A (0:00)

Foreign. It's Monday, November 24, 2025. I'm Albert Mohler and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Peace in Ukraine is the goal. The American President made that very clear. And just in recent days, the US Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, has delivered to the Ukrainian government, and that means particularly to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a 28 point proposed agreement for a cessation of hostilities of peace, at least some kind of enduring peace between Russia and Ukraine. Now, let's just remind ourselves of the background. Russia is the invading force. Russia invaded Ukraine in a war that is now crushing. And the big new thing in the war is the fact that even as Ukraine has pressed back incredibly bravely and even as Ukraine has has thwarted many of the ambitions of the vast Russian army, the fact is that the Russian army can press this much longer than Ukraine can stand it. And even as Ukraine is looking at going into a very hard winter, Russia is making that winter not only very difficult in anticipation, hitting energy, also hitting cities, hitting civilian targets, but it also is putting Ukraine in the position of recognizing it could be a very cold, very dark, very, very bloody winter. And thus the President of the United States has been putting pressure on Ukraine to agree to the framework that was proposed. Again, it was taken by the US Secretary of the army and it is a 28 point agreement. And as you look at it, it appears to be in many ways tilted towards Russia. It certainly gives Russia many of the aims of this military action. Let's just remind ourselves it was Russia that invaded Ukraine. Russia broke all the norms of international law. Russia is the aggressor here. Russia is the transgressor here. Russia invaded Ukraine with. The goal is to remind ourselves of almost immediately bringing an end, precipitating a collapse of Ukraine as a nation. We now know that In February of 2022, when Russia launched this invasion, even as its first aims were to capture the territory in the eastern portion of Ukraine known as the Donbas region, heavily Russian in influence and heavily populated by Russian speakers, Russia's real ambition was to topple the Zelensky regime, to topple the government in Kyiv and to capture all of Ukraine, if not putting Ukraine entirely within the Russian Federation, then at the very least using Ukraine as a Russian occupied buffer between Russia and the West. The Ukrainians did fight back bravely and I think with unexpected effectiveness. We know, for instance, that Russian generals had taken dress uniforms to use in a military celebration even as the Russian tanks were advancing towards Kyiv. But the Ukrainians fought back, and they have fought back bravely. Ever Since February of 2022, there have been setbacks. Russia is increasing the territory that it has under its control. Russia's had to pay a very dear price for much of that territory. But the point is, Russia has been willing to pay that price. And even as the Trump administration has been putting pressure on Russia, Russia has made very clear, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made very clear. He is quite willing to wait this out. He's quite willing for Ukraine to bleed out. And the American president is here, presented to the Ukrainian government something of an ultimatum. Now, over the course of the last couple of days, the White House has backed off of the ultimatum status. Here it is said that even as the president wants Ukraine to accept this agreement, or at least something very close to this framework, and even as the president wants an answer from Zelensky, as early as Thursday, Thanksgiving Day in the United States, the fact is that under influence of sources inside the United States, also our allies in Europe, and the pressure coming from Ukraine, it is likely that Ukraine will be able to at least suggest some modifications to the agreement. But the fact is that, that this is a very crucial moment, and it is becoming very clear that Ukraine is in the position where it is either going to have to basically agree to this framework or something very much like it, or it is going to lose the support of the United States of America. Speaking to his own people in an address on Friday, President Zelenskyy said, quote, ukraine may soon find itself before a very difficult choice. He said either the loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner, either the difficult 28 points or an extremely hard winter, the hardest one. And further risks. It was very clear that the United States is the key partner that President Zelensky was referencing there. And by the way, we don't have time to look into this in detail, but President Zelensky is facing an internal crisis as well. One of the facts of the relatively short history of modern Ukraine is that it has been riddled by corruption, and it has been basically tossed back and forth between corruption scandals. Now, there is a very serious corruption scandal very close to the Ukrainian president himself. We're going to put that on hold right now. Let's just look at the predicament of Ukraine. Let's look at the predicament of its president. Now, why would President Trump have come to this conclusion? Why would President Trump be willing to basically to say Russia can keep the territory that it now occupies and even some additional territory that would make its holdings intact. Russia can continue to have forces in the region. Ukraine must agree to surrender that territory, or at least effective control of the territory. And Ukraine must also reduce its army. Ukraine must adopt a constitutional measure that would prevent it from ever becoming a member of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, that's a very steep cost, and it's a cost that President Zelensky has said he would not pay. Repeatedly, he has said that this war will not be over and Ukraine will not be party to any agreement that awards or rewards Vladimir Putin and Russia for its invasion that gives Russia the territory. Now remember, there's a history here, and in just a moment we're going to remind ourselves even of a moment much longer history. But the most immediate history we need to keep in mind is that with the fall of the Soviet Union, you had the rise of Ukraine as a modern independent nation. And basically the first thing you need to know is that throughout the last, say, 1500 years, the period of time in which Ukraine was an independent, viable nation has been very, very brief. And most importantly, the modern history of Ukraine as an independent nation is basically only since the early 1990s until the present. Until then going all the way back to the formation of the Soviet Union. The Russian forces had required Ukraine to enter. Let's just say that it was military force that required Ukraine to become a part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine was basically honored or respected in one sense by being one of the republics. Of course, that was an artificial construction within the ussr, but nonetheless, the Russian mind has always felt that it must have control of Ukraine. And so looking at this, we realize that back in 2014, Russia occupied the Crimean Peninsula. And the current government there in Kyiv, President Zelensky has said that there will be no satisfactory end to this current war unless Russia agrees to return the Crimean Peninsula. That's not going to happen. Let's just state it bluntly. That is not going to happen. Russia, in terms of its own self understanding, has to have a warm weather port. It does not have a single warm weather port in its northern exposure. The only way that Russia would have a warm weather port as relates to Europe and to things to the west, it has to be through the Crimean Peninsula. It has to be on the Black Sea. And just even in recent weeks, my wife and I and others have been right there in that area and we have seen the Russian ships going in and out. There's no way Russia is ever going to surrender that territory. As a matter of fact, going all the way back to the end of the Soviet Union. It's important for us to recognize that many of the friends of liberty at that time in the Soviet Union, later that became the Russian Federation, they did not believe at the time that Ukraine should be an independent nation separate from Mother Russia. We'll go back to that history, but the thing we need to recognize is that it is absolutely implausible that Russia is going to surrender that territory, the Crimean Peninsula. That's explained by its military, it's explained by its political will, it's explained by its overwhelming power. And as we shall see, it's explained by its history. Similarly, when it comes to these eastern regions of the Donbas, the thing you need to recognize, eastern regions of Ukraine, that Russia has always felt itself extremely vulnerable to invasion from the West. And Ukraine is the only buffer between the west and Russia. And thus Russia has for centuries believed that it must have effective control of, if not sovereignty over that region. And so you're looking at a very, very realistic assessment. I think President Trump is offering a realistic assessment. I think the American government has finally come to a realistic assessment, and that is that there is no rational argument, there's no plausible argument that given its military situation, Ukraine is going to be able to dislocate all Russians from its claimed territory, even from what we would agree would be its territorial integrity. I think we must agree that morally it was wrong for Russia to take the Crimean Peninsula. It was wrong for it to take that by military action. It was a military action. But you'll notice no one in the west believed it was wrong enough that we were willing to go to war with Russia over it. Similarly, when it comes to the territory in the eastern regions of Ukraine, it is almost, well, let's just say it is flatly impossible that Europe or the United States, regardless of all the language, is going to go to war for Ukraine against Russia over that territory. It's not going to happen. And so it is just a matter of honesty. This is in foreign policy referred to as realism, and I think it is congruent with a Christian worldview. That is not to say that we endorse the actions taken by Russia. No, to the contrary. These were illegal actions. These were immoral actions. These were aggressive actions. These were actions that violate the principles of just war theory. Nonetheless, realism reminds us that in a fallen, sinful world, bad people are going to do bad things. Bad actors are going to act badly, and powerful bad actors are going to act well with powerful evil, and they will also act in their own self interest. And here's where realism also reminds us that what we should expect of every nation is that its calculation will be based on its own national self interest. Now, as you look at different approaches to foreign policy, huge worldview issues here, this gets really interesting. You go back to the early 20th century. You look at the idealism of Woodrow Wilson, not well remembered in terms of American history or international history. His idealism was crushed by the realism of the situation. After World War I, he could not even get his own Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. And then of course you had the fact that fast on the heels of World War I came World War II, another form of necessary realism. Churchill and Roosevelt, two of the most clear headed leaders at the time, understanding the nature of the threat. And then you also had after that, the rise of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and its satellites representing a direct threat to the existence of Western civilization, the United States and our allies and our interests. And thus realism has required the United States to say, okay, we must act in our own national self interest. Our national self interest is linked to the self interest of other nations. That means that it is linked so closely to the self interest of other nations that, that we can create a block, we can create a treaty organization, that's NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in which we will say that an attack upon one is an attack upon all. Notably. Well, notably Ukraine is not in NATO. And remember that one of the points demanded by Russia is that formal action be taken such that Ukraine can never be a part of NATO. And furthermore, even as there were those who in the United States, I'll just say, may have, may have given assurances at some point to Ukraine that it could be a part of NATO. The reality is when it comes to Russia, that has never been a possibility. Okay, so now we need to look at an even deeper history. And I promise you, this is interesting. If you look at what we call Ukraine as a nation, it has only been an independent nation for a very short span of time or short spans of time since say the sixth or seventh century. And then you have the emergence of a people known as the Rus. And that of course is associated with the language that becomes known as Russian or Russian. And Kyiv is the heart of it. The Kievan Rus, as they are known, are really the first Russian people. And you notice they're not in Russia, they are in Ukraine. And then of course you have the rise of Russia, this massive nation, this massive empire, as it became this massive land mass. But it's a landmass that Creates all kinds of problems. There are no transverse rivers. It is very difficult to ship things across Russia. Russia, with all of its time zones and all of its geographical complications, has always existed with a lot of vulnerability. Its vulnerability to the north has been more minimal than in other places, but it has that vast Pacific exposure. It has exposure to military powers, such as in the 20th century, Japan. It has exposure, massive exposure to China. It has exposure to the stands, so to speak, of the Muslim world. It is exposed just about everywhere. But the big problem for Russia, in Russia's mind, has always been the exposure to the west, the exposure to Europe. And you look at the rise of Russia as a great nation and as a powerful nation, it is always understood that it had to have a very powerful army. It has also understood something else, and that is that it had to make it very difficult for a foreign power to invade Russia. Or to put it another way, it had to make it very costly for a foreign Western power to invade Russia. Let's remember that two have, Two have. And that would be Napoleon in terms of the invasion in the 19th century and then Hitler in the invasion of the 20th century. And both of them discovered they could defeat units of the Russian army. They could penetrate Russian defenses and get into the heart of Russia. The problem is they couldn't win after that, and they couldn't get out alive. The rise of Moscow, in one sense, came at the expense of Kyiv or Kiev, as Americans often pronounce it. Even when you look at religion, the Russian Orthodox Church is actually. It's not as old as the Ukrainian or Kievan Orthodox Church. That's something that irritates the Russians. And the Russians have always looked at Ukraine. And here we have geography playing such a big role. And this again points to realism, even Christian realism, foreign policy realism, understanding that geography matters. All kinds of factors matter. The problem for Russia is that open plain, vast open plain. And Ukraine is the breadbasket because it has that plain. It's a fertile plain. This is where the wheat is. If you look at the pictures in the Soviet Union, you'll see a vast wheat harvest. And all the rest, well, it's in what is now Ukraine. Furthermore, Ukraine is the territory that if Russia doesn't control, here's the point, someone else will. And that's why Russia has always seen this as an enormous vulnerability. In different periods, Ukraine has been a part of an empire that linked it to Poland and Lithuania. At other times, it's been a part of what's called Hetmanitz. At other times, it has basically been under one form of domination or another over time. You can see it in kind of an historic pincer movement, with Poland on one side, along with Germany and with Russia on the other side. It has always been an extremely vulnerable situation. And as I said, it is only after the collapse of the Soviet Union that Ukraine in its modern sense has become an independent state, and not without trouble and not without complications from Russia during that entire history. Now, here I want to make another point, and that is that as you look at Ukraine, well, we are reminded, and I think this is really something important for Christians to think about. I want us to think in civilizational terms. Now, what would that mean? What are civilizational terms? It means we understand that vast historic civilizational forms are very difficult, difficult to oppose over time. They include traditions, they include history and customs. They include language and economy. They involve kinship and all the rest. And when it comes to this part of the world, realize that some of these animosities, some of these alliances, some of these dynamics were in place for centuries before there was a United States of America. One of the things we need to understand is that the Russian civilization, in civilizational terms, has always considered Ukraine a part of that project and a central part of that project. And I want to draw an analogy that might irritate some people. But when you think of how Russia thinks of Ukraine, you need to think in the 19th century about how the United States of America looked at Texas. And just think of that very contested history and just realize this. For the United States, the big issue was not that Texas had to be a part of the United States of America. The big issue for the United States is that Texas couldn't be a part of anything else. And that's a logic that I think applies as Russia looks at Ukraine. It's not in one sense that Ukraine has to be an integral part of Russia, although that would be the goal, just like we can't think of the United States without Texas. But the fact is it's even more urgent that Ukraine not become a part of something else. And that's why the NATO identity, the NATO issue is front and center and probably alone would explain at least some of the timing of Russia's military actions against Ukraine. Now, I want to be clear again, that does not mean that Russia had a right to do this. It is to say that Russia doesn't really care. Russia is acting in what it sees as its own best interest, and it sees that best interest over a course of centuries. It's not really, really worried about any single American presidential administration. It's not really, really worried about any president or secretary of state. It's not really, really worried about Vladimir Zelensky over time. It is worried about Mother Russia and how it defines its borders. And about that Russia has been fanatical for centuries. I'll admit I've been frustrated by seeing many NATO allies and others, many Europeans, speak of their willingness to support Ukraine basically to the last drop of Ukrainian blood. I don't see any moral purpose in that. I don't see any purpose in continued suffering on the part of the Ukrainian people. That is not to say. And here's one of the arguments. Well, if you concede this territory, you're just rewarding Russia. Well, let me just state the obvious. Russia is going to be rewarded. Russia is going to get a good bit of what it demands, because there is no one on planet Earth who is actually willing to go to war for Ukraine against Russia in order to settle that issue in Ukrainian favor. That includes the United States of America. That includes all the loudmouth European nations that are crying out about the wrongness of this kind of agreement. They are sacrificially supporting Ukraine with an awful lot of armament and economic support. They are not themselves bleeding out. Ukraine is. I will also tell you that in terms of this dynamic, you need to watch something. And as Christians watching these issues, you know, there has been a foreign policy debate in the United States in recent years. President Trump has been very much a part of that, but he hasn't been alone. He's been the catalyst for some of this, but he hasn't been alone. There have been many people who have come to the conclusion that some of the foreign policy that had been very much associated with the Republican Party going back in recent decades was actually based upon a lack of realism, a lack of honesty, and a lack of great power dynamics that understood that Russia is not going to be deterred by Western arguments. It's only going to be deterred eventually by power. It has been very frustrating to me to. To see many people, and especially European leaders, just offer all these assurances that they're willing for Ukraine to continue to bleed out. And I think at this point, the president's urgency is not misplaced. I think he understands the moral urgency. This is not to say that the plan that was forwarded by the White House is or ought to be the final plan. Ukraine should have a say in this. Our allies should have a say in this. But I do believe at this point, President Zelenskyy's sense of resignation is not just about the fact that he's been put into a situation by the President of the United States demanding an answer. I think he has to know in his heart that time is running out for Ukraine to have many options. And so reality realism means that at times in foreign policy, all you can achieve is the least worse, worst option. And I think the structure of what has been proposed here, in the end, and frankly, almost at the beginning, is pretty much where any intelligent person knew this was going to have to end one way or another, unless NATO and the United States intend to go to war with Russia, which all honest people would have to say is simply not the case. And I think it should not be the case. It's a part of the frustration, even of a power like the United States. And it's a frustration to those who love what is honorable and love what is good and love what is true, that sometimes those things get trounced by military power and by those who are driven by their own nationalistic ambitions. And that's exactly the case with Vladimir Putin in Russia. But countering that with military force is a different thing entirely. It is very difficult for us to accept the bad things happen in the world, but bad things do happen in the world. And at least one thing we can do for good is to try to make bad things less bad than they otherwise would be. That might not sound to be too lofty as an aspiration, but realism in foreign policy means at times that's exactly what you have to do. You have to go for the least bad option available and try to save as much life and as much dignity as possible. We have to come to a conclusion here, but I want to look at a statement that was made by President Zelensky of Ukraine in the context of the meeting of G20 leaders just recently. This was also reported over the weekend. President Zelensky said on Saturday, right now, this is about much more than any points in any document. We must ensure that nowhere in Europe or the world does the principle prevail that crimes against people and humanity, against states and nations, can ever be rewarded in any way or forgiven. Now I understand the urgency with which he made that statement. I understand that this is probably a statement from the heart, but I do not understand Western leaders acting as if that is a formal statement beside which they are willing to stand at the cost of their own blood and treasure. By the principle the Ukrainian president indicated there, the world map would be very different than it is today. Not just related to Ukraine, but related to any number of border regions. And contested areas all over the world. The fact is that the current borders were often borders that were established by some kind of offensive action or were the reward of some kind of what we would consider to be evil acts. The world is not drawn according to lines that the United States or others who would consider ourselves morally enlightened would draw them. Finally, we just need to recognize we live in a very dangerous world. It has always been this way after Genesis 3. It will be that way until Jesus comes. There are all kinds of cries of peace, but that peace has been largely temporary. And where peace has existed, it has been very hard work. A headline recently appeared in the edition of the Wall Street Journal. The headline is Nuclear Race Now Matches US, China and Russia. The big point in this article by Yaroslav Topimov is the fact that there used to be a bilateral confrontation. Even when it comes to the nuclear standoff, it was between the United States and our allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. And now it's no longer that. With the rise of modern China, it is now a triangle. It is now the United States and Russia and China. In other words, the world is not getting easier in terms of the complexity of these issues. Even when it comes to the superpowers, even when it comes to nuclear weapons, it's not getting easier. It's only getting more complex. And frankly, it's growing more dangerous day by day. Another reminder to us that peace never happens by accident. Thanks for listening to the briefing from for more information, go to my website@albertmohler.com you can follow me on Twitter or x by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.