John Thune is on the hot seat. Most Americans would ask, Who is that? He’s the Republican majority leader of the Senate, one of the most powerful positions in the U.S. He replaced the long-serving Mitch McConnell, the brilliant political strategist who dominated much of the Senate’s actions for decades. Thune is responsible for moving legislation and appointments through the Senate.

While he did yeoman work shepherding President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bil” through the Senate, he has thwarted the will of the Senate to please the President. Eighty-five members signed onto the Graham-Blumenthal Russian sanctions bill, yet the Republican leadership under Thune has not brought the legislation to the floor. After the failure of the Alaska summit to achieve a ceasefire due to Putin’s intransigence, it’s time to apply maximum pressure on Russia.

As I’ve pointed out, the Trump administration has been visibly tougher on Ukraine than Russia. The administration’s theory was to bring the latter to the negotiating table. Well, Trump met with Putin, and Putin came away with enhanced prestige while giving up nothing. The Russian attacks on civilians have intensified. If there was ever a time to deal Russia pain, it’s now.

What we are getting from the administration is, at best, mixed signals. Instead of blaming the continued fighting on Putin, the Trump administration holds both countries equally to blame. While acknowledging Russian attacks on civilians, Caroline Leavitt, the presidential press secretary, pointed out that Ukraine had taken out 20% of Russia’s fuel capacity. This equivalence is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Oil refineries and pipelines have always been legitimate war targets, while direct civilian targeting is a war crime.

Even stranger is the recent disclosure that Exxon is in talks with Russians regarding the development of Russian oil assets. Why would the largest American oil company be cleared to work with the Russians to increase output? Russia pays for this ugly war with oil sales. How is it in our interest to help Russia?

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump claimed he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. He won, but the first 24 hours came and went with Ukrainian civilians still targeted and killed—no action taken against Russia. In February, President Trump and Vice President Vance bullied Zelenskyy in the Oval Office to consider what he would offer for a ceasefire. Ukrainian civilians are still being targeted and killed, and no U.S. action against Russia.

In July, Trump temporarily halted arms shipments to Ukraine. Later in the month, he gave Putin 50 days to agree to a ceasefire, which he then shortened to 10-12 days. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

In early August, the U.S. agreed to sell a billion dollars of weapons to Europeans to give to Ukraine. President Trump arranged to meet Putin in Alaska on August 15th to negotiate a ceasefire. Putin being seen as a great national leader rather than an international pariah, forestalling any severe sanctions, while the war continues, underlay his attendance.

As the two Presidents returned home, it was clear that Trump had failed to secure a ceasefire, whereas Putin had achieved all his objectives. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

Somewhere, Trump got the idea that Putin was open to a NATO-like force on the ground and in the air that would keep Ukraine safe, even if it gave Russia vital defensive territory. European leaders descended on Washington on Monday to discuss the details of the peacekeeping force and to praise Trump.

Russia claims it went into Ukraine to prevent Western troops stationed on its borders, so it’s fanciful to believe it is suddenly OK now. Then all the attendees went home. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no U.S. action taken against Russia.

Now that a few days have elapsed, it’s clear Russia agreed to nothing, saying that Ukraine’s guarantors should include Russia and China, each with a veto. Any further meeting, either between Putin and Zelenskyy or one that also includes Trump, would require extensive prior groundwork. Ukrainian civilians continued to be targeted and killed, with no action taken against Russia.

The Russian summer offensive in Ukraine is in full swing. Heavy attacks along the front lines join heavy drone and missile attacks pounding that valiant nation. It stands to reason that the US and its NATO allies are rushing all the help they can. On Monday, we were surprised to find this isn’t the case. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the US is not only not increasing its support, but is also holding up already approved armaments, some of which are already in Poland.

With all the attention focused on the President’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” this situation is being overlooked. It shouldn’t be. Russian control of Ukraine brings it right up to NATO’s borders. Unless we withdraw from the organization, a Russian attack on a NATO nation will directly involve us. Why would anybody want that? Right now, we only have to provide material support to fend off Russian aggression. An attack on a NATO nation means Americans are in harm’s way. Whatever we’ve spent supporting Ukraine is cheap compared to direct conflict.

This action is the second time the Trump administration has halted arms to Ukraine. Last March, we halted shipments while the Russians were pounding Ukraine, including civilians, to pressure that nation to agree to a ceasefire. They agreed and are still open to the idea.

Russia has agreed to nothing except some prisoner exchanges. Yet the administration has refrained from exerting any real pressure on Putin. Why are we putting more pressure on Ukraine in the middle of a battle, when they’re not the holdup?

Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department undersecretary for policy, appears to be the point person on the arms pause. The excuse given is low stockpiles. What an odd reason. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East didn’t start yesterday; they’ve been going on for a long time. If we hadn’t ramped up production, it would be our mistake—Produce more rather than taking the bullets out of our friends’ guns. Some are questioning whether the stockpiles are, in fact, low.

The recent call between Trump and Putin confirms the U.S. president’s pro-Putin stance, as outlined in my “What is Trump Thinking” post. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Zelinski agreed to a complete ceasefire. Russian President Putin agreed to a ceasefire only on energy sites and some U.S.-Russia hockey games. Zeroing in on only energy is a giveaway of where Putin is feeling the pain. Ukraine has developed its long-range capabilities, enabling it to hit oil and gas facilities in Russia. Diminished oil shipments reduce Russia’s ability to stay afloat.

Remember, for most of Biden’s term, Ukraine was forbidden from using U.S. weapons deep in Russia, while Putin was free to hit anything anywhere in Ukraine. I and others recommend letting Ukraine return fire anywhere in Russia launched attacks or war necessities produced. If Russia felt the pain, it would change its tune. Putin’s counter-proposal proves us correct.

Suppose Trump is serious about preserving Ukraine’s independence. In that case, he should’ve told Putin he either made real concessions or would supply Ukraine with everything it needs to put Russia in a world of pain. He didn’t, showing he favors Putin.

In the post, I pointed out Trump’s position was unworkable. Russia can’t break with China. Turning his back on Europe to cuddle up with Putin makes no sense.

If Trump’s goal in opening peace talks with Putin is to end the current Ukraine war and ensure Russia doesn’t begin a new chapter a few years down the road, he has a strange way of going about it. Instead of presenting Putin with a list of actions the U.S. will take unless Russia agrees to workable guarantees of Ukraine’s borders, Trump’s Secretay of Defence announced NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table. Then, his Vice President infers the right-of-center German Christian Democrats should hook up with the pro-Russian Alternative for Germany (Afd).

If this wasn’t bad enough, Trump chose to denigrate Ukraine’s President as a Dictator responsible for the continuing war. Trump demands President Zelinsky hold an election. According to Trump, he has little support in Ukraine. (The latest poll has Zellinsky’s popularity at 57%),

Trump proposed that Ukraine pledge its natural resources for U.S. development to secure any more U.S. aid, and no U.S. forces will ever be involved in maintaining Ukraine’s borders. What is strange is that many of the resources are in the Russian-occupied part of Ukraine,

Putin must be dancing a jig over his good fortune. He can visualize sharing a Nobel Peace Prize with Trump while waiting to devour the rest of Ukraine for dessert. He doesn’t have to give up a thing.

What caused Trump to denounce the Ukrainian President? He dared complain about his exclusion from the talks that would decide his nation’s fate. One of the few remaining columnists, George Will, whose first memories were of World War II, reminds us of a similar circumstance on the road to that horrible war. The leaders of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany gathered in Munich to decide the fate of Czechoslovakia. The one excluded was the leader of that nation.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain claimed the agreement reached there promised “Peace in our Time.” Seven months later, Germany completed the takeover of the doomed nation. History gives Zelinsky every reason to object to Trump and Putin deciding the life or death of his country. Trump even excluded friendly European nations from the talks. The U.S. President’s anti-involvement stance echoes Chamberlain’s observation about “a quarrel in a faraway land between people of which we know nothing.”