Does Ukraine have to save dictator Putin?

A well-known American journalist, columnist, and member of the editorial board of the influential American newspaper The Wall Street Journal, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., published an article in The Wall Street Journal with the telling title «Asking Ukraine to Save Putin» with the subtitle «Pressure for a deal will increasingly smell like pressure to rescue the regime in Moscow».

In which he writes, in particular: «A completely predictable moment has come. Ukraine has received new reasons for internal discussions about a compromise on the question of whether to exchange land for peace, at least the land that Russia has already occupied. This is the deal that the Trump administration insisted on for Ukraine, and that the Biden administration had signaled earlier. But now, if it is asked again to make concessions to Russia, Ukraine may in fact be asked to become an instrument of Vladimir Putin’s salvation».

The article by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., raises a question that is at the center of international politics and security today: how possible diplomatic compromises between Ukraine and Russia are under pressure from the administration of United States President Donald Trump and other external actors, and what geopolitical consequences this might have. Jenkins emphasizes that the pressure on Kyiv to conclude an agreement increasingly looks not as a path to peace, but as an attempt to save the Putin regime.

This observation points to a critical dilemma facing Ukraine: between the pragmatic desire to stop the war and the need to protect state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The essence of Jenkins’ argument is that any agreement that involves concessions from Kyiv risks becoming a tool for legitimizing the Kremlin’s aggression. Historically, similar situations have already occurred. International negotiations in which weaker parties agreed to territorial or political concessions under pressure from stronger states have often weakened the position of the object of attack and strengthened the aggressor.

Particularly important in Jenkins’ approach is his emphasis on the political parallels between the Trump and Biden administrations. He notes that the Trump administration has openly promoted the idea of ​​exchanging territory for peace, while the Biden administration has only signaled its willingness to do so.

Now, any hint of compromise with Moscow can be seen not only as a diplomatic move, but as potentially dangerous pressure on Ukraine to become an active participant in stabilizing Putin’s regime. And this is when the economy of the Russian Federation is starting to breathe on incense.

Moreover, this problem has profound international dimensions. After all, any compromise that includes concessions to Russia could set a dangerous precedent for other global conflicts. If an aggressor sees that the occupation of territory can be rewarded with diplomatic concessions, this increases the risk of repeating such behavior in the future.

And for Ukraine’s Western allies, an ethical and strategic dilemma arises: should they support Kyiv in preserving its territorial integrity or push it to make concessions to avoid further escalation of the war? Jenkins clearly outlines that pressure, which can come even from allies, is often disguised as humanistic or pragmatic arguments, but in fact serves the interests of the Kremlin.

Another important topic is the domestic political dimension. Ukrainian society, experiencing devastating aggression, has its own assessment of what «peace at the cost of territories» means. Concessions for the sake of an immediate end to the war can cause significant discontent and become a source of political instability. Thus, any attempts to exert external pressure on Kyiv to sign such a dubious agreement risk not only its international but also its domestic legitimacy.

Jenkins also emphasizes a complex psychological aspect. Because asking Ukraine to become «an instrument to save Putin» creates a moral trap.

On the one hand, there is a desire to avoid the continuation of a grueling bloody war, and on the other hand, it is obvious that such concessions will not stop the enemy, but will only give him time to consolidate and strengthen his positions. This is confirmed by the modern practice of international conflicts, when weaker states often become objects of manipulation by stronger players, who falsely cover their own interests with «moral» arguments about peace and stability.

In a strategic dimension, the article raises a key question: is the international community capable of pursuing a policy that truly ensures peace without putting the aggressor in an advantageous position?

The author suggests a critical review of approaches that focus on pressuring the attacked party rather than on limiting the aggressor’s capabilities and increasing his isolation. Such a strategy requires from the West not only political determination, but also strategic long-term perspective, adequate risk analysis, and moral clarity.

An analysis of Jenkins Jr.’s position allows us to state that any external demands for territorial or political concessions from Ukraine go far beyond the classical diplomatic practice of conflict resolution and have profound destructive consequences for the entire global security system.

There is no doubt that such a scenario will not stop Moscow’s expansionist ambitions, but will only fix an intermediate stage of aggression, creating a precedent where force destroys established borders with the tacit consent of the international community. This directly contradicts the fundamental norms of justice and the principles of the UN Charter, which guarantee the inviolability of the sovereignty of states.

For Ukraine itself, implementing such an approach would mean capitulation to an existential threat, the destruction of internal social unity, and the undermining of basic national interests, the main of which is ensuring long-term security and independent development.

Satisfying Moscow’s expansionist appetites sets a dangerous precedent that devalues ​​the operation of international law and nullifies the principle of the inviolability of borders. Jenkins quite rightly emphasizes that such a compromise does not eliminate the root cause of the conflict – the revisionist nature of the current Russian regime, which is based on the ideology of restoring the imperial sphere of influence.

Jenkins Jr. convincingly demonstrates that any decisions in this case should be evaluated not only through the prism of short-term benefits, but also through the long-term consequences for the security, sovereignty, and moral standing of the Ukrainian state.

And here a deep critical dilemma arises – world politics, built on pragmatism and the balance of power, risks ignoring the human factor, on which, ultimately, the legitimacy of any decisions depends. Therefore, today Ukraine is becoming not only a front of confrontation with the aggressor, but also a litmus test of the moral maturity of the international community.

Jenkins’ article undoubtedly has the potential to stir up controversy due to its provocative tone and language that some may find controversial. However, if read carefully, it becomes an important call for global politics to stop being dominated by short-term gains and questionable strategic maneuvers.

The expert does not offer simple solutions, but his article opens up an important perspective for understanding that Ukraine’s role in the modern world goes beyond territorial sovereignty and becomes a key factor in shaping global justice.

The appearance of Holman W. Jenkins Jr.’s article «A Plea to Ukraine to Save Putin» in The Wall Street Journal, which traditionally reflects the views of American business and the moderate wing of the Republican Party, suggests that the Reaganite wing of Republicans disagrees with US President Donald Trump’s overt attempts to award victory in the war to dictator Putin.

And it is a clear indicator of a deep conceptual and ideological split within the Republican Party regarding the future of American foreign policy and the architecture of global security.

As the mouthpiece of American business circles and the moderate party establishment, The Wall Street Journal broadcasts the growing concern of the Reaganite faction of Republicans, which consistently defends the principles of US global leadership, deterrence of totalitarianism, and unconditional support for democratic allies.

The publication of such a position in an influential conservative media outlet indicates open opposition to the attempts of the Donald Trump administration to radically change its foreign policy course by imposing dubious territorial concessions or agreements on Ukraine, which would de facto legitimize the Kremlin’s aggression.

This informational move demonstrates that the pragmatic part of the Republican elite views Donald Trump’s imagined «victory» of Russia, or the geopolitical «rescue» of the Putin regime, as a direct threat to the West’s long-term economic and security interests, the destruction of the international legal system, and a dangerous precedent for other revisionist forces in the world.

It is clear that this article is not just the personal opinion of a respected political expert, but also a systemic signal that supporters of global responsibility within the Republican Party are beginning to resist the isolationism and transactional politics of pragmatism of its current leadership.

Followers of President Ronald Reagan’s political tradition in the Republican Party publicly emphasize that support for Ukraine is a tool to counter the triumph of dictatorships and prevent geopolitical chaos. This indicates an attempt by traditional Republican elites to seize the initiative in foreign policy debates in the United States.