It should not surprise anyone that Europe and the establishment media are up in arms over last week’s public spat between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance. The Ukraine War has benefited arms companies and Western political leadership alike, and the American media has been able to paint Putin as a uniquely evil leader and Ukraine as a bastion of democracy led by the virtuous statesman Zelensky.
Negotiations between political leaders can indeed get heated, but traditionally, verbal blows like those witnessed at the White House are reserved for conversations behind closed doors. The American public is used to watching foreign leaders approach the White House with extraordinary demands, often met with enthusiastic support.
This has been especially true for Ukraine. Presidents Biden and Trump have previously offered billions of dollars in support of Ukraine, with Biden making Ukrainian assistance a “top priority.” However, after Trump won a second term, world leaders and establishment media prepared for a worst-case scenario, as America’s steadfast support of Ukraine became uncertain.
What is encouraging is that, for all of its previous failures, the Trump-Vance administration is approaching the Ukraine-Russia war through a realist lens. This allows the administration to recognize that both sides have legitimate concerns, leaders act out of self-interest, and the United States has financial and political will concerns to reckon with before committing more aid to the Ukrainian cause.
These concerns should be warranted to most. The United States’ debt is at a high of $36 trillion, and interest payments on the debt cost hundreds of billions yearly. By 2035, these payments will likely top $1.7 trillion. Additionally, the American public has been polled on this issue before, and most do not want to continue unchecked aid to Ukraine. Hell, even the Ukrainian public is ready for a negotiated end to the war, recognizing that Putin will not be defeated outright.
What is less understood by the American public is the history of Western aggression against Russia, leading to a Moscow that saw itself as out of options before invading Ukraine in 2022. This isn’t to say that invading another country is justified, but that provocation should be recognized when present.
President Trump’s recognition that Putin has realistic concerns, combined with his attention to American interests, has resulted in much of the media further labeling him as a stooge for Putin, parroting the mostly-debunked claims of Russian collusion during the 2016 election cycle.
The President most likely does have self-interest in mind when pushing for a negotiated peace in Ukraine. He has a legacy to protect (not to mention ego) and may benefit financially from a mineral-access deal with Kyiv. What most beltway professionals and media have missed is that every politician has self-interest in mind when legislating. The arms industry has significantly benefited from aid to Ukraine, as has the Ukrainian elite. Former President Biden, Zelensky, and other European leaders are not immune to the pitfalls of public choice, regardless of the virtuous language they use when legislating.
Even if politicians were operating out of altruism, it is evident that Ukraine would not win the war under current circumstances. Even European leaders and Zelensky himself have discussed the need for a land-for-peace deal with Putin. What’s more, the political will isn’t there for increased American aid to Ukraine, and most European countries haven’t yet increased defense spending enough to protect Ukraine absent American assistance.
President Trump probably recognizes that Zelensky needs a deal to maintain credibility and that Russia has legitimate redlines that NATO should not cross. Trump also knows that his legacy will be significantly damaged if World War III breaks out under his watch. Thus, he negotiated a deal with Ukraine that would include some, albeit vague, security guarantees in exchange for access to Ukrainian mineral mining. While restrainers should question a deal that further entangles American interest in Europe, at least Trump was prepared to make a deal that was transactional in nature rather than continuing to write blank checks to Kyiv.
Zelensky was prepared to sign the mineral deal but allowed his indignation to get the best of him. He was clearly used to Western leaders treating him as a hero and Ukraine as a bastion of democracy. Thus, instead of accepting a potential peace deal that Putin could find acceptable, he attempted to pressure the Trump administration in front of the press. This move greatly underestimated Trump’s ego and made both parties look petty in front of the world. He failed spectacularly, leaving Washington with no deal and pushing a peace deal back. The bright side may be that Europe is finally taking its own defense seriously after Zelensky’s display of ineptitude.
During the back and forth, Trump rightly questioned Zelensky’s diplomatic tactics, saying, “You want me to say terrible things about Putin and then tell him, ‘Hey, Vladimir, how about a deal?’” That’s a legitimate question. Biden proudly refused to even talk to Putin, thus ensuring that he would never bring peace to Ukraine. He also called Putin things like a “crazy SOB,” which were sure to antagonize Moscow.
An end to Ukraine’s suffering requires a realistic deal with Putin, something that Trump at least partly understands. Indeed, the president may make some libertarians uncomfortable when he appeals to strong-men leaders. Still, it is better than pretending that some world leaders are too evil to ever discuss peace with. Reasonable people should prefer peace to nuclear war any day of the week, even if it means that Western powers have to curb their meddling in Ukrainian politics.
