For three years, Washington’s foreign policy establishment has insisted that there is only one acceptable outcome in Ukraine: total victory over Russia, achieved through ruthless military aid, unlimited financial support and a willingness to escalate regardless of the risks. But strategy and morality are not always the same thing – and true leadership requires that we face reality as it exists, not as we want it to be.
I write this not as an academic or expert, but as someone who has worked at the center of this conflict. As U.S. Ambassador to the European Union during the first Trump administration, President Donald Trump tasked me with bringing Europe into alignment – really into alignment – with Ukraine.
That meant ending the EU’s usual double game: declaring solidarity with Kiev while enriching Moscow through energy purchases and imposing severe sanctions. I saw firsthand how Europe’s hesitation and transactional approach sent exactly the wrong message to Moscow. It told President Vladimir Putin that the West was divided, unserious and ultimately unwilling to sacrifice comfort for principle. That perception was part of his analysis.
Putin promises victory in Ukraine in New Year’s speech amid Trump-backed peace talks
The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is closer to strategic exhaustion than our rhetoric admits. European defense industries remain substantiated. US supplies are finite. And while Russia has paid a staggering price, it has not collapsed, surrendered or changed course. Worse, each escalation increases the chance of the unthinkable: a desperate Kremlin resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. That would not be “just another step” on the escalating ladder; it would fundamentally destroy global stability.
Against that backdrop, the Trump administration’s instinct to seek a quasi-business solution is not a weakness. It is classic realpolitik – the recognition that the job of American leadership is to maximize American security, economic influence, and strategic flexibility while minimizing existential risks.
Business leaders know what Washington too often doesn’t: the perfect deal rarely exists. The question is not whether we can achieve a morally pure solution; what matters is whether we can achieve outcomes that are measurably better for American interests—and for Ukraine—than an eternal, bruising stalemate.
A negotiated settlement, backed by enforceable terms and leverage, could do just that.
First, an arrangement could provide Ukraine with a tailor-made security guarantee – credible enough to deter renewed aggression, but structured to avoid NATO Article 5 entanglement. This is not a vague promise; it is a contract with clear performance conditions. The American guarantee would apply as long as Russia complies with its obligations. But if Russia violates the agreement, the snapback provisions would come into effect immediately — not months later, not after diplomatic wrangling — immediately unlocking full U.S. and NATO support to Ukraine, including offensive weapons, advanced air defenses, training and intelligence integration.
President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shake hands at a press conference after a meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club on December 28, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
TRUMP DEMONSTRATES PEACE IN EUROPE, PRESSURE IN AMERICA – WITHIN THE GAMBLE OF TWO FRONTS
Just as important, the consequences of Russian deception are explicit and not theoretical:
If Moscow breaks the deal, the United States would reserve the option to openly support Ukraine in reclaiming every inch of territory — up to and including restoring pre-2014 borders. Moscow would know this in advance. Deterrence works best when the penalties are unmistakable.
And crucially, this would all be public. No more bogus, hedging or silent backchannel shipments. The world – and Russia – would know that renewed aggression automatically and rightfully unleashes overwhelming Western support, with the US confidently and unapologetically taking the lead. That clarity in itself is a deterrent.
ZELENSKYY SAYS PEACE DEAL IS CLOSE AFTER TRUMP MEETING, BUT TERRITORY REMAINS PLANNING
Equally important, this structure protects U.S. sovereignty in the agreement. If Ukraine breaches its obligations, the U.S. guarantee will be void at its discretion. No bureaucratic process. No committee vote. The United States decides. This means that Ukraine has every incentive to maintain discipline and view the arrangement not as a blank check, but as a strong partnership based on responsibility.
Second, a negotiated agreement could provide tangible economic benefit to the US. Ukraine possesses minerals and rare earth elements essential to American industry, national security and technological supremacy. China knows this. Russia knows this. Only Washington’s old guard pretends that controlling resources is not a strategic policy. A structured agreement that guarantees privileged access for the US strengthens manufacturing, energy resilience, and economic security.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy listens to US President Donald Trump after Trump expressed his willingness to help Ukraine “succeed” during a press conference at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, on December 28, 2025. (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)
Third, a settlement could strain the relationship between Moscow and Beijing. At this point, the war has pushed Russia completely into the arms of China. This alignment is bad for the United States and for the global balance. A disciplined arrangement starts with reducing that dependency. America doesn’t need friendship with Moscow; it needs leverage. Realpolitik is about advantage, not affection.
Putin rejects key parts of US peace plan as Kremlin official warns Europe faces new war risk: report
Fourth, a deal can compartmentalize strategic theaters. If Russia pushes for regional influence, the US can claim mutual space in our hemisphere – especially in Venezuela, narcotics interdiction and energy-linked criminal networks – reducing hostile reach in America.
Critics will shout “Munich.” They always do that. But Adolf Hitler led a rising ideological empire bent on global conquest. Russia is a demographically and economically declining power seeking regional positioning. Brutal, yes, but not irrational. Mature powers negotiate with rivals when negotiations yield superior results.
Others argue that every deal rewards aggression. That assumes that deterrence is binary: victory or failure. In reality, deterrence is layered.
UKRAINE–RUSSIA AT A CROSSPOINT: HOW THE WAR DEVELOPED IN 2025 AND WHAT COMES NEXT
An arrangement that leaves Russia bloodied, sanctioned, strategically limited and facing an automatic, overwhelming Western military escalation – possibly including US support for Ukraine to restore its 2013 borders – if the country cheats is no reward. It is a warning engraved in treaty stone.
In the meantime, humanitarian and financial realities matter. Endless war means endless dead Ukrainians, destroyed cities and endless exposure to American taxpayers with no defined victory condition. That may make think tanks that never go to war exciting, but it is not serious governance.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
Most importantly, a business-style settlement introduces accountability, which is currently missing from Washington’s “as long as it takes” mantra. In a structured deal, compliance is measurable. Triggers are automatic. Support is not improvised, but guaranteed. Enforcement is not theoretical, but built-in. And unlike today, America would no longer have to whisper about its involvement. It would act openly, decisively and with treaty authority.
The alternative? An eternal war with increasing nuclear risk, continued strategic drift and deepening coordination between Russia and China. That’s not a strategy. It is slowness dressed up as courage.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Realpolitik does not abandon values. It protects them intelligently. A disciplined, enforceable settlement – with clear snapback provisions that benefit both the US and Ukraine; explicit authority to openly arm Ukraine and possibly support full territorial recovery if Russia cheats; and a guarantee that can be withdrawn at America’s sole discretion if Ukraine violates its terms – is not a capitulation.
It is strategic control.
In geopolitics, as in business, the strongest player is not the one who insists on endless confrontations. It’s the one who knows when to fight – and when to close the deal.
CLICK HERE TO FROM GORDON SONDLAND
