Ukraine Is Winning — So Why Is America Ready to Force a Surrender?
The Hidden Agenda Behind Trump’s “Peace Plan”
Video for paid subscribers at the end
The United States appears on the verge of forcing Ukraine into the kind of “peace deal” that looks far more like surrender than diplomacy. As envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner arrive in Moscow to present a settlement proposal to Vladimir Putin, the reported terms should alarm anyone who cares about national sovereignty, international law, or America’s credibility. The proposal being floated would require Ukraine to give up significant territory, agree to long-term military restrictions, and surrender nearly $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets—money that should belong to the Ukrainian people, not be used as a bargaining chip in a backroom deal.
That pool of frozen assets is the largest economic leverage the democratic world has over Russia. It exists because Moscow launched an unprovoked war of conquest. Those funds were frozen on the understanding that they would be used to rebuild Ukraine, compensate victims, and deter future aggression. Instead, the current U.S. plan would reportedly redirect that money away from Ukraine and toward a U.S.-controlled reconstruction scheme—something that looks less like statesmanship and more like a business arrangement. Given the characters involved and the history of this administration, many observers fear that political insiders, including Donald Trump himself, stand to personally profit from the release of those funds. Of course.
The danger goes beyond the money. For months, the administration projected the illusion that it supported Ukraine and believed victory was possible. Trump talked about helping Kyiv “win quickly,” floated sending Tomahawk missiles, and gave Europe every impression that the United States remained committed to Ukraine’s defense. European governments, which had been mobilizing toward a more assertive posture, eased up under the belief that Washington was back in the fight.
But now it appears the entire summer may have been a stall tactic. The early meeting in Alaska between Trump and Putin, once seen as symbolic, now looks like the moment when preliminary terms were discussed. Buying time serves Russia far more than Ukraine. While the West relaxed, Russia regrouped, rearmed, and waited for the political winds in Washington to shift in its favor. Today, with Europe scrambling to catch up, Trump’s negotiators are in Moscow presenting a plan that would reward Russian aggression outright.
All of this is happening while the administration is attempting to rewrite history by portraying Russia as a natural ally because of World War II. This is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. Russia did not begin the war on the side of the Allies. The Soviet Union was Hitler’s partner, co-invaded Poland, and supplied Nazi Germany until Hitler betrayed Stalin. Only then did the Soviets switch sides—not because of shared democratic values, but because they were attacked. To present Russia as America’s historic wartime “friend” is to distort the past to justify present-day appeasement.
What gets lost in this manufactured narrative is the actual state of the war. Ukraine is still fighting. Ukraine is still winning battles. Russia has failed—repeatedly—to conquer Kyiv, overthrow the government, or break Ukrainian resolve. After nearly four years of war, Russia controls less than a fifth of Ukrainian territory, far below its original objectives. Its military losses are catastrophic, its economy is stagnant, and its geopolitical position has weakened dramatically. Ukraine’s success has been real, but its ability to sustain the fight depends overwhelmingly on financial support, air defense replenishment, and long-term reconstruction funds.
That is why the frozen Russian assets matter so much. They may be the single most important financial resource available to Kyiv’s survival and eventual recovery. If those funds are stripped away or repurposed, Ukraine will lose the war not on the battlefield but in the conference room. That would send a devastating message to every democracy facing authoritarian pressure: fight bravely and we will negotiate away your sovereignty when it becomes politically inconvenient.
A peace deal that rewards aggression is not a peace deal at all. It is an invitation for future wars. It tells dictators that conquest works as long as you wait out the electoral calendar in the West. It undermines the courage of Ukrainians who have fought, suffered, and died believing the free world stood behind them. It betrays Europe at a moment when stability on the continent is already fragile. And it hands Vladimir Putin the political win he has sought since the first Russian tank crossed the border in February 2022.
If this is the direction the United States is heading, then we should all be clear-eyed about what it means. Ukraine is not asking for American troops. Ukraine is not asking for anything other than the tools to defend itself and the resources to rebuild its country. A forced settlement that strips Ukraine of territory, military capacity, and economic sovereignty would not bring peace. It would bring occupation, instability, and a strengthened Russia poised to strike again.
Ukraine has earned better. The democratic world has promised better. And America, historically the defender of freedom, should demand better. Betraying Ukraine now would not only abandon a nation fighting for its life—it would abandon our own values, our own interests, and our own place in the world.
This moment requires clarity, courage, and honesty. What is being presented in Moscow is not peace. It is capitulation dressed up as diplomacy. And it must be rejected.
Video for paid:
