After three years of war in Ukraine, the Trump administration’s push for negotiated peace signals a much-needed strategic change. America has no vital interest in an endless war that saps our resources, and Ukraine’s best path to stability isn’t NATO, but neutrality.
For two and a half years, the Biden administration sent arms and money to Ukraine without clear objectives or a well defined strategy. This approach drained U.S. stockpiles, drove up our defense costs, and pushed Russia closer to China. So far it has failed to deliver a Ukrainian victory, despite over $183 Billion in U.S. assistance. The European Union has committed an additional $198 Billion, much of it over several years, showcasing the high cost of the stalemate. The alternative isn’t to surrender; it’s to exercise American restraint and drive a negotiated settlement based on a realist approach.
Ukraine’s long-term security can’t and won’t come from Western promises that aren’t credible, are unlikely to materialize, and would create a dependent state. NATO membership is not imminent. NATO membership has never been a realistic option for Ukraine. It is highly unlikely that any U.S. president will send troops to fight Russia directly to secure Ukraine, yet American servicemembers deployed to Europe have been at a heightened risk since 2022. Russia is still a nuclear power, and American diplomacy has long been focused on preventing just such a catastrophic conflict.
America should encourage Ukraine to choose its most rational option: armed neutrality. A neutral well-defended, sovereign Ukraine would trade unrealistic expectations for true security.
Armed neutrality means Ukraine would build a deterrent strong enough to resist aggression. Achieving armed neutrality for Ukraine will require serious negotiations. Both sides will have to adjust goals and expectations. But armed neutrality presents the most likely option that both Russia and Ukraine could tolerate. It would mean Ukraine is no longer a tool for proxy war but a nation in control of its own destiny. It would allow the U.S. to step back from a costly, unwinnable standoff and refocus on priorities that matter: countering China, securing energy stability, and restoring military readiness.
This approach isn’t just in America’s best interest—it’s in Ukraine’s interest to save lives and build a better future for all parties. A peace built on neutrality unlocks reconstruction aid, foreign investment, and a restoration of trade, rather than indefinite war and economic collapse. It allows Moscow to accept a stable, independent Ukraine instead of an embattled, broken state on its border. And it removes the biggest obstacle to U.S.-Russia relations, likely lowering global tensions and expanding U.S. diplomatic leverage overall.
Washington’s foreign policy elite, with its established preference for military solutions, won’t embrace this shift easily. They are often blind to the costs of long wars, and Ukraine is already becoming a financial quagmire. But President Trump’s willingness to rethink foreign policy dogma offers a real opportunity. A peace deal based on Ukrainian neutrality isn’t failure—it’s a path to stability, one that serves Ukraine, the U.S., and the world far better than the current dead-end status quo.