Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How a ‘Bad’ Ceasefire Deal With Russia Could Jeopardize Ukraine, American Interests

Americans rally for Ukraine
People draped in an American flag and a Ukrainian flag join a march toward the United Nations.
Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration resumes sending weapons to Ukraine and continues urging a ceasefire with Russia, international actors have voiced warnings against a deal that could leave Ukraine vulnerable, jeopardize nearby countries, and threaten American interests.

President Donald Trump has vowed to end the war, but a United States-brokered deal would need to balance Ukraine's independence and European security, experts have said.


Russia has a lot to lose if a ceasefire favors Ukraine, while the U.S. faces its own global risks if Russian President Vladimir Putin comes out victorious.

Ukraine signed an agreement on June 25 to establish the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, which would prosecute political and military leaders for crimes of aggression involving armed force – in other words, launching a war.

In a webinar titled “The Trial of the Century,” some international officials called the move a “victory” in its “current shape and form.”

“Although it cannot try Vladimir Putin right now, we believe that it can damage his reputation, damage Russians, the view of Russia in the world, and their capacity to conduct business as usual with other countries,” said Inna Liniova, director of the Institute of Human Rights of the Ukrainian Bar Association.

The world is waiting for a peace deal, but will peace ever come?

A ‘bad’ deal

“Should a bad peace in Ukraine prevail, Russia’s endeavors in the South Caucasus will succeed, and this will produce irreversible harm to American strategic interests,” said Nerses Kopalyan, assistant professor-in-residence of political science at the University of Nevada.

The professor, along with a journalist and a policy researcher, raised concerns to the House about the “cost of a bad deal in Ukraine” in a hearing before the U.S. Helsinki Commission in late June.

What would a bad deal between Russia and Ukraine look like? Experts said any deal that favors Russia jeopardizes democracy in other countries.

Three smaller European countries – Moldova, Belarus, and Armenia – would be impacted most immediately should Russia win the three-year-long war, witnesses at the hearing said. This would threaten regional security, with broader implications for U.S. relations.

Moldova, which shares a border with Ukraine, joined the European Union in 2022 as a democratic government. A deal that favors Russia could threaten the new democracy and lead to instability and corruption in the Black Sea.

“Its government is a trusted partner for U.S. and European efforts to stem the flow of illicit trade and human trafficking,” said Michael Cecire, a policy researcher with the RAND Corporation.

He pointed out that Chinese aggression would accompany Russia’s in the region.

“Ukraine is the front line, but the entire region is under threat,” Cecire said. “Our grandparents knew well that the security of the United States was inseparable from that of Europe.”

Belarus, which shares a border with both Russia and Ukraine, could host Russian weapons and troops, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said.

Belarusian journalist Hanna Liubakova testified that her country had “been transformed into a Russian military outpost” since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. A “bad deal” would threaten Belarus’ independence.

“Russia is turning Belarus into a strategic launchpad for future escalation against NATO. Putin's ambitions stretch far beyond Ukraine,” Liubakova said. “A free Belarus means a safer Europe and a safer Ukraine. U.S. leverage is essential.”

Armenia, which does not border Ukraine or Russia, is a strategic partner to the U.S., Kopalyan said. The country possesses mines and rare earth minerals, and it also collaborates with the U.S. in the field of artificial intelligence.

“This matters to American families,” Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., said at the hearing.

He added that a victory for Putin would not stay confined to Eastern Europe. “It will embolden America's enemies everywhere,” Wilson said. “But a Ukrainian victory will reinforce the message that aggression does not pay, and America stands for its values and interests alike.”

A ‘good’ deal

What would a good deal between Russia and Ukraine look like?

University of Nevada professor Kopalyan said at the hearing that Russian peace is “basically a form of frozen conflict that allows Russia to manage the conflict.” A good deal would have some form of equity without coercion.

Is that possible? The U.S.-Ukraine Foundation isn’t sure.

“I don't think any ceasefire is particularly good because I don't think Russia will abide by any ceasefire for any period of time. Putin has made clear what his objectives are,” Bob McConnell, co-founder of the foundation, a nonprofit that supports Ukraine’s partnership with the U.S., told The Fulcrum.

Russia wants Ukraine’s territory, while Ukraine wants Russia out. No deal can accomplish this. McConnell said, “I don't think any ceasefire, indeed, I don’t think any peace agreement should ever be considered by Ukraine or the West if Ukraine is not given back.”

Vladyslav Havrylov, a fellow with Georgetown University’s Collaborative on Global Children’s Issues, lives in Kyiv as he studies the forcible transfer, deportation, and reeducation of Ukrainian children. He told The Fulcrum he hopes a ceasefire deal will favor children and prisoners of war.

He also said he hopes “that the USA society could help to stop this.”

Trump announced Wednesday that the U.S. would resume sending some weapons to Ukraine after the Pentagon paused some shipments the week before.

“I think it’s a good decision, and we are grateful to the Trump administration for making a positive decision to transfer weapons to Ukraine, especially those intended for defense.”

Ashley N. Soriano is a graduate student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism in the Politics, Policy and Foreign Affairs specialization.

Read More

Food market, fresh produce

As federal nutrition aid is stalled by red tape and grocery deserts persist, local civic-minded organizations are responding with inventive, community-centered approaches.

Getty Images, Kvach Hanna

Prescribing Produce, Powering Markets: How D.C. Is Rethinking Food Access As Health Policy

In Washington, D.C., where neighborhood lines often map onto life expectancies, food insecurity has become a pressing public health issue. Wards 7 and 8, with only three full-service grocery stores, sharply contrast with affluent Ward 3’s 15 outlets. That access disparity correlates with a staggering 15-year life expectancy gap between some ZIP codes east of the Anacostia River and wealthier areas to the northwest. This inequality reflects what public health experts refer to as the social determinants of health – non-medical factors, such as access to nutritious food, that influence physical well-being.

A recent survey by the Capital Area Food Bank found that food insecurity impacts 37% of D.C. Metro Area households, disproportionately affecting Black residents in D.C., where four in 10 residents have struggled to access adequate food. “Where you live in the city profoundly determines your food insecurity and, in turn, your health outcomes,” said Luisa Furstenberg-Beckman, manager for the Produce Rx program at the nonprofit DC Greens.

Keep ReadingShow less
IssueVoter Bill of the Month (July 2025): The Global Stakes of America’s $9 Billion Budget Cut

As Congress considers slashing nearly a decade's worth of international assistance, the ripple effects could extend far beyond Washington's balance sheets

Bill Track 50

IssueVoter Bill of the Month (July 2025): The Global Stakes of America’s $9 Billion Budget Cut

The Rescissions Act of 2025 was finally passed on July 18 and its implications will reverberate across continents. This $9 billion budget cut represents far more than fiscal housekeeping—it signals a fundamental retreat from America's role as the world's primary humanitarian superpower.

The bill represents a significant fiscal policy initiative that seeks to permanently cancel previously allocated but unspent federal budget authority - known as 'rescissions'. Introduced in the House on June 6, 2025, by Representative Steve Scalise and five Republican co-sponsors, this legislation implements budget rescissions proposed by President Trump on June 3, 2025, under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The cuts essentially codify actions taken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) over recent months - which has been criticized for appropriating congressional authority over budgetary matters by halting spending previously approved by Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Image of a U.S. map noting the locations of 1000 NPR Member Station signals broadcasting across the United States

There are over 1000 NPR Member Station signals broadcasting across the United States

There’s nothing “meh” about dismantling public media

This morning we woke to our local NPR affiliate, WAMU, reporting a story about how the public media network it belongs to is on the brink of losing funding, per a party-line vote in the U.S. Senate last night.

The public media portion of the claw-back is 1.1 billion – the amount Congress previously approved to fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes funds to NPR, PBS and over 1500 local radio and TV stations that serve communities around the U.S. The deadline for the House to seal the deal is tomorrow – July 18.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people holding hands, comforting each other.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline fields up to 3,000 calls and messages a day from all over the country.

Getty Images, Tempura

Trump Funding Cuts Endanger Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Survivors

The Trump administration’s funding cuts and new rules for grants are threatening critical programs from food and housing to medical research, parks, and much more. Among them are programs proven to prevent and reduce violence as well as initiatives that assist survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other acts of violence.

Although the administration claims to care about violence—citing concerns about “rapists,” for example, in justifying policies that target immigrants and transgender individuals—its actions in fact increase the risk of violence and jeopardize survivors’ safety and ability to move forward. The administration’s harsh approach aligns with Project 2025’s failure to support critical social services, which can be a lifeline for victims of sexual violence or domestic abuse.

Keep ReadingShow less