GORDON SONDLAND: Forever-war thinking won’t end Ukraine conflict — realpolitik might

For three years, the Washington foreign policy establishment insisted there was only one acceptable outcome in Ukraine: complete victory over Russia through relentless military aid, indefinite financial support, and a readiness to escalate regardless of the risks. But strategy and ethics are not always the same thing, and true leadership requires confronting reality as it is, not as we would like 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 the U.S. ambassador to the European Union during the first Trump administration, President Donald Trump charged me with getting Europe aligned, truly aligned, behind Ukraine.

This meant the end of the EU’s usual double game: declaring solidarity with Kiev while enriching Moscow through energy purchases and keeping up with serious sanctions. I have seen firsthand how Europe’s hesitant and conciliatory approach sends completely the wrong message to Moscow. President Vladimir Putin has been told that the West is divided, frivolous and unwilling to sacrifice convenience for principle. This perception was part of his calculation.

PUTIN SAYS VICTORY IN UKRAINE ON NEW YEAR’S RELATIONSHIP OVER TRUMP-SUPPORTED PEACE TALKS

The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is closer to strategic exhaustion than our rhetoric admits. Europe’s defense industry is underdeveloped. America’s stocks are limited. And although Russia paid a staggering price, it neither collapsed nor surrendered nor reversed course. Worse still, each escalation raises the possibility of the unthinkable: a desperate Kremlin resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. This will not be “just another step” on the climbing ladder; It will fundamentally shake global stability.

Against this background, the Trump administration’s instinct to seek a quasi-commercial solution is not weakness. This is classic realpolitik; It is a recognition that the task of American leadership is to minimize existential risk while maximizing the security, economic power, and strategic flexibility of the United States.

Business leaders know something Washington often doesn’t: The perfect deal rarely exists. The question is not whether we can reach a morally pure solution; The question is whether we can achieve measurably better outcomes for American interests and Ukraine rather than a perpetual, bleeding stalemate.

A negotiated solution, backed by enforceable conditions and influence, can do just that.

First, an agreement could provide Ukraine with a special security guarantee that is reliable enough to deter renewed aggression but structured to prevent it from engaging in NATO Article 5. This is not a vague statement; It is a contract with clear performance terms. The US guarantee will remain valid as long as Russia adheres to its commitments. But if Russia violates the agreement, its withdrawal provisions would kick in immediately (rather than months later or after diplomatic chatter), immediately unlocking the full range of U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine, including offensive weapons, advanced air defenses, training and intelligence integration.

TRUMP IS ENFORCING PEACE IN EUROPE AND REPRESSURE IN AMERICA, WITHIN GAMBLING ON TWO FRONTS.

Equally important, the consequences of Russian cheating are not theoretical but obvious:

If Moscow breaks the agreement, the United States will reserve the option to openly support Ukraine in retaking every square inch of territory, including the restoration of its pre-2014 borders. Moscow knows this will happen. Deterrence works best when penalties are clearly visible.

And most importantly, it will all be open to the public. No more pretending, hedging, or silent backchannel posts. The world and Russia will know that renewed aggression has automatically and legally unleashed overwhelming Western support, with the United States leading confidently and unapologetically. This openness is a deterrent in itself.

ZELENSKYY SAID AFTER THE TRUMP MEETING THAT A PEACE AGREEMENT WAS CLOSE, BUT THE REGION HAS BECOME A POINT OF DISPUTE

Equally important, this structure preserves US dominance in the agreement. In the event of Ukraine’s breach of its obligations, the American warranty becomes void at our sole discretion. It is not a bureaucratic process. Not a committee vote. The United States decides. This means Ukraine has every incentive to maintain discipline and treat regulation not as a blank check but as a strong partnership based on responsibility.

Second, a negotiated agreement could provide the United States with a tangible economic advantage. Ukraine has minerals and rare earths essential to American industry, national security, and technological superiority. China knows this. Russia knows this. Only Washington’s old guard argues that resource control is not a strategic policy. A structured agreement providing privileged U.S. access strengthens production, energy resilience, and economic security.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy listens to U.S. President Donald Trump after Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed a desire to help Ukraine’s “success” during a news conference at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Dec. 28, 2025. (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)

Third, a solution could open up relations between Moscow and Beijing. At this time, the war has completely pushed Russia into the arms of China. This alignment is bad for the United States and the global balance. A disciplined solution begins to eliminate this addiction. America does not need friendship with Moscow; It needs pressure. Realpolitik is about advantage, not love.

WHILE KREMLIN AUTHORITY WARNED THAT EUROPE FACES THE RISK OF NEW WAR, PUTIN REJECTED IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE US PEACE PLAN: REPORT

Fourth, an agreement can segment strategic areas. If Russia insists on regional influence, the United States can reduce enemy reach in America by claiming reciprocal space in our hemisphere (especially in Venezuela, narcotics interdiction, and energy-related criminal networks).

Critics will shout “Munich”. They always do. But Adolf Hitler led a rising ideological empire seeking global conquest. Russia is a demographically and economically declining power seeking regional positioning. Cruel, yes, but not unreasonable. Mature powers negotiate with rivals when negotiations produce superior results.

Others argue that any agreement rewards aggression. This assumes that deterrence is dual; victory or failure. In reality, deterrence is layered.

UKRAINE-RUSSIA AT A CROSSROAD: HOW THE WAR DEVELOPED IN 2025 AND WHAT WILL COME NEXT

A deal that leaves Russia bloody, sanctioned, strategically constrained, and facing automatic and crushing military tension from the West (potentially including U.S. support for Ukraine regaining its 2013 borders) is no reward if it cheats. It is a warning carved in stone.

Meanwhile, human and financial realities also matter. Endless war means endless numbers of dead Ukrainians, shattered cities, and endless US taxpayer exposure without a defined victory condition. This may excite think tanks that never fight, but this is not serious management.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

Most importantly, a business-style agreement brings accountability; That’s not currently Washington’s “as long as it takes” mantra. Compliance can be measured within the context of a structured agreement. Triggers are automatic. Support is not improvised, it is guaranteed. Enforcement is not theoretical, it is established. And unlike today, America will no longer need to whisper its intervention. He will act openly, decisively and with the authority to agree.

Alternative? A war forever, where nuclear risk increases, strategic drift continues, and alignment between Russia and China deepens. This is not strategy. It is inertia disguised as courage.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Realpolitik does not give up on values. He protects them wisely. A disciplined, feasible solution; net repatriation provisions that benefit both the United States and Ukraine; explicit authority to openly arm Ukraine and potentially support full territorial restoration should Russia cheat; and it is not a guarantee, a capitulation, that can be revoked at America’s discretion if Ukraine violates the terms.

It is strategic control.

In geopolitics, as in business, the most powerful player is not the one who insists on endless confrontation. He is the one who knows when to fight and when to agree.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM GORDON SONDLAND