Ukraine’s new ambassador to Washington, Olga Stefanishyna, has stepped into her post at a perilous moment as U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators meet in Switzerland to hammer out a peace framework backed by the Trump administration. Stefanishyna told CBN she intends to support efforts toward a negotiated end to the fighting while also deepening U.S.-Ukraine partnership at a time when decisions now will reverberate for years.
The White House’s so-called 28-point proposal has ignited fierce debate after reports that early drafts mirrored elements of a Russian “non-paper,” raising alarms that Kyiv might be pressured into territorial concessions it has long rejected. Journalists and diplomats have reported that the plan’s origins and language prompted quick scrutiny, forcing revisions and intense diplomatic consultations to avoid the appearance of rewarding aggression.
U.S. and Ukrainian officials say they have been working to update and refine the framework in Geneva and Switzerland so that it better reflects Kyiv’s core security and sovereignty concerns, calling the document a “living” draft rather than a fait accompli. Both capitals insist any durable settlement must include enforceable security guarantees and a pathway for reconstruction, even as critics question the speed and secrecy of the process.
European allies and many lawmakers in Washington have been blunt: a deal that appears to shrug off Russian aggression would be unacceptable. That pushback led to fresh drafting sessions and public rebukes, underscoring how sensitive this moment is — a peace that isn’t just ceasefire paperwork but a lasting settlement that preserves Ukraine’s independence.
President Zelenskyy and his delegation have signaled willingness to discuss “sensitive points” with U.S. leadership and to work with partners to ensure any treaty protects Ukraine’s future, even as Kyiv feels the weight of domestic politics and battlefield realities. Those public signals matter: they show Ukraine is not simply yielding but attempting to secure concrete security arrangements in exchange for any compromises.
Washington’s diplomatic cast has shifted in recent weeks, with new envoys and military leaders playing prominent roles in shuttle diplomacy; reports name figures tied to the White House effort and sketch a chaotic mix of official and unofficial channels. That messy apparatus highlights why clear American leadership — consistent, transparent, and principled — is essential if any deal is to be both just and sustainable.
Stefanishyna’s task is twofold: press for deeper U.S. support while guarding Kyiv’s core interests, and to make clear that Ukraine will not accept a peace that sacrifices its sovereignty for the sake of short-term calm. Her public backing of engagement with the U.S. peace initiative reflects a pragmatic desire to end bloodshed, but pragmatism must not become capitulation.
Conservative observers should welcome any real chance to stop a grinding war, but true conservatism demands prudence: a settlement must deter future aggression, strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and ensure reparations and reconstruction follow, not vanish into vague promises. America’s leverage is valuable; it should be used to secure a durable peace that honors principle, protects liberty, and prevents a replay of the mistakes that emboldened tyrants in the past.
