President Trump Says, "Here’s Why You Want Ukraine to Win"
Avoid compromising principles by accepting a poor agreement just to conclude the conflict.
Having both held significant foreign policy roles in Republican administrations, we believe that Trump’s declared foreign policy goals—especially the idea of “peace through strength”—would be best served by continued support for Ukraine and firm resistance against Putin. The pro-Ukraine faction within his incoming administration has an opportunity to persuade him of this, provided they present a compelling argument.
Here’s what we would advocate if we were advising Trump regarding Ukraine.
President Trump, your return to the White House coincides with an increasing chorus advocating for negotiations with Moscow to end the war in Ukraine. Many argue that the battlefield situation has worsened and that the outlook for Ukraine has become more dire, suggesting that Ukrainians and their Western allies are experiencing war fatigue.
However, a willingness among some in the U.S. to abandon Ukraine does not make it a sound strategy. In fact, such a move would not only fail to terminate the conflict but also escalate issues, creating an even greater threat to the U.S. posed by Putin’s Russia.
Since your election, Putin has disregarded your purported request to refrain from escalating the war. On the contrary, he has intensified it, recently launching an intermediate-range ballistic missile believed to be a successor to one developed in violation of the INF Treaty, from which your administration rightly withdrew. He continues to bombard Ukrainian civilian sites and energy infrastructure, causing severe harm to the population. His lack of interest in a genuine negotiated settlement—one that would allow him to claim victory by retaining substantial Ukrainian territory, nullifying NATO ambitions, controlling Ukrainian leadership, and leaving a vulnerable Ukraine—should be clear.
This situation is not one you should want to own. Even the mere act of entering negotiations under these terms risks a Ukrainian collapse, undermining your first year in office.
Moreover, such an agreement would reflect weakness, which Putin would undoubtedly exploit, while Chinese leaders would perceive it as a green light for their ambitions regarding Taiwan. Iranian officials would interpret it as a sign that the U.S. is retreating from the global stage, potentially leading to increased threats against Israel. Thus, conceding Ukraine would likely result in heightened instability and potential escalation worldwide, possibly even triggering World War III.
The preferable course is to confront Putin and champion a Ukrainian victory against Russian forces. Supporting Ukraine's fight is not only morally imperative but would also enhance U.S. national security, sending a stark warning to adversaries and solidifying your presidency while reinforcing America’s global standing.
Putin initiated this conflict and holds the key to ending it. He still believes he can vanquish Ukraine, replace its leadership, and occupy vast areas that he does not recognize as an independent state. Furthermore, he thinks he can outlast Western resolve. You have the opportunity—and perhaps the responsibility—to disprove Putin’s assumptions.
No one desires a swift end to the war more than the Ukrainians, who are bearing the brunt of Putin’s brutal aggression. The numerous crimes against humanity committed by Russian forces have only intensified their resolve to achieve victory. It is paramount that we do not pressure them into accepting a poor deal with Putin.
While it’s true that Ukrainians feel frustrated and disheartened by the Biden administration's slow responses to their requests for specific weaponry, your election presents a chance to rectify this failure. You can expedite the decision-making process to deliver the essential military support Ukraine needs.
Due to Biden’s procrastination, the Ukrainians have been forced to fight with significant limitations. Yet, they have made strides in developing drone capabilities that have inflicted real damage on Russian operations. Imagine their potential for success had substantial military assistance arrived when required. Reflect on how exponentially worse off Russia might be if not for aid from adversaries like Iran, North Korea, and China. Enabling Ukraine to engage fully with U.S. support can turn the tide in their favor.
Furthermore, do not be swayed by Putin’s nuclear threats. Ukraine and its allies have already crossed numerous so-called Russian red lines, diminishing the credibility of Putin’s warnings about tactical nuclear weapons.
Despite being outnumbered and facing an influx of over 10,000 North Korean troops, Ukraine has successfully dismantled Russia’s Black Sea fleet, regained over half of the territory seized during the initial invasion, and inflicted catastrophic casualties on Russian forces.
It's true that Russian forces are gradually advancing in the Donbas region, but at tremendous cost. Intelligence estimates suggest that the months of September and October were particularly deadly for Russia amidst this full-scale conflict. The arrival of North Korean soldiers indicates not only a troubling escalation but also Putin's desperation to avoid a second mobilization that could provoke unrest in Moscow and St. Petersburg. He lacks the manpower to secure a decisive victory without risking significant societal backlash.
Putin is at a critical juncture. The economic burden of his "special military operation" is starting to weigh heavily on Russia. Reports indicate that the government has slashed compensation payments for soldiers not seriously injured. Inflation is running at approximately 9 percent per year, interest rates are at 21 percent, and labor shortages are widespread. Projections for GDP growth in 2025 are grim, suggesting a mere 0.5-1.5 percent. The financial strain means Russia cannot sustain its military efforts much longer.
Pulling back U.S. military support for Ukraine and hastily pursuing negotiations will not forge a sustainable resolution. Although Kremlin insiders may tout Putin’s willingness to negotiate, his spokesperson Dmitri Peskov has made it clear that simply “freezing the conflict” along current lines is unacceptable to the Russian leader. While Putin attempts to project an image of strength, the reality is different.
Additionally, an unfavorable settlement for Ukraine would invite threats against the U.S. from other global players. It would undermine Taiwan’s security by potentially signaling to President Xi Jinping that he might similarly test American resolve. Such a retreat would cast the U.S. as an unreliable security partner, reminiscent of the fallout from Biden’s 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.
You have the potential to surpass the actions of the outgoing administration.
Do not be misled by fears regarding Ukraine’s possible NATO membership. While it would be a complex process, rejecting this option would unmistakably convey weakness, granting Putin undue influence over NATO membership decisions and eliminating a key deterrent against future Russian aggression.
If Ukrainians choose to negotiate a cessation of hostilities, that decision should be theirs alone. Forcing them into negotiations would undermine their morale and diminish any leverage you might have in the talks.
Ultimately, backing a Ukrainian victory over Russia would free the U.S. to refocus its attention on China. It would reaffirm American leadership on the global stage and reinforce the effectiveness of “peace through strength.”
Your second term offers a unique chance to demonstrate a resurgence of U.S. strength and leadership by supporting Ukraine's triumph and ensuring that Putin’s defiance and aggression do not go unpunished.
Sophie Wagner for TROIB News