Will Trump give Putin his victory?

President Trump’s policies with Ukraine are a troubling blend of delay, deflection, and deference. Despite his tough talk, Trump’s actions—or lack thereof—paint a picture of a leader outmaneuvered and outclassed by a ruthless adversary. His delayed sanctions, ignored deadlines, and absence of meaningful military support for Ukraine have emboldened Putin, not restrained him. The self-proclaimed dealmaker could wind up the sucker at the table.

Trump publicly calls on Putin to “cease and desist,” yet the Russian president responds with escalated attacks — mocking Trump’s seeming impotence. It’s a humiliating spectacle — the self-proclaimed dealmaker reduced to issuing toothless pleas while cities burn and civilians die. Trump says he doesn’t like what Putin is doing—but he does nothing to stop it. His rhetoric is empty, his strategy nonexistent.  And worst of all, Putin knows it.

This is the same Trump who lambasted President Obama for standing down as Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. Yet now, facing a far bloodier invasion, Trump is doing precisely what he once condemned.  He is standing down — offering little more than vague condemnations and token support for Ukraine. He criticizes President Biden for failing to stop the war but offers no plan of his own—only backroom whispers of an eventual “peace deal” that would hand Putin up to 20 percent of Ukrainian land without accountability.

Such a deal would be a betrayal of justice. It would ignore the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped and trafficked by Russian forces. It would offer no reparations for the lives lost, the shattered limbs, the homes destroyed. It would reward aggression while eradicating the suffering of millions.

Trump’s acquiescence makes him look weak—not just to Putin, but to allies and adversaries alike. He has joined the very Washington diplomatic swamp he once vowed to drain — aligning himself with a left-wing diplomatic establishment eager to sweep Putin’s crimes under the rug in exchange for a hollow peace.

This is not leadership. It is capitulation. And it sends a dangerous message that the United States will tolerate tyranny if it’s politically convenient — that justice can be bargained away and that strength is just a slogan.

The Price of Peace

The idea of ceding Ukrainian territory to Vladimir Putin in exchange for peace is not just a strategic blunder—it’s a moral failure, a monumental miscalculation, and a chilling echo of the appeasement policies that emboldened tyrants in the past. It is, in essence, a modern-day replay of Neville Chamberlain’s infamous concession to Hitler in 1938. Just as the Munich Agreement failed to prevent war, any deal that rewards Putin’s aggression with conquered land will only invite future aggression by Putin. 

Putin has made no secret of his belief that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation but a wayward province of Russia. His speeches, writings, and actions all point to a singular goal — the annexation of all of Ukraine. To cede territory to him is to validate this imperial fantasy. It sends the message that borders can be redrawn by brute force, and that the international community will tolerate the violation of sovereignty if the aggressor is persistent enough.  It ends the post-World War II world order with America as the world leader.

Even if a peace agreement were reached, it would be naïve—bordering on delusional—to believe Putin would honor it. His track record is littered with broken promises and violated treaties:

• Budapest Memorandum (1994): Russia pledged to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal. That promise was shattered in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea.
• Minsk Agreements (2014–2015): Intended to de-escalate the conflict in Donbas, these accords were routinely ignored by Russian-backed forces.
• Ceasefires: Numerous ceasefires have been declared and violated, often within hours.

Putin does not negotiate in good faith. He uses diplomacy as a smokescreen for military maneuvering. Any agreement that involves territorial concessions would simply be a pause for rearmament—a chance for Russia to regroup and strike again.

Strategic Suicide for the West

Ceding Ukrainian land would not just be a betrayal of Ukraine—it would be a strategic disaster for the United States, NATO, and the democratic world.

• It undermines deterrence: If the richest and most powerful nations in the world –armed with the most powerful militaries—capitulate to a tinhorn dictator, what message does that send to other authoritarian regimes? China, Iran, and North Korea are watching closely. Weakness in Ukraine invites aggression elsewhere.
• It fractures NATO: Eastern European nations like Poland, the Baltics, and Romania rely on NATO’s resolve to deter Russian expansionism. A concession would sow doubt about the alliance’s commitment and unity.
• It emboldens isolationism: If the U.S. retreats from its global leadership role, it creates a vacuum that will be filled by adversaries. America’s credibility as a defender of democracy and freedom would be irreparably damaged.

Putin is not a rational actor in the traditional sense. He is driven by a toxic blend of nostalgia, paranoia, and imperial ambition. His worldview is shaped by a belief that the West is decadent and weak, and that this is the moment for Russia to reclaim its lost glory through conquest.  Calling him the “Madman of Moscow” is not hyperbole—it’s a recognition of the danger he poses.

What Victory Would Look Like

The West must hold the line—not just for Ukraine, but for the future of the international order of democratic nations.  A Victory would mean:

• No territorial concessions: Ukraine’s borders would be restored to their internationally recognized boundaries.
• Continued military support: Ukraine would be armed and equipped to both defend itself and undertake aggressive actions against Russia – including inside Russia.
• Economic pressure: The most severe sanctions would remain in place and be intensified.
• Diplomatic unity: NATO and the EU would speak with one voice, rejecting any deal that rewards aggression.

Summary

Sadly, it seems that Trump and the United States Washington establishment has determined that granting land to Russia is the only road to Peace.   If that is to be the case, then there must be provisions beneficial to Ukraine and the West incorporated into any so-called peace agreement.

• The admission of what is left of Ukraine into NATO immediately.
• The return of the kidnapped children and young people.
• Security agreements with the United States.
• U.S. and NATO military bases in Ukraine.

That would still give Putin a victory, but without such provisions, a peace agreement is meaningless.  Putin will give up nothing.  If that is the outcome, Trump will have produced a foreign policy failure exceeding Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.  And that one was a whopper.

A lot is riding on Trump’s meeting with Putin – and perhaps Zelenskyy.  At this point, I see very little chance of a peace agreement.  Possibly a ceasefire – but even that is doubtful.  Perhaps it is time to resort to Plan 2 – actually defeating Putin.

Because Some Asked

Can the United States arrest Putin as a war criminal when he comes to Alaska, since he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC)?  Sorry, no.  The United States has not signed on with the ICC.  Putin can only be arrested is America files its own charges in American courts.

Despite its membership in the ICC and the mandatory requirement to arrest war criminals, Mongolia – a close ally of Russia – refused to arrest the Madman of Moscow during a 2024 visit.  It brought down international condemnation, with many accusing Mongolia of complicity in Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

So, there ‘tis.