data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a7608/a7608cd1187e47c3ef7647c94755c46c0fd11643" alt="image"
Left-wing followers have been pushed off the deep end by President Donald Trump’s deconstruction of the managerial position. But nothing has set the D. C. leadership’s smile on top like Trump’s goal to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Trump has long vowed to put an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and he just started doing so next month. His visit with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week sparked a new era of peace talks.
More than 1 million citizens, soldiers and civilians, have been killed or wounded on both edges. The conflict has turned presently into a terrible World War One-style standoff.
More than$ 175 billion has been poured into the conflict by the United States to support Volodymyr Zelensky’s government. Additionally, Biden depleted the U.S. military of proper weapons and ammunition and threw them into the battlegrounds.
Terms of Agreement
The only logical course of action right now is discussions that will yield a peace settlement and offer each side some of their desires.
Any significant man now knows that the conflict will almost certainly come to an end along those lines, which is why Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth probably shouldn’t have been so open when using those phrases. The West may claim to not join NATO, the element that probably contributed the most to Putin’s illegal invasion, and Russia will probably keep the land that it took in 2014, which is mainly inhabited by people who are not Russian. The West will guarantee Ukraine’s independence, and it will also contribute to its reconstruction by assisting with its reconstruction.
Opposition to Peace
That’s the only rational path forward. Trump’s call with Putin, his demand that Ukraine pay back some of its mineral resources, and other administration statements have resulted in nothing short of hysteria. The efforts to end the war are seen by both the president’s domestic political opponents and the Europeans as a victory for Putin.
The New York Times ‘ recent coverage of the subject includes the stories of anti-Trump woe, including” Left Out of Ukraine Talks, Europe Races to Organize a Response,”” Trump Team Leaves Behind an Alliance in Crisis,”” Trump’s Ambition to Redraw the World Map Ignores Those Affected Most,” and” Putin Has Long Wanted More Power in Europe.” Trump Could Grant It”,’ Instead of Discussing Ukraine, Vance Lectures Europeans About Shunning Extremist Parties.”
As far as the U.S. and Europe concerned. As far as the US foreign policy establishment is concerned, America’s role in this conflict is to simply shut up and pay for it while doing nothing to bring about peace.
However, with this viewpoint, there are two issues. One is that Trump’s job is to defend the United States ‘ best interests, not those of Ukraine or the European Union. The other is that they don’t have any other rational options besides the ones Trump is referring to.
Basis of US Support
In the United States, support for the war in Ukraine has hinged on two factors.
Democrats favored the conflict because of the pivotal role that Ukraine played in Trump’s initial effort to remove him from office in his first year in office.
When Putin seized Crimea and the Donbass in 2014, the Obama administration did nothing.
Democrats only embraced and romanticized Ukrainian nationalism after they seized upon a Trump conversation with Zelensky in which he demanded that he look into the criminal influence-peddling of President Biden’s family.
Establishment Republicans made ludicrous claims that Russia’s incompetent army, as if it were the formidable and numerically superior forces of the Red Army and the Warsaw Pact before the Berlin Wall fell, might overthrow Russia’s incompetent army.
Nor can anyone on the left or right in America or Europe define what they mean when, like Biden, they demand” victory” for Ukraine. The notion that Kyiv could conquer a nuclear-armed Moscow is a fantasy. Or can it abolish Russia, still the largest country in the Eurasian landmass, as a nation?
Whose interests are furthered by spreading such myths?
One is the Zelensky government, which will prosper so long as the war continues. The Ukrainian leader will have to leave his signature G. I. Joe outfit after it ends, cease to pretend to be the Winston Churchill of the 21st century, and be reduced to the head of what is still one of Europe’s most corrupt and anti-democratic governments.
The other big loser in a conflict in Ukraine would be what some wags have coined as the “NGO archipelago.” Trump is attempting to dismember Ukraine, claiming that it has long been his special interest of federal cronies like the United States Agency for International Development ( USAID ). Its numerous nonprofit partners have been acquainted with the dubious idea that a corrupt former Soviet republic can become a Jeffersonian democracy while putting it in the hands of the West. The war is a nonstop gravy train for the international community’s multilateral agencies.
None of those who are complaining about Trump’s unfair treatment of Europe or willingness to put pressure on Zelensky have a viable alternative. An unending proxy war would be the only option.
US Interests
The Ukrainian people, who continue to suffer as a result of the continuation of the war, would not be in their interests. More importantly, it would not be in the interests of the United States.
Since the summer of 2022, the conflict has been about whether Russia will keep its victories from 2014 and whether Ukraine will gain independence. There is a justification for the idea that the United States should support the principle of maintaining that nation’s independence. However, American national interests are unaffected by the question of who controls the Donbas or Crimea.
Similar to this, it is absurd for the United States to continue investing hundreds of billions of dollars in Ukraine without receiving, as Trump has suggested, something in exchange for this otherwise indefensible allocation.
So, Trump is just doing what any statesman not drunk on democracy exportation, nation-building, or Cold War nostalgia would do.
The United States can then move forward with defending its interests in the face of China, the real geostrategic threat of the 21st century, from which Ukraine has been a costly distraction. And a wealthy Europe will be required to foot the bill for all of its defense costs.
It’s understandable that those who don’t care about protecting American interests would be upset by this turn of events. However, those tasked with defending them shouldn’t be concerned.
Jonathan S. Tobin is a senior contributor to The Federalist, editor in chief of JNS. org, and a columnist for Newsweek. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.