Big News Alert

President Donald Trump recently hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for talks at his Mar-a-Lago resort. This high-profile meeting occurred immediately after Trump reportedly spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin for over an hour. Trump declared that he believes both Ukrainian and Russian leaders truly desire peace.

However, this assertion flies in the face of brutal reality. Just days before and even during these supposed peace talks, Russia intensified its attacks on Ukraine. Kyiv, the capital, was hit by ballistic missiles and drones, killing at least one person and wounding dozens. The eastern city of Sloviansk also suffered strikes from guided aerial bombs, resulting in injuries and one fatality.

Amidst this ongoing aggression, Zelenskyy, under undeniable pressure, indicated an openness to discussing territorial concessions and possibly dropping Ukraine's bid to join NATO in exchange for unspecified "NATO-like protection." This shift from Ukraine's long-held red lines raises serious alarms about the nature of these negotiations.

What Could Go Wrong

The stakes here couldn't be higher. A "peace plan" that forces Ukraine to cede sovereign territory to Russia would be a catastrophic betrayal of international law and a dangerous precedent. It effectively rewards an aggressor for their illegal invasion, sending a chilling message globally that might makes right and aggression pays off.

Consider Putin's explicit demands: recognition of illegally annexed territories (including Crimea and the four regions currently occupied), Ukraine's withdrawal from some eastern areas, abandonment of NATO aspirations, and limitations on its army. If a U.S.-brokered deal legitimizes these demands, it fundamentally undermines the principles of freedom, justice, and national sovereignty that America claims to uphold.

Furthermore, what exactly are these vague "NATO-like security guarantees" being offered to Ukraine? Are they truly robust and enforceable, designed to protect Ukraine from future Russian attacks, or are they merely a diplomatic sugarcoating for what amounts to a forced capitulation? History teaches us that such ambiguous promises often fall short when tested.

Ultimately, this approach could empower autocrats worldwide by demonstrating that military force can yield territorial gains and dismantle democratic aspirations. The "little guy" in Ukraine, fighting for their homeland, stands to lose the most, while a major aggressor achieves its objectives. This is not peace; it is appeasement.

Who Must Answer

President Trump must be held accountable for his approach to this conflict. Is he genuinely pursuing a just and lasting peace, or is he primarily focused on securing a quick deal—any deal—to claim a foreign policy win? His assertion that both sides "want peace" while Russia bombs civilian targets seems to willfully ignore the stark power imbalance and moral imperative.

We, the American people, demand transparency regarding the details of this "90% ready" peace proposal and the specific security guarantees offered. Are Trump's chief negotiators, including figures like Jared Kushner, prioritizing sound diplomacy and American values, or are they operating under different motives? We must question any deal that appears to sacrifice Ukrainian sovereignty for the sake of a headline.

The integrity of American foreign policy and our commitment to global stability are on the line. Allowing Russia to consolidate its illegal gains would demonstrate a critical failure of moral leadership and invite further aggression across the globe. Our leaders must answer for how this aligns with the foundational principles of American democracy and justice.

Your Call

As Russia continues to launch deadly attacks, President Trump asserts that both sides are ready for peace—a "peace" that may demand Ukraine surrender its own land. This isn't just about Ukraine; it's about the kind of world we are willing to accept, where aggression is rewarded and sovereignty can be negotiated away under pressure.

Are you okay with this political decision or action?