Trump and Zelensky Meet on Ukraine Peace Deal

The Issue

On December 28, 2025, President Trump hosted Ukrainian President Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago for over three hours of talks on ending the nearly four-year Russia-Ukraine war. Trump declared the sides "closer than ever" to a deal after what he called an "excellent" phone conversation with Putin. Zelensky indicated a 20-point framework is roughly 90-95% complete, though Trump offered more cautious estimates.

The proposed framework includes several controversial elements. Ukraine would maintain 800,000 troops with U.S., NATO, and European security guarantees similar to Article 5 collective defense. The most contentious issue involves Russian demands for control of Ukraine's Donbas region, including territories Russia doesn't currently occupy. The proposal reportedly includes provisions for a Ukrainian referendum on ceding territory and establishing a demilitarized "free economic zone" in Donetsk.

This represents a dramatic shift from Biden administration policy, which emphasized unwavering military support until complete Russian withdrawal. After the talks, Trump and Zelensky held a joint call with European Commission President von der Leyen and leaders from Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, and Poland, along with NATO Secretary General Rutte. The emerging peace proposal has sparked intense disagreement about acceptable terms for ending the war that's killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and triggered the largest European conflict since World War II.

Prioritize Quick Peace Settlement

End the bloodshed with a swift settlement

Those prioritizing quick peace argue that every additional month means more deaths with diminishing prospects for Ukrainian military victory. The primary goal should be stopping the killing as soon as possible, even if that requires painful territorial compromises. A flawed peace that ends the killing beats a perfect peace that never comes.

The case for swift peace settlement:

• The reality of stalemate: Neither side can achieve total victory through military means. Russia cannot conquer all of Ukraine, but Ukraine cannot expel Russia entirely without weapons and support Western allies are increasingly reluctant to provide indefinitely. Continuing a stalemated war wastes resources and lives.
• War fatigue and sustainability: Western support shows strain. American and European publics question costs of unlimited aid. Better to secure reasonable terms now while Trump is engaged than fight on until support collapses.
• Reconstruction and recovery: Every month of fighting delays rebuilding cities, refugees returning home, and economic recovery. Peace—even imperfect—allows Ukraine to begin desperately needed reconstruction.

Vice President Vance noted that Russia "really wants territorial control of the Donbas" while Ukrainians resist but "privately acknowledge that they will probably lose Donbas eventually." If territorial concessions are ultimately unavoidable, delaying them only adds to the death toll.

Security guarantees for Ukraine combined with substantial military capacity can deter future Russian aggression better than grinding warfare with uncertain outcomes. Trump's engagement offers a unique opportunity that may not last.

Defend Ukrainian Sovereignty

No rewards for aggression—defend self-determination

Those prioritizing Ukrainian sovereignty view the proposal as dangerous capitulation that rewards Russian aggression. Leading House Democrats condemned it as "both a policy nightmare and morally bankrupt," warning it gives "aid and comfort to Russia" while pressuring Ukraine to surrender sovereign territory. Forcing territorial concessions sets a catastrophic precedent.

The case for defending Ukrainian sovereignty:

• Territorial integrity and international law: Ukraine's borders were internationally recognized and guaranteed by treaties, including the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Allowing Russia to seize territory violates these agreements and undermines the entire framework of international law.
• The dangerous precedent: Rewarding aggression invites more aggression. If Russia gains territory through invasion, what stops it from targeting Moldova, Georgia, or the Baltics next? What stops China from believing it can take Taiwan by force?
• Security guarantees without substance: Promises of "NATO-like" guarantees ring hollow without actual NATO membership. If the West won't defend Ukraine now when it's actively fighting, why would Ukraine trust the West will defend it later when Russia rebuilds and attacks again?

Polling shows that hearing specifics about the peace plan—including land concessions—sours public opinion on Trump's approach. This suggests many Americans instinctively resist rewarding Russian aggression. Abandoning Ukraine undermines American credibility everywhere, making future conflicts more likely as adversaries doubt American resolve.

This perspective acknowledges war's terrible costs but argues that premature peace on Putin's terms merely delays and worsens future conflict. A weakened, territorially diminished Ukraine facing an unsatisfied Russia means continued instability and eventual renewed warfare.

Minimize U.S. Entanglement

Put America first—avoid foreign commitments

Those prioritizing minimizing American entanglement question why the United States is investing diplomatic capital, resources, and credibility in Ukraine at all. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene voiced this when Trump scheduled meetings: "Zelensky today. Netanyahu tomorrow. Can we just do America?" This reflects deep skepticism about U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts regardless of proposed terms.

The case for minimizing American entanglement:

• Avoiding new alliance commitments: Security guarantees for Ukraine mean Americans potentially fighting and dying if Russia attacks again. Why add another obligation that could drag America into direct conflict with a nuclear power?
• The costs of endless involvement: Even if peace ends active fighting, Ukraine will require massive reconstruction aid and ongoing security assistance. Taxpayer money should address American needs, not foreign nations' problems.
• America First means American priorities: The president's job is to serve American citizens, not global stability or foreign nations' interests. Energy spent negotiating Ukraine peace is energy not spent on border security, reducing inflation, or addressing crime.

When Heritage Foundation staff defected to Mike Pence's new think tank, Pence criticized Heritage for embracing "isolationism" and shifting support "from President Zelensky to President Putin." But those prioritizing minimizing entanglement counter that "leadership" has become code for endless intervention serving elite interests.

This view doesn't necessarily oppose peace in Ukraine; it opposes American responsibility for achieving or maintaining it. If Europeans want Ukraine secure, let Europeans provide security guarantees and pay costs. Every dollar spent on Ukraine is a dollar not spent making life better for Americans.

Ensure European Security

Continental stability depends on Ukraine's viability

European leaders view negotiations through the lens of continental security, seeing Ukraine's fate as directly tied to European safety. The European Council emphasized that "ensuring Ukraine's security, sovereignty, and prosperity" is "integral for wider Euro-Atlantic security." Russia's invasion shattered assumptions that European borders were permanently settled.

European priority of continental security:

• Security guarantee credibility: Europeans desperately want to believe promises of robust security guarantees, but they remember Trump's previous threats to withdraw from NATO. If the U.S. won't reliably defend treaty allies, will it defend Ukraine under a weaker framework?
• Territorial concessions and future demands: Nations that suffered Soviet occupation—Poland, the Baltics, Romania—view forced concessions with alarm. They remember that appeasing territorial aggression doesn't bring lasting peace; it emboldens authoritarian regimes to demand more.
• European agency in settlement terms: The initial framework negotiated between the U.S. and Russia with minimal European input raised fears of U.S.-Russia grand bargains that sacrifice European interests. Europeans insist on co-equal say because European security hangs in the balance.

European leaders face a delicate balancing act. They need Trump's engagement and American security commitments, so alienating him risks losing U.S. support entirely. But they cannot accept a peace that fundamentally undermines European security by rewarding Russian aggression and leaving Ukraine weak.

For Europeans, Ukraine's viability as a secure, sovereign state isn't charity; it's a vital national interest affecting continental stability. A peace that leaves Ukraine too weak to survive or Russia too emboldened threatens European security just as surely as continued war.

Looking Forward

The negotiations reveal fundamental disagreements about priorities and acceptable tradeoffs. Those favoring swift peace emphasize saving lives, even at the cost of territorial concessions. Those defending Ukrainian sovereignty insist on upholding international law and deterring aggression. Those prioritizing minimal U.S. entanglement question why America bears responsibility for European problems. European leaders view Ukraine's fate as inseparable from continental stability. These aren't merely tactical disagreements but reflect genuinely different values about what matters most.

What seems clear is that unlimited support until total Russian withdrawal has ended. The emerging framework will involve territorial compromises, security arrangements short of NATO membership, and greater European responsibility for continental defense. Whether this produces lasting peace or merely postpones renewed conflict depends on Russia's ambitions, European resolve, American willingness to maintain commitments, and Ukraine's ability to survive as a viable state. The debate ultimately reflects deeper uncertainty about America's global role and the costs we're willing to bear for the international order we helped create.

Recent Articles