US pressure needs to be directed at Russia, not Ukraine

There's a certain irony in watching the Trump administration's Ukraine policy unfold: a president who campaigned on "America First" seems to have adopted a posture that ultimately serves Russia's interests. David J. Kramer's piece cuts through the noise, arguing that the real pressure should be aimed at Moscow, not Kyiv. His point about American corporate interests and global energy stability is particularly sharp—when we weaken Ukraine's ability to defend itself, we don't just embolden Putin; we destabilize the very markets that U.S. businesses depend on. Kramer's framing is a useful corrective to the narrative that Ukraine is somehow the obstacle to peace. The evidence is plain: Russia invaded, Russia continues to bomb civilian infrastructure, and Russia shows no genuine interest in negotiations. Yet the administration's rhetoric often suggests that if only Ukraine would compromise—or, more absurdly, if only it had not resisted—the war would end. That's not diplomacy; that's capitulation dressed up as pragmatism. The deeper issue here is about alliances and trust. When the United States sends mixed signals—threatening sanctions on Ukraine while simultaneously softening its stance on Russia—it sends a message to every ally that our commitments are conditional. Kramer is right to call for consistency. The United States cannot claim to defend the rules-based order while rewarding the aggressor who breaks it. Of course, there are legitimate questions about the cost of endless support and the need for a realistic endgame. But those questions should be answered with a clear-eyed assessment of who started this war and who can end it. As Kramer implies, the path to stability runs through Moscow, not through pressuring a nation fighting for its survival. The administration would do well to read his argument—and act on it.