Following the unprecedented public spat between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump last week that led Zelensky to leave the U.S. without signing a mineral deal, European leaders have proposed a framework for a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia that would require U.S. support. Experts are expressing concerns that alienating Ukraine and appeasing Russia could prove disadvantageous for the U.S.’s global influence.

An effort led by the U.K. and France would seek to pause the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia for 30 days and negotiate a longer-term peace deal during that time frame. On Sunday, Zelensky visited London to discuss the initiative, commenting, “An agreement to end the war is still very, very far away, and no one has started all these steps yet. The peace that we foresee in the future must be just, honest, and most importantly, sustainable.”

Nevertheless, Zelensky maintained that Ukraine was still “ready to sign” a mineral deal with the U.S. and that he wants to have “constructive dialogue” with the Trump administration. “I just want the Ukrainian position to be heard,” he remarked. “We want our partners to remember who the aggressor is in this war.”

On Monday, Dr. A.J. Nolte, chair of the government graduate program and director of the International Development Ministries Program at Regent University, joined “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” to analyze last week’s fractious meeting in the Oval Office and discuss what lies ahead in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

“I would say [the meeting was] not a good thing for a couple of reasons,” he argued. “One, I think obviously allies are going to have disagreements, but normally for purposes of diplomacy, we tend to want to keep those disagreements quiet. We want to keep them behind the scenes, and we want to present a united front, especially when you’re going into … difficult negotiations with Vladimir Putin, who we know from past history, is going to take any advantage that he can possibly find.”

Nolte, who also serves as director of the Institute for Israel Studies at Regent University, went on to contend that Trump’s approach to Ukraine may prove to be similarly misguided as former President Barack Obama’s approach to Iran.

“I’m primarily a Middle East guy, and I’m just struck by the way President Trump and Vice President [J.D.] Vance are responding to Russia,” he explained. “It’s eerily, and I think, unfortunately, reminiscent to me of the way in which the Obama administration responded to Iran. And let me just point out a couple of similarities. Number one, seeming very desperate to get some sort of deal and some sort of reset and assuming that the previous administration is the only actor that’s responsible for those negative relations. Number two, seeing our allies that won’t go along with that as impediments to that deal. … And number three … what we saw with the Iran deal was this led our allies to start working around us. Now, that in some ways, it was a good thing because it led our allies to be more active. But it does give you less influence as the United States over the eventual outcome.”

Nolte further observed that the Trump administration’s standoffishness toward Ukraine could have negative implications for the ongoing threat China poses to Taiwan.

“If I’m the Taiwanese and I see a democratic country — obviously Ukraine has problems with corruption and it’s imperfect — but I see a smaller country that’s reasonably democratic being invaded by a neighbor, and I see the U.S. maybe not wanting to back that country to the same extent, and I’m wondering, ‘Will they take the same approach toward Taiwan if … China starts to get aggressive?’ And so, I do think this has potentially negative implications for our ability to deter China … from attacking Taiwan, because it might make the Chinese think that we’re irresolute and make Taiwan think that maybe we won’t defend them as much as we should.”

Other experts like Lt. General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin say that at the end of the day, the U.S. will likely have a significant role in an eventual peace deal.

“The way I see this thing unfolding is I see the U.S. brokering some kind of agreement,” he predicted during “Washinton Watch” Friday. “Now, the Russians, they’re not going to be pushovers on this thing either. But I think that we’re going to see something, some peace agreement … that will be brokered by the United States with Russia, and then it will be handed to Zelensky [saying], ‘Here it is — if you can live with this, we’re good to go. If you can’t, then the U.S. support is going to be very slim in the future.’”

Boykin, who serves as executive vice president at Family Research Council and formerly served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, went on to assert that European nations must also undertake a major portion of carrying out a future peace plan.

“[Trump]’s got to lean on the Europeans, and he’s got to demand that they start paying their share,” he insisted. “Because remember when he was first in office, he went over and talked to NATO and he said to NATO, ‘Pay your share. We’re not going to carry you anymore.’ And he went over and talked to all the heads of Islamic states, and he said, ‘Run [the terrorists] out. Run them out, or we’re not going to deal with you anymore.’ … And they started doing that. So it’s hard to say which way this thing will go, but I think that he’ll get an agreement with the Russians and Zelensky will probably reject it. And at that point, I don’t know where we go from there.”