Peace Through Strength: How the Ukraine-Russia Summits Show that American Global Leadership is Back

After four years of feckless diplomacy under the Biden Administration, President Donald Trump decisively demonstrated America’s global leadership by hosting the August 15 and 18 Ukraine-Russia Summits as the first concrete steps toward securing peace between the parties in the long-simmering war. While Biden isolated Russia with sanctions, provided military aid to Ukraine, and convinced NATO to give more aid, none of these actions yielded direct high-level talks, while Russia secured significant territorial gains.

Conversely, President Trump helped bring Putin to the first summit by threatening massive sanctions and tariffs, and deployed two nuclear submarines toward Russia in response to a Putin deputy’s nuclear threat. By attending the summit held on U.S. soil, Putin — under an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for alleged war crimes — acknowledged America’s indispensable role as a mediator. This was further highlighted by the response from European leaders, seven of whom rushed to Washington to attend President Trump’s follow-up summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

These Summits Prove Strong U.S. Leadership

While the war continues to rage, the dual summits provided the first glimpses of possible peace between the combatants. They also solidified America’s role as the primary peacemaker and showed the world that America is once again a global leader. Consider what President Trump’s global leadership achieved during the twin summits:

• Putin acknowledged Ukraine’s EU aspirations as “legitimate,” though he still rejects NATO membership, a partial alignment with U.S. goals.
• Putin called his summit “the light at the end of the tunnel” for improved U.S.-Russia ties.
• Russia has signaled that it may be flexible on allowing certain NATO security guarantees in a peace deal to protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression.
• European leaders agreed to an 800 billion euro “ReArm Europe” plan and other direct support to Ukraine, putting further pressure on Putin to seek peace.

Peace Through Strength: A Proven Principle

Peace through strength has been a long-proven concept throughout history. Just turn to the Bible and consider 1 Kings 4:20-25, which details how “Judah and Israel lived in safety, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.” During King Solomon’s reign, Israel experienced a golden age of peace and prosperity, marked by the wise ruler’s formidable military, a strong economy, and strategic alliances.

More recently, peace through strength was a central philosophy of American global diplomacy during President Ronald Reagan’s two terms in the 1980s. With a massive increase in American military and economic power, President Reagan successfully deterred the Soviet Union’s aggression, fostered diplomatic progress toward peace, and effectively ended the Cold War.  

Peace is Not Secured With Weakness

On the other hand, consider how wars tend to ensue when leaders display weakness and negotiate with appeasement. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s weak, appeasing response to Nazi Germany’s aggression in the 1930s is widely credited with being a primary cause of World War II.

Or consider that Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted that he would not have invaded Ukraine in 2022 if President Trump had been in power. During a press conference after the August 15 summit, Putin said, “Today, when President Trump is saying that if he were the president back then, there would be no war… I’m quite sure that it would indeed be so. I can confirm that.”  

Peace Abroad Secures Safety at Home

Members of “The” FourG Nation should be heartened by President Trump’s successes in restoring our global leadership role and fully support the Administration’s America First leadership efforts going forward. By securing peace abroad with these recent initiatives, President Trump can: 

• De-escalate the risk of the war growing into a broader Russian-NATO conflict, which could draw in U.S. forces.
• Decrease the potential risk of Russia resorting to nuclear options to make further gains, which could provoke a NATO and U.S. response.
• Increase the European allies’ willingness to contribute more to their own security.
• Allow the U.S. to preserve more military assets for homeland defense. Signal to other adversaries that while America will aggressively respond to any threat or direct action, it is also willing to negotiate in good faith fairly.