Vladimir Putin’s recent barbs at NATO show the Kremlin is trying to seize the narrative while Europe splashes out cash to keep Kyiv afloat. Moscow’s leaders have publicly mocked Western warnings and hinted at a muscular response to what they call “European militarization,” a posture meant to intimidate and to test how far the West will go before it blinks. The chest-thumping may rile liberal capitals, but it should also remind sober Americans that posturing never substitutes for a clear, strategic U.S. policy.
Meanwhile, the European Union quietly agreed to a staggering €90 billion loan package — roughly $105 billion — for Ukraine over the next two years, a bailout wrapped in bureaucratic language and built on borrowed money and future taxpayer commitments. Europe punted on using frozen Russian assets after legal and political skirmishes, opting instead to underwrite Kyiv with joint borrowing that leaves voters on the hook and sends a signal that Brussels prefers creative accounting to confronting the root of the problem. This $105 billion headline sounds generous until you realize it shifts risk onto ordinary Europeans and weakens the moral clarity of demanding real Russian accountability.
At the same time, Moscow’s response to the latest round of peace proposals is instructive: Kremlin aides said changes pushed by Europe and Ukraine haven’t made the draft any more acceptable, undercutting optimistic headlines about breakthroughs. U.S. intelligence also warns that President Putin’s territorial ambitions remain intact, a sober reminder that negotiating with a regime that seeks expansion demands ironclad guarantees, not trust-based compromises. Conservatives should be blunt: peace is good, but peace that cedes sovereignty to a tyrant is a false peace that merely pauses aggression.
Finland’s President Alexander Stubb made clear in recent briefings that Europeans want a settlement that protects Ukraine’s future, but they also understand the hard truth that Russia cannot be allowed to dictate NATO or EU membership. Stubb’s insistence on deadlines, consequences for breaches, and secure guarantees underscores a practical European frustration with endless dithering — and highlights why American leverage and clarity matter now more than ever. If Washington refuses to wield influence wisely, Europe will continue to paper over dangers with loan packages while Russia consolidates gains.
Even voices across the aisle like Tulsi Gabbard have sided with pressure for real peace and praised the administration’s push to force honest negotiations, arguing critics who reflexively scold diplomacy risk prolonging war. Her comments reflect a growing bipartisan impatience with the status quo: endless expenditure with no durable outcome or security architecture to prevent future aggression. Conservatives should welcome negotiation when it advances durable security for Ukraine and for the West — not when it rewards conquest or guts deterrence.
This moment calls for American realism and muscle, not sentimental bailouts or moral preening from Brussels. The EU’s $105 billion loan may buy time, but time without a strategy is just another expense; Washington must insist any deal preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty, strips Moscow of any gains, and ties long-term assistance to credible security guarantees. Above all, the United States should lead with strength and principle: support a genuine, enforceable peace while holding Europe accountable to its own security obligations, and refuse to fund a settlement that merely institutionalizes Russian conquest.
