During a press conference with President Trump at the 2025 NATO Summit in the Netherlands two weeks ago, a Ukrainian reporter pleadingly asked whether the U.S. would sell Patriot surface-to-air missiles to Ukraine in order to combat Russia’s relentless drone and missile assault against the much smaller nation.

Trump, seeing the emotion in the reporter’s face, asked whether she was living in Ukraine. She responded that she had fled the country with her children and that her husband was currently in Ukraine fighting. “That’s rough stuff,” the president responded. “… We’re going to see if we can make [Patriot missiles] available.” The exchange ended with Trump remarking, “I wish you a lot of luck. I mean, I can see it’s very upsetting to you. So, say hello to your husband, okay?”

The exchange highlighted the seemingly unceasing conflict between Russia and its eastern neighbor, which was once part of the Soviet Union. The war is entering its 41st month, when Vladimir Putin’s regime commenced an unprovoked invasion in February 2022. Over the course of the grinding conflict, Russia has made significant territorial gains and currently controls approximately 20% of Ukraine’s territory. Russia’s war tactics have been marked by the brutal targeting of civilian populations via drone and missile strikes, with over 13,000 Ukrainian civilian casualties in the war so far. Despite brilliant covert drone tactics and some scattered battlefield gains, Ukrainian troops remain “under severe pressure” against a much larger Russian force.

In recent months, Putin has made overtures of being willing to cooperate in a ceasefire negotiated by the U.S., but his words turned out to be empty even after direct talks with President Trump. In recent weeks, the U.S. president has hinted at increased military aid for Ukraine and tightened sanctions against Russia. On Friday, Trump held a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which Zelensky described as “a very important and fruitful conversation” that touched on “air defense” as well as “defense industry capabilities and joint production.”

For his part, Trump described the interaction as “a very strategic call” and said that the U.S. will “continue to help” Ukraine, remarking that he is “looking at” providing Patriot missiles to the country. The president went on to state that he is “very unhappy” with Putin and that tougher sanctions “may be coming.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Bob Maginnis, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for National Security, provided a full analysis of the current state of the hostilities.

“The war in Ukraine remains a protracted, high-intensity conflict marked by Russia’s increased aerial bombardments and Ukraine’s steadfast resistance,” he explained. “President Trump’s recent call with President Zelenskyy was described as ‘fruitful,’ focusing on bolstering Ukraine’s air defenses and exploring joint arms production. Yet Trump's ‘very unhappy’ call with Putin reveals that Moscow remains entrenched in its maximalist war aims, openly stating it will not back down from its goals. The conflict is at a strategic stalemate: Russia continues to inflict destruction without securing decisive gains, while Ukraine endures with Western support but lacks the offensive capability to force a breakthrough.”

“Meanwhile,” Maginnis continued, “U.S. military aid has slowed due to competing global commitments, and the broader Western alliance appears fatigued. This dynamic benefits China, which sees the West distracted, divided, and drained of focus.”

Maginnis went on to recommend a number of actions the U.S. should work toward to end the war.

“First, the U.S. should rearm Ukraine with focused, defensive capabilities by resuming shipments of Patriot missiles and precision air defense systems to help Ukraine withstand Russia’s aerial assault,” he argued. “The U.S. should also expand joint arms production, especially for drones, counter-battery systems, and air defense — allowing Ukraine to defend itself without long-term dependency.”

Maginnis further contended that the U.S. should “exert coordinated economic pressure on Russia by intensifying sanctions targeting Russia’s energy revenues, defense sector, and sanctions evasion networks” and should “close loopholes exploited via third-party states like China, Turkey, and the UAE. Sanctions should be modernized and enforced multilaterally.”

A third action Maginnis outlined is to “enable diplomacy through third-party channels” by “quietly backing diplomatic overtures via neutral mediators (e.g., Turkey, India, the Vatican) to explore partial ceasefires or localized humanitarian corridors” and to “make clear that reconstruction funds and sanctions relief depend on a verified halt to hostilities and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

Maginnis also recommended that the burden of military aid should be shifted to Europe, “while refocusing on China.” The U.S. should “urge NATO allies — especially Germany and France — to assume a larger share of Ukraine’s military and financial support,” he argued, observing that the U.S. should “realign its strategic priorities to counter China’s global ambitions while maintaining a credible deterrent in Europe.”

Finally, Maginnis insisted that the U.S. should “communicate a clear strategic end-state” by “publicly defining its goal: not endless war, but a just ceasefire that preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty and deters future aggression.” He noted that the U.S. should “emphasize that continued support for Ukraine is part of a broader global struggle against authoritarian expansionism, not just a regional conflict.”

“The war is not yet over, and neither side is winning outright. But the U.S. still has tools to shape the outcome — by arming Ukraine wisely, leveraging economic power, enabling diplomacy, and preparing for the larger challenge posed by China,” Maginnis concluded. “A ceasefire is possible, but only if the U.S. leads with strategic clarity and avoids either disengagement or overcommitment.”