Susanna Riva On October 30, 2026, a group of former U.S. ambassadors published a harsh reflection on American policy toward Ukraine . The authors, among others, Adrian Zuckerman, Mark Gitenstein, Ron Gidwitz, Jim Gilmore, Kathleen Kavalec, and Jim Rosapepe, warn that recent sanctions relief against Russia could undermine Washington's credibility and, consequently, the security of Europe as a whole.
Exemptions introduced in 2026: what the law provides
On September 18, 2026, President Donald Trump signed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 , a measure aimed at strengthening sanctions against Moscow and Tehran. Just a few weeks later, on October 16, the president himself issued an executive order repealing specific portions of the measure, justifying it by defending the "national interest."
Undeclared objectives and risks of neutrality
The article highlights the lack of clear metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the waivers. Without measurable goals , it's difficult to understand why the administration deemed a "pause" in economic pressure on Russia appropriate, especially when Vladimir Putin's regime continues to finance the conflict with its energy revenues.
Why Ukraine's defense is a strategic investment
According to the authors, the war in Ukraine is not a mere territorial dispute, but a test of democracies' ability to uphold the principles of sovereignty and the rule of law . The conflict has already led to serious war crimes: in 2017, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, accused of deportation and illegal transfer of Ukrainian children.
Lessons from American History
Since the postwar period, both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that an international order based on freedom and respect for borders is in the US interest. Presidents like Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush have all demonstrated that national security and the defense of democracy go hand in hand with a policy of rigorous deterrence.
The consequences of a policy of concessions
The authors warn that an appeasement approach —more pressure on Kiev than on Moscow, or a loss of economic leverage for Russia—could encourage other authoritarian regimes to believe that military conquest is sustainable. A ceasefire without effective guarantees risks becoming merely a pause before a new offensive.
The role of sanctions as a non-military tool
Sanctions are one of the main non-war instruments available to the US. Limiting Russian energy revenues, impeding access to international markets, and closing evasion routes weaken Moscow's ability to finance the conflict, while also reducing the impact on Ukrainian civilians.
The document concludes that American policy must maintain constant pressure on Russia, close legal loopholes for sanctions evasion , and promote a diplomacy that does not sacrifice Ukrainian sovereignty in the bargaining process. Only in this way can the United States demonstrate that aggression does not pay and that the defense of democracy remains at the heart of its global security strategy.