Trump Should Not Abandon Ukraine to Russia
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
In September 2026, as the war between Russia and Ukraine continued, The Hill and National Review published opinion columns on President Donald Trump’s approach to that conflict. The Hill’s column, titled “Trump can’t deliver Ukraine to Putin — and he should stop trying to,” stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin is losing ground and that this is no time to reward him. National Review’s column, titled “Trump Shouldn’t Throw Ukraine to the Wolves,” argued that Trump should remember — or relearn — that Russia is the aggressor and a willing pillar of an anti-American axis.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Both sides warn Trump not to abandon Ukraine, but they omit each other's core reason, so the argument reads as either a refusal to reward a loser or a refusal to reward an aggressor. Left-leaning coverage at The Hill says Putin is losing ground and that this is no time to reward him. Right-leaning coverage at National Review never mentions those losses and instead calls Russia the aggressor and a pillar of an "anti-American axis." A reader of only one column would not know the other justification exists.
Left-leaning coverage casts a settlement as an attempt to "deliver Ukraine to Putin." Right-leaning coverage casts the same act as throwing Ukraine "to the Wolves."
What settlement terms would count as delivering Ukraine, and has Trump offered them?
Bottom line
The Hill and National Review agree Trump should not abandon Ukraine, yet only The Hill claims Putin is losing ground. National Review never states who is winning.
The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Putin is losing ground
- Trump should remember or relearn that Russia is the aggressor
The Left View
The Hill frames Trump as attempting to hand Ukraine to Moscow and says he “can’t deliver Ukraine to Putin — and he should stop trying to.” Its central claim is that “Putin is losing ground,” so “this is no time to reward him.” The piece treats any settlement that would benefit Russia as a reward for a weakening adversary rather than a necessary compromise.
The Right View
National Review frames a U.S. pullback as throwing “Ukraine to the wolves.” It argues Trump “should remember — or relearn — that Russia is the aggressor and that it is a willing pillar of an anti-American axis,” locating the case against abandonment in Russia’s role as initiator of the war and as a partner in a coalition hostile to the United States.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is timing: because Putin is “losing ground,” a deal that rewards him would convert a Russian setback into a political win. The right’s strongest argument is identity and alignment: Russia is “the aggressor” and “a willing pillar of an anti-American axis,” so abandoning Ukraine would strengthen a hostile coalition regardless of the current battlefield map. The central unresolved tension is whether opposition to a Russia-favorable outcome should rest primarily on Putin’s present military weakness or on Russia’s standing as aggressor in an anti-American alignment — and whether Trump is actively trying to “deliver” Ukraine or has merely failed to “remember” what Russia is.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.