances. European capitals have reacted with confusion and outrage at elements of the proposal, and Ukrainian resistance to capitulation is both understandable and honorable. Conservatives must demand clarity: if the United States insists on negotiating, it must do so with Ukrainian consent and with guarantees that actually deter future aggression, not paper promises that embolden Moscow.
Pittard’s warning—that stopping the shooting does not equal achieving peace—is not a pacifist take but a realist’s assessment of geopolitical dynamics. A temporary cease-fire under terms favorable to Russia would merely freeze a dangerous status quo and make future conflicts more likely, not less. If American negotiators are serious about lasting peace, they should insist on enforceable security guarantees, accountability for violations, and a genuine path for Ukrainian sovereignty—not backroom deals that reward conquest.
While Washington wrangles with Europe and Kyiv, the hemisphere is reminding us that threats don’t pause for diplomacy: relations with Venezuela remain icy, with Maduro’s regime openly hostile and experts warning of continued friction. A government that blusters against the U.S. while courting anti-American partners poses real risks for regional stability and for migration pressures that land squarely on American communities. The Biden years taught us the cost of appeasement; conservatives should push for pressure and principled resistance, not tired engagement that yields little.
Americans should demand a foreign policy rooted in strength, clarity, and loyalty to friends. That means supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself, using frozen assets and economic levers wisely, and enforcing sanctions and border security to blunt the weaponized migration and corruption spilling out of failed states like Venezuela. If our leaders are serious about peace, they will join principled toughness with smart diplomacy — not trade away freedom to buy a fragile pause.
The choice facing policymakers is stark: forge a future where tyranny is deterred by strength and allies are defended, or normalize deals that invite new wars. Major General Pittard’s sober take should guide patriotic Americans as we press our leaders to stop treating peace like a political shortcut and start treating it like the hard, honorable work of preserving liberty. Our nation, and the free world, deserve nothing less than courage and clarity.
