Um. A cease-fire.
Time.

Which benefits Russia as well. It doesn't put them in any better of a position. Nor is Trump talking about what he wants to happen as a temporary ceasefire, but "peace" - an end to hostilities on whatever terms the parties can negotiate. Which could have happened any time during the last three years if both parties had a set of terms they could agree to - but didn't, because they don't.

They still don't, but now Trump is actively weakening Ukraine's bargaining position with his public statements, and now an actual cut off of military aid. This isn't just being a conduit for a cease fire - it's working to force Ukraine to agree to what Russia wants, rather than vice versa. Which is why he's being criticized. Not just "orange man bad," not just "peace bad, war good" - but that it's a terrible idea to undercut Ukraine in their position vis-a-vis Russia and make them go to the bargaining table in the worst possible position.


One more time: The Ukraine lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to throw Ivan off their land.

Which has been true in every asymmetric conflict that was successfully won by the smaller party. The Viet Cong repelling the U.S., the mujahedin driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the Taliban getting us to leave Afghanistan....the smaller party doesn't need to militarily repel the invaders. They just have to make it too costly for it to be worthwhile for the invaders to remain.

So Zelenskyy's notion of victory is to keep fighting not until they actually "throw Ivan off their land," but until Putin decides that it's worth taking only a partial achievement of his war aims rather than keep this up for another year.

No U.S. troops needed.