For three years, the Washington foreign policy establishment has insisted that there is only one acceptable outcome in Ukraine: total victory over Russia achieved through relentless military aid, indefinite financial support and escalation readiness regardless of the risks. But strategy and morality are not always the same thing — and real leadership demands confronting reality as it exists, not as we wish it to be.
I write this not as an academic or pundit, but as someone who 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 bringing Europe into alignment — truly into alignment — behind Ukraine.
That meant ending the EU’s habitual double-game: proclaiming solidarity with Kyiv while enriching Moscow through energy purchases and dragging its feet on serious sanctions. I saw firsthand how Europe’s hesitation and transactional approach sent Moscow exactly the wrong message. It told President Vladimir Putin the West was divided, unserious and ultimately unwilling to sacrifice comfort for principle. That perception was part of his calculus.
The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is closer to strategic exhaustion than our rhetoric admits. Europe’s defense industries remain underbuilt. American stockpiles are finite. And while Russia has paid a staggering price, it has not collapsed, surrendered or reversed course. Worse, every escalation increases the probability of something unthinkable: a desperate Kremlin resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. That would not be ‘just another step’ on the escalatory ladder; it would fundamentally shatter global stability.
Against that background, the Trump administration’s instinct to seek a quasi-business resolution is not weakness. It is classic realpolitik — recognition that the job of American leadership is to maximize U.S. security, economic leverage and strategic flexibility while minimizing existential risk.
