GORDON SONDLAND: Thinking of forever war won’t end the Ukraine conflict – realpolitik could do it

For three years, the Washington Foreign Policy Institution insisted that there is only one acceptable outcome in Ukraine: total victory over Russia achieved through relentless military aid, indefinite financial support, and a willingness to escalate regardless of the risks. But strategy and morality are not always the same thing – and true leadership requires confronting reality as it exists, not as we wish 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 U.S. Ambassador to the European Union during the first Trump administration, President Donald Trump tasked me with aligning Europe – really – with Ukraine.

This meant ending the EU’s usual double game: proclaiming solidarity with kyiv while enriching Moscow through energy purchases and dragging its feet on serious sanctions. I saw first-hand how Europe’s hesitation and transactional approach sent exactly the wrong message to Moscow. He told the president Vladimir Putin the West was divided, unserious and ultimately unwilling to sacrifice comfort for principles. This perception was part of his calculation.

Putin promises Ukraine victory in New Year’s speech amid Trump-backed peace talks

The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is closer to strategic exhaustion than our rhetoric admits. European defense industries remain underbuilt. US stocks are limited. And even though Russia paid a staggering price, it did not collapse, capitulate, or change course. Worse, each escalation increases the likelihood of something unthinkable: a desperate Kremlin resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. This would not constitute “just another rung” on the ladder; it would fundamentally shatter global stability.

In this context, the Trump administration’s instinct to seek a quasi-commercial solution is not a weakness. This is classic realpolitik: the recognition that the work of American leadership is to maximize U.S. security, economic leverage, and strategic flexibility while minimizing existential risk.

Business leaders know what Washington too often ignores: the perfect deal rarely exists. The question is not whether we can reach a morally pure resolution; it’s about whether we can secure measurable results that are better for American interests – and for Ukraine – than a perpetual, bloody stalemate.

A negotiated settlement, supported through enforceable conditions and leverage, could do just that.

First, a settlement can offer Ukraine a tailor-made security guarantee – credible enough to deter further aggression, but structured to avoid the entanglement of NATO Article 5. This is not a vague promise; it is a contract with clear performance conditions. The American guarantee would remain in force as long as Russia respected its commitments. But if Russia violates the deal, the rollback provisions would kick in instantly — not months later, not after diplomatic prevarication — and immediately unlock full-scale U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine, including offensive weapons, advanced air defense, training and intelligence integration.

TRUMP PUSHES PEACE IN EUROPE, PRESSURE IN THE AMERICAS – INSIDE THE TWO-FRONT BET

Just as importantly, the consequences of Russian cheating would be explicit, not theoretical:

If Moscow breaks the agreement, the United States will reserve the option of openly supporting the agreement. Ukraine by reconquering every square centimeter of the territory, up to and including the restoration of its pre-2014 borders. Moscow would know this from the start. Deterrence works best when sanctions are unmistakable.

And above all, all of this would be public. No more simulations, hedging, or stealth shipping in the background. The world – and Russia – would know that further aggression automatically and legally unleashes overwhelming Western support, confidently and unapologetically led by the United States. This clarity is dissuasive in itself.

ZELENSKYY SAYS PEACE DEAL IS NEAR AFTER Trump MEETING BUT TERRITORY REMAINS A STICKING POINT

Just as important, this structure protects U.S. sovereignty in the agreement. If Ukraine defaults on its obligations, the U.S. guarantee lapses at our sole discretion. This is not a bureaucratic process. This is not a vote in committee. It is the United States that decides. This means that Ukraine has every interest in maintaining discipline and treating this agreement not as a blank check, but as a powerful partnership based on accountability.

Second, a negotiated agreement can generate United States economic advantage. Ukraine holds minerals and rare earths critical to U.S. industry, national security, and technological supremacy. China knows it. Russia knows this. Only the old guard in Washington claims that resource control is not a strategic policy. A structured agreement guaranteeing privileged access to the United States strengthens the manufacturing sector, energy resilience and economic security.

Third, a regulation can open up the relationship between Moscow and Beijing. At present, the war has completely pushed Russia into the arms of China. This alignment is bad for the United States and for the global balance. Disciplined regulation begins to eliminate this dependence. America does not need friendship with Moscow; he needs leverage. Realpolitik is about advantage, not affection.

PUTIN REJECTS KEY ELEMENTS OF US PEACE PLAN AS KREMLIN OFFICIAL WARNS EUROPE OF NEW WAR RISK: REPORT

Fourth, an agreement can compartmentalize strategic theaters. If Russia emphasizes its regional influence, the United States can demand reciprocal space in our hemisphere – particularly in Venezuela, banning narcotics and energy-related criminal networks – thereby reducing adversarial reach in the Americas.

Critics will cry “Munich”. They always do it. But Adolf Hitler led a burgeoning ideological empire, determined to take over the world. Russia is a demographically and economically declining power seeking to position itself regionally. Brutal, yes, but not irrational. Mature powers negotiate with their rivals when negotiations produce superior results.

Others argue that any agreement rewards aggression. This assumes that deterrence is binary: victory or failure. In reality, deterrence is multiple.

UKRAINE-RUSSIA AT THE CROSSROADS: HOW THE WAR DEVELOPED IN 2025 AND WHAT’S NEXT

A settlement that leaves Russia bloodied, sanctioned, strategically constrained and in the face of automatic and overwhelming Western military escalation— potentially including U.S. support for Ukraine to restore its 2013 borders — if she cheats, that’s no reward. This is a warning carved in the stone of the treaty.

Meanwhile, humanitarian and financial realities matter. Endless war means endless Ukrainian deaths, destroyed cities, and endless exposure to American taxpayers with no defined victory conditions. This may excite think tanks that never wage war, but it is not serious governance.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS REVIEWS

More importantly, a trade-style settlement introduces accountability, currently absent from Washington’s mantra of “for as long as it takes.” Under a structured agreement, compliance is measurable. The triggers are automatic. Support cannot be improvised, it is guaranteed. The application of the law is not theoretical: it is integrated. And unlike today, America would no longer need to whisper its involvement. He would act openly, decisively and with conventional authority.

The alternative? A forever war with increasing nuclear risk, continued strategic drift and growing alignment between Russia and China. It’s not a strategy. It’s inertia dressed up as courage.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Realpolitik does not abandon values. He protects them intelligently. A disciplined and enforceable settlement – ​​with clear rollback provisions benefiting both the United States and Ukraine; explicit authority to openly arm Ukraine and potentially support full territorial restoration if Russia cheats; and a revocable guarantee at America’s sole discretion if Ukraine violates the terms – this is not a capitulation.

This is strategic control.

In geopolitics as in business, the strongest actor is not the one who insists on endless confrontation. He’s the one who knows when to fight and when to close the deal.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GORDON SONDLAND