From my vantage point in northern Kyrgyzstan, reflecting on global conflicts, one question looms large: is there a middle path between full-scale war and appeasement? Former President Donald Trump’s stated goal to “stop the killing” in Ukraine and Israel is laudable, but the method matters. Stopping the violence at the cost of surrender whether by forcing Ukraine to cede territory to Russia or by demanding Israel stand down to Hamas would be neither just nor lasting.

History offers a third way: deterrence through presence. This is the concept behind tripwire troops small, forward-deployed U.S. military units positioned in strategic locations not to fight, but to make any act of aggression against them an act of war against the United States. The result? Adversaries think twice.

Why Forward Presence Works

The U.S. currently has forces deployed in more than 170 countries, totaling around 170,000 service members. While many of these deployments are embassy security or routine training, a fraction are “tripwire” positions. These troops’ primary mission is deterrence, not combat.

The logic is simple: an attack that kills Americans compels a U.S. military response, something most adversaries cannot afford to provoke. In the Baltics, Poland, and other NATO states, these forces serve as a visible barrier to Russian expansion. The concept works in other regions as well:

• South Korea: 28,500 U.S. troops have deterred North Korean aggression for over 70 years.

• Kosovo: U.S. and allied forces have prevented a resumption of war between Serbia and Kosovo for decades.

• Middle East: U.S. presence in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan has restrained—not eliminated hostile actions by regional actors.

In many cases, host nations share the costs. Germany, Japan, and South Korea contribute billions annually to offset expenses, making forward deployment more cost-effective than often assumed.

From the mountains of southern Kazakhstan, I’ve been following a significant development in the ongoing war involving Israel, the accelerating momentum of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. This decades-old campaign, aimed at isolating Israel economically and politically, has gained renewed traction since the outbreak of the current conflict.

BDS and Its New Momentum

The BDS movement, short for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, seeks to pressure Israel into policy concessions by targeting its economy. While such campaigns are not new, the latest wave of support for BDS has been spurred by allegations of famine in Gaza.

Recent reports from the United Nations claim that malnutrition rates in Gaza have “risen dramatically” over the past month. However, those figures have been challenged, with evidence suggesting that the UN altered its metrics reducing the malnutrition threshold from 30% to 15% thereby inflating the reported crisis. Critics argue that such statistical manipulation mirrors past political tactics used to reshape narratives on unemployment, inflation, and debt.

Israel, meanwhile, continues to allow significant humanitarian aid into Gaza, including roughly 200 truckloads of supplies daily, more than enough, according to analysts, to feed the population multiple times a day.

I’m writing to you tonight from the mountains of Kazakhstan, where I’ve been closely following the announcement of an upcoming meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The summit is expected to take place in Alaska, a choice that’s already stirred more than a little controversy.

During a recent press conference, President Trump misspoke twice, saying he would be going “to Russia” rather than Alaska. That slip didn’t go unnoticed in Moscow, where nationalists still talk about Alaska as if it were theirs for the taking. In fact, I’ve seen images of a patch making the rounds among Russian military units that shows Russia and Alaska side by side, with the slogan “We’ll take it all.” Needless to say, the symbolism here is troubling.

Why Ukraine Is Really at Stake
This meeting is about more than just a photo op in Alaska it’s about Ukraine. For over three years, Russia has been waging a brutal war of aggression, making only modest territorial gains while losing staggering numbers of troops and equipment. Despite that, they’re now ramping up attacks, likely to grab as much land as possible before any potential negotiations.

From my vantage point, it’s obvious that Putin’s idea of “peace talks” is simple: keep whatever he’s already taken, and take more if he can before the talking starts. That’s not compromise, that's conquest.

Trump’s Framing of the Talks
President Trump says he’ll go into this meeting to “see what they want to meet about,” and afterward, he’ll speak with President Zelensky and European leaders. He’s also made it clear he wants a “fair deal for both parties.” My question is why should Russia, the aggressor, get a fair shake at the expense of the country they invaded?

Ukraine’s constitution requires a public referendum before giving up any territory. That safeguard exists to prevent exactly the kind of forced surrender Putin is hoping for. Yet Trump has criticized Zelensky for this, as if it’s somehow unreasonable that the Ukrainian president can’t just hand over land.