President Trump’s December 28 meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago was a dramatic, necessary move to try to end a war that has bled Europe and tested American resolve for nearly four years. The two leaders met to advance a 20-point peace framework, and Trump said negotiators are closer than ever to a deal after a long call with Vladimir Putin earlier that day.
Patriots should cheer someone willing to pick up the phone and pursue a negotiated end to a bloody conflict instead of letting Washington’s permanent bureaucracy grind out endless, costly stalemate. For too long our leaders pretended that feeding weapons forever was the only option; Trump’s approach is to leverage American influence to force a real outcome that protects lives and limits our future commitments.
Of course this isn’t naive optimism — the Kiev delegation admits the plan is roughly 90 percent complete and that thorny issues remain, especially over territorial questions and credible security guarantees. The correct conservative posture is cautious realism: support Ukraine’s sovereignty, demand enforceable guarantees, and insist that Europe shoulder a meaningful portion of the burden rather than offloading it onto American taxpayers forever.
Conservative voices on Fox were right to be skeptical about Vladimir Putin’s sincerity, and as Joey Jones bluntly put it on the weekend panel, he doesn’t see Putin agreeing to every concession on the table. Skepticism of Moscow is healthy and historic; it should temper any deal-making and ensure verification mechanisms and swift consequences for violations.
Still, we should not let cynicism become paralysis. If Trump can bring both Kyiv and, crucially, Moscow to the negotiating table — and possibly secure a direct Zelensky-Putin phone call — that would be a real diplomatic victory and a demonstration that American leadership can produce results, not just rhetoric. The alternative is the endless attrition that has already cost lives and trillions, and no conservative should prefer that.
America’s interest is clear: peace that preserves Ukrainian independence, deters future aggression, and doesn’t saddle our kids with perpetual occupation duties or limitless handouts. That means any agreement must include ironclad security guarantees, international monitoring, and a credible rapid-response mechanism — and it means Europeans must step up with troops and money in proportion to their proximity and stake.
Finally, left-wing elites and lazy pundits who reflexively smear Trump’s diplomacy should be reminded that real leadership sometimes requires bold, unpopular moves. Hardworking Americans want their leaders to produce peace and protect national interests, not posture for cable news applause; if this Mar-a-Lago meeting moves the needle toward a stable, enforceable peace, conservatives should support the outcome while demanding accountability and clarity every step of the way.
