Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

News

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

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less