I want this war in Ukraine to end. I want the missiles and drones to stop, children to sleep through the night without air raid sirens, and families to have some sense of safety again. I want Ukrainians to have the chance to rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives. Having spent time with people who have endured so much, I cannot imagine wanting anything less.

But as I watch the latest developments and the increasing pressure on Ukraine to negotiate, I find myself increasingly troubled by President Trump’s approach to ending this war.

I believe we are witnessing something deeper than a disagreement over foreign policy. I believe we are witnessing a failure of American moral leadership.

The United States has long claimed to stand for the right of nations to determine their own futures, for the principle that borders should not be changed through aggression, and for the protection of people whose freedom is threatened by more powerful neighbors. We have not always lived up to those principles. Our own history makes that painfully clear. But they remain principles worth defending.

When our president places increasing pressure on Ukraine to make concessions while offering economic concessions to the country that invaded it, I believe we are moving away from those commitments. And I worry about what that says, not only to Ukrainians, but to the rest of the world.

President Trump has been pushing President Zelensky to negotiate an end to the war while criticizing Ukraine for attacking Russian oil refineries. At the same time, his administration has eased economic restrictions on Russia, including restrictions affecting Russian diesel exports.

And yet Russia continues to strike Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure. As another winter approaches, Ukrainian families are once again facing the possibility of going without electricity or heat. For people who have already endured so much, the thought of another winter like this is heartbreaking.

Ukraine offered to stop attacking Russian oil refineries if Russia agreed to stop attacking Ukrainian energy facilities. That seems like a reasonable place to begin. But instead of seeing equal pressure applied to both countries, we are watching an American administration increasingly focused on what Ukraine must stop doing.

I keep coming back to the same question. Why are we putting so much pressure on the country that was invaded instead of the country that started this war?

I understand that diplomacy requires talking with both sides. It requires understanding competing interests, negotiating difficult compromises, and sometimes accepting outcomes that are far from ideal. But none of that requires us to pretend that both countries bear equal responsibility for this war.

Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. I know the history between these two countries is complicated, but that doesn’t change who started this war. Russia chose to invade its neighbor. Ukrainians chose to defend their homes and their independence. Those are not morally equivalent actions.

And when American leadership fails to maintain that distinction, I believe we risk becoming so focused on reaching an agreement that we lose sight of the justice that should help shape it.

I struggle particularly with the idea of asking Ukrainians to surrender territory that Russia has not even been able to capture by force. And what makes that even harder to accept is the possibility that Ukraine could make those concessions without any meaningful assurance that Russia won’t simply come back for more.

I wonder how we Americans would feel if the situation were reversed.

What if Canada or Mexico invaded our country, took control of several states, destroyed our homes and infrastructure, and then demanded that we give up that territory permanently in exchange for peace?

Would we be willing to do that? Would we trust the country that invaded us when it promised not to come back for more? And how would we feel if our allies began pressuring us to give up our land while offering economic concessions to the country that attacked us?

I don’t think most Americans would accept that. And I don’t think we would appreciate being told we were standing in the way of peace simply because we wanted to protect our country.

Yet that is the position Ukrainians find themselves in today.

When I hear discussions about territorial concessions, I don’t think first about lines on a map. I think about people. I think about what it means to be asked to surrender your home, your community, or your future because a more powerful country has decided it wants what belongs to you.

These aren’t just territories that can be divided up during negotiations. They are places where people have built their lives. Their homes, churches, schools, and communities are there. Generations of families have lived on this land, and for many, it is all they’ve ever known.

And I find myself wondering how we can claim to be pursuing peace if we are not giving sufficient consideration to the people who will have to live with the consequences of that peace.

For Ukrainians, there is also a long and painful history that we need to understand. For generations, Ukrainian language, culture, and identity were suppressed under Russian imperial and Soviet rule. Ukrainians have fought hard to preserve who they are and their right to govern themselves. Putin has repeatedly questioned Ukraine’s legitimacy as an independent nation, so when Ukrainians hear promises from Russia today, they hear them through the experiences of their own history.

And they have good reason to be cautious.

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons left on its territory after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In exchange, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom reaffirmed their commitment to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders. Those assurances were not a promise of military protection, but Russia’s later invasion showed just how little those promises meant without a way to enforce them.

Now Ukraine is being asked to consider giving up even more, including parts of the Donbas that Russia has not been able to capture.

There is also a very real concern about what surrendering this territory would mean for Ukraine’s future security. Ukrainian forces have spent years building defenses in this region. If those defenses are surrendered, Russia could be in a much stronger position to launch another attack farther into Ukraine.

So when Ukrainians resist giving up their land, I don’t think we should assume they are simply unwilling to compromise. They understand their history, they know what they stand to lose, and they have every reason to be concerned about what might happen next.

A ceasefire might stop the fighting for now, and that would certainly be welcome. But what happens if Russia uses that time to rebuild its military, replace its weapons, and prepare to attack again? What would keep Ukraine from finding itself in the same situation a few years or even just months from now?

This is why I believe President Trump’s approach is so troubling. The United States has enormous influence over the outcome of these negotiations. How we use that influence matters.

When our president criticizes Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself while easing economic pressure on Russia, I believe we risk sending exactly the wrong message about aggression, sovereignty, and the value of international commitments.

I do not expect our president to solve an extraordinarily complicated war with simple answers. But I do expect American leadership to recognize the moral difference between a nation defending its independence and a nation attempting to take that independence away.

And I think we need to consider the message we’re sending to the rest of the world.

If a country can invade its neighbor, take its land, and eventually receive economic benefits as part of a peace agreement, what is there to discourage other countries from doing the same?

The international order established after World War II rests, in part, on the principle that national borders should not be changed through aggressive war. That principle has never been perfectly upheld, but abandoning it when enforcement becomes inconvenient would carry consequences far beyond Eastern Europe.

Other nations are watching. So are other leaders who may be considering whether military force can achieve what diplomacy cannot.

What we tolerate today helps establish what others may attempt tomorrow.

I’m not suggesting we should give up on diplomacy. Quite the opposite. I believe we should be doing everything we reasonably can to bring this war to an end. But whatever agreement is reached needs to give Ukrainians some real assurance that they won’t have to fight this same war all over again.

And this is where I believe American moral leadership matters most.

Leadership is not simply about having the power to bring people to a negotiating table. It is also about having the wisdom and courage to recognize that not every agreement produces a just or lasting peace.

There is a profound difference between refusing peace and refusing terms that could make the next war inevitable.

I understand why the United States wants to see an end to the fighting. So many lives have been lost, families have been torn apart, and the suffering has gone on far too long. I want that suffering to end, too.

But I cannot separate my desire for peace from my concern for justice.

I believe American leadership carries a moral responsibility that extends beyond negotiating agreements. It includes standing for the principles we claim to believe in, even when those principles complicate the path to a quick resolution.

And I believe President Trump’s approach is failing to meet that responsibility.

When we place greater pressure on the nation defending its independence than on the nation that invaded it, we risk abandoning the very principles that should guide our leadership. When we offer economic concessions to an aggressor while asking its victim to accept an uncertain future, we must consider what we are rewarding and what we are sacrificing.

I want President Trump to succeed in bringing this war to an end. I genuinely do. But success cannot be measured simply by whether an agreement is signed or the fighting temporarily stops. It must also be measured by whether Ukrainians are able to remain free, secure, and sovereign.

The people of Ukraine deserve more than an agreement that leaves them wondering when the next invasion will come.

And as an American, I want more from my country’s leadership.

I want us to remember that our influence in the world has never rested solely on our military or economic power. It has also rested on the principles we profess to defend and the willingness to stand by those principles when doing so is difficult.

I know our country has often fallen short of its ideals. But those failures should challenge us to live more faithfully by them, not give us permission to abandon them.

I want peace for Ukraine. Desperately.

But I also want my country to remember that moral leadership sometimes requires more than finding a way to end a conflict. It requires the courage to distinguish between what is expedient and what is right.

Because if the price of peace is to reward aggression while leaving its victims vulnerable to another invasion, we have to ask whether we are truly building peace or merely postponing the next war.