admin
Fox News national security analyst Dr. Rebecca Grant told viewers that the peace framework now circulating represents a real chance for Ukraine to rebuild and prosper, and she stressed that it is “no victory for Putin” because it preserves Ukrainian statehood even while seeking an end to senseless bloodshed. Grant’s argument is straightforward: peace that opens economic doors and security guarantees for Kyiv is worth pursuing if it truly strengthens Ukraine and denies Russia a clear win.
What has roiled capitals from Washington to Kyiv is that the original document at the center of talks was a 28-point draft reportedly shaped in talks involving U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian financier Kirill Dmitriev, and critics say parts of it mirrored language from a Russian non-paper that would have forced painful Ukrainian concessions. Reporting from multiple outlets makes clear the draft’s most controversial elements included territorial freezes and limits on Ukraine’s military, prompting alarm among European and Ukrainian officials.
Grant and other conservative voices are rightly focused on the upside being pitched: rapid access to EU markets, secured grain and riverine trade, joint oversight of critical infrastructure like Zaporizhzhia under IAEA safeguards, and the promise of American private-sector investment that could transform Ukraine’s future. This isn’t about appeasing Moscow; it’s about turning a ruinous war into a rebuilding plan that anchors Ukraine to the West economically while layering in security guarantees.
Patriots should cheer a deal that ends bombing of cities and opens the door to prosperity, but we must be blunt: any settlement that amounts to a surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty or a reward for Putin’s aggression would be a historic betrayal of our values and interests. U.S. leadership must insist that Kyiv’s red lines are respected and that Europe and NATO carry their share of the burden rather than outsourcing Western security to a quid pro quo that rewards Kremlin bullying.
Diplomacy has already produced backtracking — European and Ukrainian officials pushed to strip or revise several of the most objectionable points in Geneva — showing that robust pushback works when allies stand firm. That trimming indicates the plan was not a finished product and that strong American insistence, paired with allied pressure, can prevent a raw capitulation to Russian demands.
Conservative common sense also demands clarity on the money: some versions floated tapping frozen Russian assets and offering sanctions relief as carrots, a tempting but dangerous precedent if it simply replenishes the Kremlin’s war chest. Any financial package for Ukraine must be transparent, focused on reconstruction, and conditioned on verifiable security commitments — not a payoff that lets Putin rebuild while Europe’s cities and Ukrainian towns still smolder.
Let there be no mistake: Americans want an end to this grinding conflict, and a pragmatic settlement that secures Ukraine and limits future Russian aggression is worth exploring. But conservatives will not support deals that trade away principle for the illusion of peace; the best outcome is a negotiated settlement that leaves Ukraine stronger, Russia weaker, and the West better defended.
Now is the moment for tough, patriotic leadership — demand a plan that rebuilds Ukrainian industry, strengthens its military deterrent, and forces Europe to step up as a first responder to its own neighborhood. If Washington uses leverage wisely, conditions aid responsibly, and refuses to rubber-stamp concessions that reward aggression, this could be the day the West turns crisis into opportunity and finally puts Putin on the defensive.
