Ukraine needs deterrence, not paper promises Op-ed by WSJ

Washington risks pushing Ukraine into a deal that may stop the war but fail to secure a lasting peace—raising the likelihood of future conflict with Russia. In a sharply worded opinion piece, the WSJ Editorial Board urges US officials to rethink any settlement that leaves Ukraine militarily vulnerable or politically constrained.

President Donald Trump on November 24 touted “big progress” toward ending the war, but stresses that the core issue is what kind of peace Ukraine might be asked to accept. The WSJ highlights that Kyiv is likely to consider painful concessions to avoid either battlefield collapse or US abandonment, yet warn that concessions must not create conditions that invite future Russian aggression.

According to the editorial, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s November 23 description of the US peace proposal as a “living, breathing document” suggests ongoing revisions—but the initial 28-point draft is described as overly generous to Moscow. The WSJ argues that the original plan “bent hard toward Vladimir Putin,” risking a settlement that would leave Ukraine “neutered” and “banned from associating with Western security institutions.”

The paper frames Ukraine’s sovereignty as the core benchmark for any agreement. The editorial asserts that Ukraine must retain the right to align with the West—including the EU and potentially NATO—should its population choose to do so. While acknowledging that NATO membership is not immediately feasible, the WSJ contends it “shouldn’t be for all time,” and that rejecting it indefinitely would undercut Ukraine’s long-term security.

A major point of concern is the military dimension. The editorial insists that Ukraine must maintain the capability to deter future invasions, including access to advanced Western weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles that can reach into Russia and deter Putin from restarting his conquest.

If NATO membership remains off the table, then Kyiv must receive security guarantees that are more than paper promises. Relying solely on the US would be unwise, the authors note, especially given “emerging isolationist forces” in both political parties.

The WSJ also warns against US pressure on Kyiv regarding territorial concessions, especially if Ukraine is asked to cede the entire Donbas region, including areas Russia doesn’t hold now. The draft’s ban on NATO-bannered troops in Ukraine is cited as further evidence of Western over-accommodation toward Russia. If Putin rejects the presence of Western troops, the editorial argues, that should signal that Washington is “pressuring the wrong negotiating party.”

Responding to Republican claims that Ukraine is losing, the WSJ cites military assessments—including from retired Gen. Jack Keane—arguing that although Russia is advancing in the east, it is doing so “at tremendous cost,” while Ukraine has “overperformed” despite shortages of weapons and delayed Western aid. The editorial sharply criticises those in Washington who believe Putin can be induced to compromise through “commercial deals and ‘cultural exchange,’” calling them the “real fantasists.”

Finally, the WSJ concludes that any agreement must be judged not by whether it halts fighting temporarily but by whether it ensures a durable peace. A “false peace,” the paper warns, would only “plant the seeds of future bloodshed” and undermine broader Western security.

By Sabina Mammadli