Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority
the capitol building in washington d c is seen from across the water

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority

The unprecedented power grab by President Trump, in many cases, usurping the clear and Constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, appears to leave our legislative branch helpless against executive branch encroachment. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has ample authority to reassert its role in our democracy, and there is a precedent.

During the particularly notable episode of executive branch corruption during the Nixon years, Congress responded with a robust series of reforms. Campaign finance laws were dramatically overhauled and strengthened. Nixon’s overreach on congressionally authorized spending was corrected with the passage of the Impoundment Act. And egregious excesses by the military and intelligence community were blunted by the War Powers Act and the bipartisan investigation by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho).

Keep ReadingShow less
In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Person speaking in front of an American flag

Jason_V/Getty Images

In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Nearly 14 years ago, after nearly 12 years of public service, my boss, Rep. Todd Platts, surprised many by announcing he was not running for reelection. He never term-limited himself, per se. Yet he had long supported legislation for 12-year term limits. Stepping aside at that point made sense—a Cincinnatus move, with Todd going back to the Pennsylvania Bar as a hometown judge.

Term limits are always a timely issue. Term limits may have died down as an issue in the halls of Congress, but I still hear it from people in my home area.

Keep ReadingShow less
“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Approaching a year of the new Trump administration, Americans are getting used to domestic militarized logic. A popular sense of powerlessness permeates our communities. We bear witness to the attacks against innocent civilians by ICE, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we naturally wonder—is this the new American discourse? Violent action? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offers hope that there may be another way.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist, was elected as mayor of New York City on the fourth of November. Mamdani’s platform includes a reimagining of the police force in New York City. Mamdani proposes a Department of Community Safety. In a CBS interview, Mamdani said, “Our vision for a Department of Community Safety, the DCS, is that we would have teams of dedicated mental health outreach workers that we deploy…to respond to those incidents and get those New Yorkers out of the subway system and to the services that they actually need.” Doing so frees up NYPD officers to respond to actual threats and crime, without a responsibility to the mental health of civilians.

Keep ReadingShow less