The nation watched as President Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago on December 28, 2025, a dramatic, high-stakes effort to push the long, grinding war toward a negotiated end. The meeting was billed as a make-or-break moment in diplomacy, and it signals that the White House is attempting what many in Washington have failed to do: convert battlefield stalemate into a workable political settlement.
Retired U.S. Army Col. Joe Buccino told viewers on Fox Report Weekend that “we are steps away” from getting Vladimir Putin to participate in the talks, a startling assessment that underscores how dynamic the situation has become. Seen through the lens of hard-headed national security professionals, Buccino’s view is not naïve wishful thinking but an acknowledgement of shifting incentives on the ground and in Moscow.
Mr. Trump didn’t hide his optimism, saying the parties could be “very close” and that he believes “we have the makings of a deal,” remarks that were echoed by reporting about a developing 20-point framework under discussion. That framework reportedly focuses on security guarantees, territorial compromises in contested regions, and international oversight — a concrete outline that, if managed carefully, could finally produce a durable pause in hostilities.
Make no mistake: Vladimir Putin will demand leverage and concessions, and Moscow’s motives remain ruthless and transactional as ever, but multiple outlets indicate that Putin has at least signaled openness to talks if his core interests are recognized. This is why the current diplomacy demands a president willing to engage directly and pragmatically with all parties — something career diplomats in foggy conference rooms rarely accomplish.
Conservatives should welcome real negotiations that prioritize American interests and European burden-sharing instead of endless bloodshed that never advances U.S. security. For too long the foreign-policy establishment has fallen in love with process over results; what matters now is whether this momentum can be converted into enforceable guarantees that protect freedom and deter future aggression.
Strategically, any deal must insist on solid security guarantees, international monitoring of sensitive sites like Zaporizhzhia, and a clear plan to hold aggressors accountable; European partners will have to shoulder much of the policing and reconstruction burden. Reporting indicates European nations are poised to play a lead role in those guarantees, which would be a welcome correction to the posture of unilateral American overextension.
This moment demands seriousness, resolve, and a willingness to bargain from strength — qualities that the president displayed by taking the talks to Mar-a-Lago and pressing for a real outcome. If this summit produces even a credible framework that reduces the slaughter and stabilizes Europe, it will vindicate a conservative preference for results-oriented statecraft over ritual virtue-signaling. The country should hope for peace, but prepare to enforce it.
