admin
President Donald Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago on December 28, 2025, in a high-stakes push to move stalled peace negotiations toward a deal that could end nearly four years of war. The meeting, held at the president’s Florida club while he was in residence for the holidays, brought immediate attention because it paired Trump’s unconventional diplomacy with one of the most consequential foreign policy crises of our time. Both leaders framed the talks as serious and forward-leaning, saying teams would continue to work out the details.
Trump emerged from the meeting saying Russia and Ukraine were “closer than ever” to a settlement, and he acknowledged he had spoken by phone with Vladimir Putin for an extended period before the Mar-a-Lago sit-down. Administration officials admitted that “thorny” territorial questions remain, particularly over the Donbas region, underscoring that any final arrangement will require painful political choices. The president’s willingness to pick up the phone with Putin and press for a resolution reflects his familiar dealmaking approach, but it also raises legitimate strategic questions about leverage and sequencing.
Zelenskyy said his team and Trump’s had advanced a 20-point peace plan and hailed progress on security guarantees and economic measures, with officials describing much of the framework as nearly agreed. Kyiv stressed that credible security assurances—what it calls a modern analogue to Article 5 protections—remain the lynchpin for any durable settlement and for preventing future Russian revanchism. Those substantive claims of progress are hopeful, but hope alone cannot replace solid enforcement mechanisms and verifiable commitments from partners beyond the United States.
Conservative commentators have reacted with caution, and not without reason: skepticism about Moscow’s sincerity is widespread among those who study Russia’s behavior. It’s one thing for diplomats to sign paper; it’s another for Moscow to submit to inspections, guarantees, and the political consequences of withdrawing from captured territory. The instinct among many on the right is to back any genuine pathway to end bloodshed, but to demand that any bargain not be a reward for aggression or a sellout of Ukrainian sovereignty.
The most dangerous part of these talks would be territorial concessions that leave Russia stronger and Ukraine weaker in the long run, and experts watching the negotiations have repeatedly flagged Donbas as the most combustible issue. If Western security guarantees are layered over territory ceded under duress, we risk creating a fragile peace that empowers the Kremlin rather than containing it. America must not be the guarantor of a settlement that enshrines the results of an illegal invasion without ironclad enforcement and a clear role for reliable NATO partners.
There is, however, room for cautious approval of the president’s willingness to try something bold; conservatives have historically respected results and the preservation of peace through strength. That said, Congress must insist on full transparency, insist on binding sunset clauses and enforcement triggers, and ensure that U.S. involvement does not become an open-ended blank check. Europeans who have promised to shoulder more of the burden should be called on to do so in dollars, troops when necessary, and long-term commitments—not just headlines.
Americans should watch these negotiations with clear eyes: peace is a worthy goal, but it must be anchored in principle and prudence. A credible, enforceable agreement that secures Ukraine while deterring future Russian aggression would be a historic achievement; a rushed or one-sided deal would be a dangerous precedent. The coming weeks, including planned international follow-ups, must be used to test Moscow’s resolve and to lock in guarantees that protect sovereign borders, not reward conquest.
