Monday marked the third anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Although President Trump, NATO and the European Union continue spinning their wheels trying to agree on an end state to the war, Russia continues attacking Ukrainian civilian population centers and energy infrastructure, and conducting relentless “meat assaults” on the front lines.
Team Trump is becoming lost in a fog of its own making. Trump cannot bring himself to see Putin as a dictator, and his administration is astonishingly blaming Ukraine and NATO for causing Russia to invade.
It is only getting worse. During an interview on Fox New Sunday with Shannon Bream, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth refused to blame Putin. Instead, he deflected, saying, “Fair to say it’s a very complicated situation.”
Yesterday, the U.S. voted against a U.N. General Assembly resolution declaring Russia the aggressor in Ukraine and calling for the immediate complete withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukraine. The resolution passed anyway, leaving the White House astonishingly standing on the Moscow’s side.
Americans are not buying it. In a Quinnipiac University Poll conducted last week, 81 percent “of American voters thought the U.S. should not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Trump would be wise to see this as a wakeup call.
His attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are backfiring. His one-sided transactional approach to ending the war is leading to a strategic dead end, if not defeat at the hands of Russia and China.
Consider Trump’s demand that Ukraine sign a mineral resources deal worth more than $500 billion to “reimburse” the U.S. for its support over the last three years. Zelensky rejected that deal, stating “I cannot, I cannot sell our state.”
The deal, which U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described as featuring “strategic minerals, energy and state-owned enterprises,” would provide Ukraine with only “implicity” security guarantees. According to a U.S. official familiar with negotiations, “The draft deal provides America with financial guarantees and therefore security guarantees for Ukraine.” Adding, “Once resources start flowing, America will have even more incentive to protect Ukraine.”
But according to the State Department, the U.S. has “provided $65.9 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its … invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.” Furthermore, the U.S. has used the “emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $27.688 billion from DoD stockpiles.”
That comes to just over $162.5 billion. Trump’s return on investment would be more than $337 billion. Winning, yes — but at what cost? That does not seem fair, considering the destruction Russia has inflicted upon Ukraine and the number of Ukrainian civilians killed.
Team Trump is also demanding presidential elections, to “legitimize” the Ukrainian government — an often-repeated Kremlin talking point that the White House seems to validate with this demand. Shortly after Zelensky rejected his minerals deal, Trump branded Zelensky a “dictator” for not holding elections, even though Ukrainian law bars elections during wartime.
Zelensky is demanding Russia withdraw its forces from Ukraine — sovereignty and independence — and a security guarantee in the form of membership into the NATO alliance.
Since Team Trump is set more on a deal benefiting the U.S. than on a fair and equitable solution that concludes the war, Zelensky should make this a quid pro quo arrangement — also known as a conditions-based contract, especially since NATO and the EU are hopelessly stuck in bureaucratic inroads.
This would put skin in the game for Team Trump.
So, let’s make a deal.
In exchange for a minerals contract with the U.S. to reimburse its investment in Ukraine’s war against Russian aggression, the U.S. sets conditions for the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all of Ukraine, including Crimea. Those conditions, diplomatic or kinetic, depend on the Kremlin.
Call it what it is: diplomatic shock and awe, but it is long overdue. As Vice President JD Vance has stated, “there’s a new sheriff in town.” Only now the phrase is properly directed at the adversary — Moscow.
During the next round of peace talks in Riyadh today with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov, Russia needs to understand that terms are being dictated to them and are not up for negotiation. Pattonesque? Yes. U.S. “Unconditional Surrender” Grant in nature? Absolutely.
That is the only message Putin truly understands and respects — strength. Or in Trumpian terms, “maximum pressure.”
Once that task is completed, Ukraine would sign a contract for the value of assistance rendered. Furthermore, in exchange for NATO membership, Zelensky would declare an end to Martial Law and hold presidential elections. To ensure the peace, NATO will deploy forces along Ukraine’s borders with Russia and Belarus.
What Russia wants is irrelevant. Its military — along with its dead — will be afforded safe passage back to Russia. Ukraine will withdraw entirely from the Kursk Oblast. Russia will continue to have access to the Black Sea via the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. Frozen Russian assets will be used to rebuild Ukraine.
Moscow will likely reject such terms, forcing a kinetic solution to bring them back to the negotiating table. That solution requires a plan that addresses the three conditions we described in the Kyiv Post on Saturday.
First, Ukraine needs the power of interdiction, to stop the flow of Russian forces, ammunition, weapons, and supplies into Ukraine. If the Russian military cannot sustain its forces in Ukraine, they wither on the vine and become vulnerable. That requires precision deep strike weapons to target troop and equipment assembly areas, ammunition depots, and fuel depots in Russia — airports, seaports, railheads, etc.
Second, prevent Russian attacks on civilian population centers and critical energy infrastructure. From a defensive perspective, boldly implement and enforce a no fly-zone that yields similar results to what we witnessed during Iran’s attacks on Israel.
Concurrently, provide Kyiv with the necessary air defense systems to defend civilian population centers and critical energy infrastructure. More importantly, enable Ukraine to target Russian missile-drone-aircraft weapon systems, their launch sites, crews, radars, ammunition storage facilities and command and control centers in Russia.
And third, remove obstacles to deep strikes. Let Ukraine attack Russia’s ability to wage and finance the war. Ukraine has been very effective in targeting oil refineries, natural gas liquification plants, weapons and ammunition production facilities, and government facilities. Together with sanctions, this is crippling the Russian economy.
The pathway to peace in Ukraine, and eastern Europe, runs through Russia’s defeat in Ukraine — not through the placation of Putin.
Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer. Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy.
