President Trump’s recent diplomatic outreach to both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky has ignited fierce debate. On one hand, peace is always preferable to war, and bringing the Russia-Ukraine conflict to an end is a worthy goal. On the other hand, peace must not come at the cost of rewarding Putin for his unprovoked aggression.

At the same time, Trump’s Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, made what can only be described as a disastrous public statement, signaling that Ukraine must give up on reclaiming its stolen land and that NATO membership is essentially off the table. This kind of preemptive surrender in negotiations only emboldens Putin and weakens Ukraine’s position. Worse, it undermines U.S. credibility on the world stage, sending the message that military force and territorial conquest are ultimately rewarded rather than punished.

As an independent Christian conservative, I believe in moral clarity, national strength, and standing with those who fight for freedom. A strong and just foreign policy does not mean blindly throwing endless money at foreign wars, but it also does not mean capitulating to aggressors or negotiating from a position of weakness. Here’s why Trump must take a much harder line on Russia while ensuring that any deal serves America’s long-term interests.

Putin Must Not Be Rewarded for His Aggression

Let’s make one thing clear: Russia is the aggressor. This war did not begin in 2022. It started in 2014 when Putin illegally annexed Crimea and began his campaign to destabilize Ukraine’s eastern regions. Putin’s actions violate international law, and rewarding him by letting him keep stolen land would not bring lasting peace—it would simply encourage further aggression.

This is the same mistake Western leaders made in the 1930s when they appeased Hitler. Britain and France gave Germany the Sudetenland under the misguided belief that it would “satisfy” Hitler’s territorial ambitions and prevent war. Instead, Hitler saw it as a green light for further conquest, leading to World War II.

The lesson is simple: Appeasement never works. Strength does.

Allowing Russia to keep the land it has stolen would be a monumental mistake. If Putin gets away with this, why wouldn’t he try again in a few years? And why wouldn’t China apply the same logic to Taiwan? The only acceptable peace agreement is one in which Russia fully withdraws and Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty is restored.

Sanctions Must Stay: Russia Should Remain an International Pariah

Economic sanctions have done significant damage to Russia’s economy, making it harder for Putin to finance his war machine. While Russia has found workarounds through China, India, and black-market deals, the overall impact of sanctions has been clear:

• Russia’s economy has contracted due to Western trade restrictions.
• Russia has lost access to key Western technology, forcing it to rely on outdated Soviet-era equipment.
• Putin has been forced to lean on hostile actors like China and Iran, weakening Russia’s geopolitical position.

If the U.S. and its allies were to lift sanctions without securing real concessions from Moscow, it would be a massive win for Putin. It would also send a dangerous signal to dictators around the world that aggression pays off.

Sanctions must remain in place until Russia fully withdraws from Ukraine and commits to respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty.

No Concessions Should Be Made to Russia

Trump’s administration has positioned itself as being tough on adversaries, but conceding Ukrainian land to Putin would be the exact opposite of strength. If anything, it would be a humiliating defeat for the U.S. and its allies.

Hegseth’s remarks in Brussels were particularly concerning. Saying that Ukraine must accept that it will never return to pre-2014 borders is the worst possible negotiation strategy. Why would you publicly concede something before negotiations even begin?

Diplomacy 101: Never give away your leverage before you sit at the table.

By prematurely taking Ukraine’s territorial integrity off the table, Hegseth effectively weakened Kyiv’s position and handed Moscow a major victory—before negotiations even started. This is not “realism.” It’s defeatism.

Any peace agreement should be based on deterrence, not capitulation. The goal should be ensuring that Russia never attempts such aggression again, not rewarding it for the damage it has already done.

Ukraine Should Be Rewarded for Defending Itself

Ukraine has stood against the full force of Russia’s military, and it has done so far better than most expected. Ukraine’s resilience is not just admirable—it’s historic. Despite being outgunned and outnumbered, Ukraine has successfully repelled Russian advances, proving that Putin’s military is not invincible.

This should matter to the United States. Why? Because Ukraine’s fight has significantly weakened Russia’s military power without a single American soldier being sent into combat.

If Ukraine had fallen in the first few weeks of the war, Russia would now be sitting on NATO’s doorstep, threatening Poland, the Baltics, and beyond. Instead, thanks to Ukraine’s resistance, Russia’s military has suffered massive losses, preventing further aggression in Eastern Europe.

The U.S. should reward Ukraine’s bravery by continuing to support its defense, both militarily and economically. Zelensky’s recent proposal for the U.S. to invest in Ukrainian rare earth minerals is a perfect example of a win-win opportunity.

America Should Take the Ukraine Rare Earths Deal

Ukraine is rich in rare earth minerals, which are essential for everything from smartphones to fighter jets. Right now, China dominates this market, giving it immense leverage over global supply chains.

Partnering with Ukraine on rare earth minerals would:

✅ Reduce U.S. dependence on China
✅ Increase America’s stake in Ukraine’s security
✅ Provide a strategic counterbalance to Russian and Chinese influence

This is the kind of smart foreign policy decision that aligns with America’s interests. If Trump wants to show his negotiating prowess, this is the deal he should be making.

A Hard Line on Russia—And Smart Diplomacy

Taking a hard line on Russia doesn’t mean rushing into another war or blindly throwing money at Ukraine. It means:

✅ Keeping economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia
✅ Strengthening Ukraine’s military to deter future aggression
✅ Leveraging America’s economic power through strategic investments
✅ Making it clear that Putin’s land grabs will not be legitimized

Strength wins. Weakness invites more war.

Conclusion: Strength and Justice Must Prevail

Trump has an opportunity here—to be the tough, deal-making leader he claims to be. But making bad deals isn’t strength, and rewarding Russia’s aggression isn’t leadership.

Ukraine is fighting the same fight America would fight if an invader tried to seize our land. Would we accept territorial losses? Would we negotiate away part of Texas, Florida, or Ohio if an enemy occupied it? Of course not. So why should we expect Ukraine to do the same?

Justice demands that we do not reward evil. A just peace is built on strength and principle, not fear and capitulation. Anything less will only ensure that this war happens again—on even worse terms.