DEBATE: Is Trump a viable mediator for peace?

Two supporters of Ukraine debate whether the Trump administration can pull off a peace deal.

Steven Moore and I agree on at least one thing: we want Ukraine to win the war.

Tim is a former U.S. Army medic and longtime journalist who has been in Ukraine since Feb 2022. He’s the founder of The Counteroffensive.

Steven is a former chief of staff for a GOP member of Congress. He went to Ukraine on the fifth day of the invasion, and has been a leading force in getting Republican lawmakers and officials to support Ukraine.

The thing we two friends argue about most is the degree to which Ukraine needs Donald Trump. We’ve had so many interesting, illuminating and passionate discussions privately. And then it struck me: why not share it more widely to sharpen our arguments?

Here’s the issue which we’ll be debating:

Resolved: The Trump White House is a viable mediator for a just peace in the Ukraine-Russia War.

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

---

Tim: I will be arguing in opposition to the resolution.

Steven, thanks for doing this. One of the most interesting things about our friendship has been our disagreements over the degree to which Ukraine needs to engage with Trump.

My position is that we should skip to the inevitable betrayal, dispense with the pretense that the United States is interested in a just peace for Ukraine, and try to do as little damage as possible while recognizing that reality.

I think the recent days have shown this to be true. The White House put out a National Security Strategy that was outright hostile towards Europe and made outrageous demands of the countries that ought to be our allies.

The same strategy made no demands of Russia whatsoever other than that they do us the favor of being welcomed back into the fold of civilized nations with no accountability for the looting, killing, raping and murder they’ve committed.

The U.S. peace process -- which I consider a theater -- is to my mind an ego-driven venture so that Trump can say he established an end to the war, no matter how unjust and no matter how tenuous. It is an unserious process of coercion by unknowledgeable men. They are interested first and foremost in personal financial enrichment and accolades — not justice, and not a lasting peace.

For these reasons, I think that Ukraine should not consider the Trump White House as a viable mediator for peace.

Steven: Tim, I really value our friendship and our ability to discuss tough issues on which we disagree in an amicable manner that allows both of us to emerge more enlightened.

I have always thought you are a tremendous advocate for what should be. I view myself as someone trying to create strategies to maximize opportunities for what is.

Only three or four people in the world can get Ukraine the weapons or the security guarantees it needs to keep Russia out of its borders. One is named Trump, the rest live in Europe. We are building support for Ukraine among Trump’s voters. And we have been successful. More of Trump’s voters support aid to Ukraine now than at any time since the fall of 2022.

Trump will be president until January of 2029 - about 37 months from now. Barring statistically improbable occurrences, that will remain true.

Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart de Wever inside 10 Downing Street on December 12, 2025 in London, England. (Photo by Ben Stansall - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Who else would lead the peace process? Bart De Wever, Prime Minister of Belgium? Belgium controls some $200b in frozen Russian assets and has done almost nothing with it, except tax it for their own benefit to the tune of about $4 billion. Every day, Belgium purchases enough LNG from Russia to pay for 71 Shahed drones. Every day. In the last six weeks, suspected Russian drones have shut down Brussels airport three times. Belgium is paying Putin to attack Belgium.

Europe seems unable to act in its own interest, let alone Kyiv’s.

Tim: I think there are a few more than three or four (Starmer, Macron, Merz, Tusk to name a few), but I take your point.

The problem when I look at Trump is that he is not going to get Ukraine the weapons (indeed, he has stopped the flow of aid), nor is he going to provide reliable security guarantees (his whole strategy is European withdrawal, not new European entrenchment). When I look at his hostility towards the European continent, his interest in getting a deal done at any cost (including Ukraine’s subjugation), and his administration’s coming business deals with Russia, I don’t see him as a reliable or even useful mediator in this conflict.

I don’t defend Europe’s purchasing of Russian energy. The European Union is in the process of phasing out Russian gas imports, although it will take far too long -- until late 2027 -- to do so. Still, if we are considering Ukraine’s point of view, a sudden shut off of Russian energy imports would spike energy prices, alienating ordinary voters to Ukraine’s cause, and deeply affect the ability of European politicians to support the Ukrainian war effort. Of those two outcomes, which would you choose?

Separately, the Trump administration and its allies have already begun working behind the scenes to set up a reintegration of Russian energy companies with the world economy, per the Wall Street Journal. Your point about European purchases is fair! But we should then trust as a mediator the president who is going to turn around and rejuvenate Russian energy companies all around the world? It doesn’t track for me.

Let me propose an alternate solution: as delicately as possible, Europe and Ukraine withdraw from the ongoing talks with the United States. Let’s skip the pending U.S. betrayal, the Russian side’s inevitable dismissal of hard-fought diplomatic terms, and work among friends. I think it would lead to a fairer, more stable peace -- even if it does not lead to a deal in the most imminent time frame possible.

Steven: I don’t disagree that Trump is currently not doing what is good for Ukraine. But giving up is not a great strategy.

Again, Trump is one of the few people in the world who can get Ukraine the weapons it needs. The US defense budget is 62% more than that of every European NATO country combined, coincidentally 60% of NATO. Ukraine is not in a position to give up on 60% of NATO arms.

How would Ukraine or Europe could make Trump step back from the peace negotiations even if they were inclined to do so? All they would be doing in the attempt is giving up all influence inside the White House.

I don’t see the wisdom in giving up on US weapons and influence in the White House because we don’t want to have our feelings hurt with the “pending U.S. betrayal.” Especially since Trump is going to do whatever he wants anyway.

Winston Churchill was so committed to getting US weapons for Great Britain that he encouraged his 20 year old daughter-in-law Pamela to have affairs with US generals and diplomats while his son was at war to gather intel on how to influence FDR. Pamela’s efforts were integral in bringing the US into the war, but it forever changed Winston’s relationship with his son. Giving up was not in his mindset. It took two years. Ultimately, Pearl Harbor brought US weapons to England. Despite his frustration and hurt feelings, he did not burn any bridges with FDR.

As I detailed in my Substack, Tales from WWIII, “There is nothing we can do about Trump and the Republicans” is code for “I don’t know what to do about Trump and the Republicans.”

Many of us do. Joe Lindsley; Mark Toth & Jon Sweet; Pavlo Unguryan; Colby Barrett, Sarah Makin and the team at A Faith Under Siege; Melinda Haring at Razom; Meaghan Mobbs; Jed Sunden at the American Ukraine Committee; Jade McGlynn; Larry Provost and a host of others in addition to Anna Shvetsova and me.

Official Ukraine, after years of ignoring Republicans, is finally figuring out how to communicate with Republican voters. Zelensky has been on Newsmax several times this year, as well as Ben Shapiro and TBN. I was on a MAGA radio show recently. The host went on at length about how smart newly minted Ambassador Olha Stefanishyna was when she appeared on his show. (thirty seconds - watch it here)

Due to the work being put in, more Republicans support aid to Ukraine than at any time since fall of 2022. It is paying off. Now is not the time to give up.

(For readers interested in learning more about Churchill trying to bring the US into WWII, I recommend “The Splendid and the Vile: A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz” as well as “Kingmaker: Pamela Harriman’s Astonishing Life of Power, Seduction, and Intrigue,” about Churchill’s daughter-in-law.)

Tim: I see it differently. “There is nothing we can do about Trump” is a recognition that the president and those around him are firmly hostile towards Ukrainian and European interests.

A clear-eyed response to this would be to engage less with the Trump White House while formulating another plan with other potential mediators.

This is not about “feelings hurt,” this about a sober reckoning of the Trump White House’s antagonism towards Ukraine. Pointing out the size of the U.S.’s large military budget makes no difference if new military aid is not even on the table -- and as far as I can tell, it’s not even within contemplation.

This strategy could involve withdrawing from the U.S.-led peace process, choosing an allied leader to take the lead on negotiations (Alexander Stubb, for example).

Ironically, this may have the consequence of dragging Trump back towards a more pro-Ukrainian position. The president is obsessed with the idea of having achieved peace: he lives for attention, and is clearly unhappy whenever the spotlight is not on him personally.

In the meantime, Trump shouldn’t be rewarded for laundering Russia’s demands through American foreign policy.

I have great admiration for what you and other folks are doing to persuade Republicans, and fight the good fight to change the MAGA movement’s mind on Ukraine. I fear that the decisions on Ukraine will not be made at the grassroots level, however. The hundreds of billions of dollars in joint U.S.-Russia business deals being floated to MAGA elites are far too enticing for that.

Back to you for the final word, Steven. Bring us back to the debate’s resolution -- what do you think of the above, and why do you think the Trump White House is a viable mediator for this war?

Steven: The Trump White House IS the mediator by virtue of the fact he has the power and exerted the will to do it. Nobody appointed him to the job. There is nobody we can call and have him removed.

The Europeans also have that power. Everyone involved - including Trump - would be happier if the Europeans exerted their will to use their power to either make peace or fund Ukraine’s military to drive the Russians back to Kursk.

How can we get the Europeans to do that?

As you and I agree, we are currently in a global war. Russia is a client state of China. We both hear Iranian-designed Shahed drones overhead at night. North Korea is sending troops to Russia to train for an invasion of South Korea. Putin held a summit of 14 Islamic terror organizations in February of 2024. They weren’t there to exchange hummus recipes.

The world will need Europe’s firepower. However, last Friday, Europe sent $46,596,508 to Russia for fossil fuels. Enough to manufacture almost 1000 Iranian designed drones. A day.

Belgium’s Russian LNG imports have increased since 2022. France imported 19% more Russian LNG in 2025 than it did in 2024.

It might be that your partisan passions shade your judgement of what is best for Ukraine.

Your idea that “Ukraine’s point of view” is being concerned about spiking fuel prices if Europe stops buying Russian fossil fuels is at odds with Ukraine’s destruction of Russia’s refineries, its lobbying for more sanctions on Russian fossil fuels and its attacks on the Russian Ghost fleet of oil tankers. Cutting off Russian revenue is Ukraine’s goal.

You may be thinking of Jake Sullivan’s foreign policy of telling Ukraine to stop hitting Russian refineries for fear of driving up gas prices and causing problems for Biden’s re-election campaign.

You have not described the advantage Ukraine would gain by telling Trump to kiss off, especially since, after four years, we don’t yet have the European leader for whom you search.

After a couple of decades in Republican politics, I am more optimistic about Trump fulfilling Churchill’s portrait of the Americans. “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”

With Republican public opinion pushing him on one side, and Putin’s continued aggression pushing him on the other, Trump is becoming increasingly boxed in by world events. I don’t see this as a time to give up.

That being said, my opinion on Europe has changed over the week we have been corresponding. Chancellor Merz’s speech impressed me. Macron and others have made similar speeches for years, but Merz backed this up with a 46% increase in the defense budget.

There may yet be hope for Europe.

NEWS OF THE DAY:

By Myroslava Tanska-Vikulova

Good morning to readers; Kyiv remains in Ukrainian hands.

ORBAN SAYS PUTIN PROMISED TO CONSIDER HUNGARY’S POSITION ON RUSSIAN ASSETS: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said he asked Russian President Vladimir Putin how Moscow would react if the EU used frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. According to Orban, Putin assured him Russia would take into account the position of individual EU countries, including Hungary, which opposes the move and calls it a new level of escalation. Hungary has repeatedly acted in Russia’s favour which the EU has criticised.

INDIA’S RUSSIAN OIL IMPORTS SURGE: India’s Russian oil imports are set to exceed 1 million barrels per day in December, defying expectations of a sharp decline after new US sanctions. Indian imports of Russian oil increased after Russia offered discounted cargoes from non-sanctioned sellers. Despite Western pressure, energy ties between India and Russia remain strong.

U.S.-EUROPE DRAFT UKRAINE SUPPORT PLANS: U.S. and European negotiators have drafted two documents outlining support for Ukraine in the event of a potential peace deal, the New York Times reports.

One document sets general principles similar to NATO’s Article 5, with countries committing to assist Ukraine if it is attacked. The second is an operational plan detailing how US and European forces would cooperate with Ukrainian troops to prevent further Russian aggression.

The drafts also outline steps to maintain Ukraine’s military at 800,000 well-equipped personnel and provide guidance on detecting and countering possible Russian “false-flag” operations. The documents remain confidential, though officials say they include specific measures to reassure Ukraine and deter future invasions.

UKRAINE’S YOUNG MEN FACE WAR AND HARD CHOICES: At the age of 25, Ukrainian men can be drafted into the army. As they approach this age, they face a difficult choice: to go to war, take on new responsibilities, balancing patriotism and fear, or to flee. Their choices reflect the incredible pressure they face living in a country being invaded by Russia. American media outlet KQED has reported on young men who stayed in Ukraine and went to war, those who criticize the government for its decision to mobilize, and those who left the country to save their lives.

CAT OF CONFLICT:

Today’s Cat of Conflict is Myroslava’s Stuhna. She likes sitting near flowers and feels as though she is surrounded by nature.

Stay safe out there.

Best,
Tim