admin
The latest chapter in the Ukraine saga landed on the public stage this week when President Trump’s team unveiled what’s being described as a 28-point peace framework and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker called aspects of it “very strange” during a Fox Report segment. Americans should be grateful someone in the White House is actually trying to end a grinding, expensive war, but that does not mean every idea that comes out of a media-friendly negotiating session deserves a free pass. Volker’s caution is a welcome reminder that good intentions need equally good planning.
At its core the draft pairs an unprecedented NATO-style security assurance with sweeping demands of Kyiv: recognition of Russian control over Crimea and parts of Donbas, frozen lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, a constitutional renunciation of NATO membership, and strict caps on Ukraine’s armed forces. That security guarantee is the sort of hard bargaining Americans wanted when we asked for less open‑ended spending and more strategic clarity, but asking a brave nation to surrender territory in exchange for words on paper is a brutally high price. The country that stands with freedom must never be seen as rewarding conquest, even while pushing for an end to needless bloodshed.
Volker told viewers he hoped the plan would be “improved through negotiations,” and he’s right to push for better drafting and clearer enforcement mechanisms before any signature. Reporters have also noted senior officials were taken by surprise by elements of the plan, which is a serious warning sign that process and interagency coordination were sidelined. Conservatives can applaud dealmaking, but we must demand that deals are durable, lawful, and made with the full weight of American institutions behind them—not negotiated in secrecy or stunt diplomacy.
Kyiv’s leadership hasn’t embraced the draft as written; President Zelensky has accepted a copy for talks while warning the choices are painful and Europe’s capitals are scrambling to coordinate a common response. That pushback is exactly what should happen when a proposal asks a sovereign nation to rewrite its future under pressure: allied unity matters, and allies must be consulted rather than surprised. The American people deserve a transparent debate about whether guarantees that sound strong on paper actually translate into credible, enforceable deterrence on the ground.
There are real red flags tucked inside the fine print—broad amnesty clauses that could shield atrocities, convoluted plans to recycle frozen Russian assets into reconstruction funds, and vague enforcement that hands Russia diplomatic wins without meaningful accountability. Those provisions would be intolerable to any patriotic American who believes in justice for victims and deterrence against future aggression; making peace is noble, but rewarding bad actors sets a dangerous precedent. We can support an end to hostilities without sacrificing principle, and any bargain that undermines rule of law or invites repeat aggression must be tightened or rejected.
If President Trump wants to be the dealmaker who brings this war to an end, he has every right to try—but he also has a duty to make sure the deal defends American interests and European security, not just headlines. Congress should insist on oversight, allies should be fully engaged, and patriots across the country must demand that any agreement include real teeth to deter future Russian moves. We want peace; we also want a peace that preserves freedom, punishes war crimes, and makes the West stronger and safer for our children.
