Three years of war. Three years of destruction, bloodshed, and a brutal fight that has reshaped Eastern Europe and thrown Washington into a political minefield. What’s the next move? Double down on sanctions and flood Ukraine with weapons, hoping to force Russia to tap out? Or try to broker a deal, walking a political tightrope as battle lines harden within the U.S. establishment—especially among conservatives?
This conflict is no longer just about Ukraine. It’s about global power, influence, and control over the future of world security. From the White House to Capitol Hill to think tanks across D.C., the debates are raging. Strategies are being drafted. Risks are being weighed. Every decision is a roll of the dice—either pushing toward a resolution or fanning the flames of a never-ending war. And right now, nobody knows which way America will turn.
The Hardline Play: Maximum Pressure
One of the most aggressive approaches comes from the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), which has laid out a seven-step roadmap titled “How to Win: A Sustainable Peace Plan for Ukraine.” The core of the plan? Crank up the heat on Russia until Moscow is forced to negotiate on Western terms.
The strategy calls for:
- Immediate, unconditional military aid to Ukraine to grind down Russia’s armed forces and give Kyiv the upper hand at the bargaining table.
- Stronger sanctions targeting Russia’s financial system and energy sector, alongside the seizure of frozen Russian assets to bankroll Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction.
- Secondary sanctions on countries helping Russia—mainly China, Iran, and North Korea—to cut off Putin’s lifelines.
- A European-led security coalition to enforce a ceasefire, while fast-tracking Ukraine’s integration into the EU—without entertaining any NATO-related negotiations with Moscow.
CEPA’s Defense and Security Director, Katherine Sendak, has made it clear: the U.S. should only engage with Russia after Ukraine is armed to the teeth and backed diplomatically. Discussing NATO membership with Moscow? Off the table. In her words, allowing Russia to have a say would be giving Putin a veto over NATO’s expansion.
Negotiation Strategy: Strong Hand or Walk Away?
A different take comes from Josh Rudolph, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund. His approach? Play hardball with Putin while squeezing Russia economically.
His main recommendations:
- Engage with Putin from a position of strength. Russia’s battlefield failures have weakened the Kremlin, and the U.S. should dictate the terms of any talks.
- Know when to walk away. If Moscow won’t budge, the U.S. shouldn’t hesitate to cut negotiations short.
- Sanctions + Cheap Oil = Economic Pain for Russia. Working with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. could flood the market, tanking fossil fuel prices and making it even harder for Putin to fund his war.
- Arm Ukraine to the max and unlock the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, while pushing Europe to foot more of the bill for military aid.
Rudolph also suggests deploying 100,000 U.S. troops for a peacekeeping mission if needed and giving American companies a leading role in rebuilding Ukraine. But the kicker? Selling this policy to American voters as an economic win. His pitch: continued U.S. military aid means more jobs, booming defense contracts, and a manufacturing revival—especially in red states where arms production is a major industry.
The Money Factor: Why Ukraine’s Fate Hits America’s Wallet
Economic heavyweights at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)—Elaine McCusker, Frederick Kagan, and Richard Sims—go even further. Their report, “Dollars and Sense: America’s Interest in a Ukrainian Victory,” lays out the cold, hard costs of walking away. Their message? Losing Ukraine would be a financial and strategic disaster for the U.S.
Key findings:
- A Russian victory would make the world more dangerous and cost the U.S. an extra $808 billion in defense spending over five years.
- A Ukrainian win would stabilize Europe, allowing the U.S. to scale down its military presence there and shift focus to countering China.
- If Russia takes Ukraine, expect a massive refugee crisis flooding into Europe, a crackdown on pro-Western Ukrainians, and a stronger, more emboldened Moscow.
Kagan warns that a Ukrainian defeat would hand a win to China, Iran, and North Korea, encouraging more aggression worldwide. On the flip side, ramping up U.S. aid could turn Ukraine into a fortress of European security—a battle-hardened military powerhouse that helps keep Russian aggression in check.
The Middle Ground: Finding a Compromise
Caught between these competing visions is the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 Presidential Transition Plan. Acknowledging that conservatives are divided—some backing full support for Ukraine, others demanding an end to U.S. involvement—the report suggests a middle-road approach:
- Keep U.S. involvement focused on military aid only—Europe should handle the economic side.
- Make sure every dollar spent is justified under a clear national security strategy.
- Recalibrate U.S. priorities toward China—which the report identifies as America’s real long-term threat.
Heritage national security expert James Carafano summed it up bluntly: “Do we want to keep Russians on their side of Ukraine? The answer is hell yes.” But how to do that without overcommitting U.S. resources? That’s the billion-dollar question.
Where Does America Go From Here?
America is staring down a high-stakes decision. Do we stay the course, ramping up pressure on Moscow at the risk of an endless war? Do we shift gears, looking for an exit strategy that doesn’t look like surrender? Or do we find a way to thread the needle—keeping Ukraine in the fight while keeping U.S. commitments in check?
One thing is clear: the world is watching, and America’s next move will shape global security for years to come.
The Middle Road: A Conservative Attempt at Compromise
With deep fractures within the Republican Party over Ukraine, the Heritage Foundation has pitched an alternative strategy in its Project 2025 Presidential Transition Plan. This document acknowledges the GOP’s internal divide—between those who back continued support for Kyiv and those who want to pull the plug.
Their compromise approach includes:
- Limiting U.S. involvement to military aid, while putting the economic burden squarely on European allies.
- Tying military support to a clear U.S. national security strategy, ensuring it aligns with long-term American interests.
- Balancing Russia containment with China deterrence, with Beijing seen as America’s biggest geopolitical challenge of the 21st century.
James Carafano, a senior security expert at the Heritage Foundation, argues that a free and self-sufficient Ukraine serves U.S. strategic interests—but insists that Europe must step up and take more responsibility for regional security.
Any future strategy must factor in domestic political divides, global power shifts, and hard economic realities. With another presidential election on the horizon, Washington’s path forward on Ukraine is now one of the most hotly debated topics in U.S. foreign policy.
The big questions: What are Biden and Trump willing to do? Is a compromise even possible? And what happens if America changes course?
The Military-Industrial Complex: A War That Pays Off
Beyond political infighting, big money is also driving America’s Ukraine strategy. The war has been a massive windfall for the U.S. defense industry, supercharging profits for giants like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics.
Key economic takeaways:
- The Pentagon is cashing in: In 2024 alone, over $60 billion in military aid to Ukraine was funneled back into U.S. defense contracts—stimulating manufacturing and job creation.
- War is revitalizing U.S. weapons production: The Ukraine war pushed the Pentagon to ramp up output of 155mm artillery shells, missile systems, and armored vehicles, signaling a major reindustrialization of the defense sector.
- Booming exports: NATO allies and Indo-Pacific partners are lining up to buy American weapons, making the Ukraine war a global sales pitch for U.S. arms manufacturers.
Even if Washington scales back its Ukraine funding, the defense industry won’t let go easily—because, for them, this war is good for business.
If the U.S. pulls back, can Europe fill the gap? That’s the trillion-dollar question. So far, the answer isn’t promising.
The obstacles:
- Financial strains: European economies—especially Germany and France—are struggling to meet their aid commitments as domestic pressures mount.
- Production bottlenecks: The EU lacks the manufacturing capacity to sustain Ukraine’s war effort without U.S. military supply chains.
- Political shifts: Right-wing populists are gaining ground across Europe—from the Netherlands to Slovakia—fueling skepticism about unlimited aid to Ukraine.
Even though leaders like Macron and von der Leyen insist they’ll support Kyiv, the reality is that without U.S. backing, Europe may struggle to keep Ukraine in the fight.
Despite all the talk about diplomacy, the chances of real Russia-Ukraine peace talks look slim.
Three major obstacles:
Irreconcilable demands
- Russia wants territorial recognition and a neutral Ukraine.
- Ukraine wants every inch of its land back and NATO security guarantees.
A total breakdown in trust
- After failed negotiations in 2022, both sides see diplomacy as a trap.
- Kyiv fears any “peace deal” would just give Russia time to rearm.
The timing dilemma
- Ukraine is betting on continued Western military aid and has no incentive to negotiate now.
- Moscow is playing the long game, hoping U.S. and European support will weaken after the 2024 election cycle.
Bottom line? Peace talks remain a distant fantasy—unless the battlefield changes dramatically.
The clock is ticking. Does the U.S. double down on Ukraine, risking an open-ended commitment? Does it push for an off-ramp to peace? Or does it hedge its bets—keeping Ukraine armed while shifting focus elsewhere?
The next president will decide, and that decision will shape the global order for decades to come.
One of the biggest looming questions is whether Europe can step up and take the lead in supporting Ukraine if Washington dials down its involvement. Right now, the European Union is already struggling with several major obstacles that could make this transition extremely difficult:
- Financial strain – Despite lofty aid promises, Germany and France are struggling to meet their commitments. Economic downturns, inflation, and growing social unrest have turned Ukraine aid into a politically explosive issue.
- Logistical bottlenecks – The EU simply doesn’t have the stockpiles or production speed to keep Ukraine supplied with ammunition and weaponry at the same scale as the U.S.
- Political instability – The rise of right-wing nationalist parties in countries like the Netherlands, Slovakia, and potentially France could increase skepticism toward Ukraine funding, making future aid far less certain.
Despite bold public statements from Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen, the harsh reality is that without American backing, Europe will struggle to keep Ukraine in the fight at the same level.
Peace Talks: A Pipe Dream or a Real Possibility?
While diplomatic efforts for peace continue to be floated, real negotiations between Russia and Ukraine still look like a long shot. Neither side is willing to budge, and several key obstacles remain:
1. Irreconcilable Demands
- Moscow insists on formal recognition of its territorial gains and a neutral status for Ukraine.
- Kyiv demands a full Russian withdrawal, the return of all occupied land, and NATO security guarantees.
2. A Complete Breakdown of Trust
- After the failed 2022 peace talks, neither side believes in a diplomatic solution.
- Ukraine fears that any concession will be exploited by Russia for further aggression.
- The West remains deeply skeptical of Moscow’s willingness to honor any future agreement.
3. The Waiting Game
- Kyiv is playing for time, betting on sustained Western aid and looking to exhaust Russian forces.
- Moscow is banking on political shifts in the U.S. and Europe to weaken Ukraine’s support system.
Unless there’s a dramatic shift on the battlefield or a major political realignment in Washington or Moscow, a negotiated settlement in 2024-2025 remains highly unlikely.
The United States is staring down a defining moment. Should it double down on support for Ukraine, sinking billions more into the fight at the risk of prolonged escalation? Or should it pivot toward negotiations, even if that’s perceived as a win for Putin?
This is a no-win situation—every path comes with major risks:
- Staying the course means more U.S. spending, greater global instability, and a potentially endless war.
- Backing out could shake NATO’s confidence, embolden Russia, and fuel the narrative of declining American influence.
- A middle ground approach—keeping aid flowing but reducing direct involvement—might be the most politically viable, but it comes with no guarantee of success.
President Donald Trump has made it clear: He wants this war to end. But how? Does he continue to arm Kyiv while turning up economic heat on Moscow? Or does he push for a deal that forces both sides to compromise, whether they like it or not?
Inside Washington, there’s no consensus. Some argue that only continued U.S. military and economic backing can break Russia’s will. Others insist that Ukraine is draining American resources at a time when China poses the real long-term threat. And then there are those who push for a hybrid strategy—limited military support combined with economic pressure to keep Moscow in check without an open-ended commitment.
One thing is clear: The old playbook is dead. The Ukraine war has redrawn global fault lines, and Washington’s next move will shape the future of world security—whether it leads to peace or deeper conflict.