War’s End? – The American Mind

The Oval Office showdown between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance was perhaps one of the most consequential spectacles of modern political history. Now that the administration has announced an end to further aid to Ukraine, many believe that Zelensky’s outburst may go down as one of the worst diplomatic mistakes in recent memory.

The claim that Trump is simply adjusting America’s involvement in Ukraine because of one bad meeting, however, is an insult to the president’s capacity for statesmanship. The seemingly intransigent impasse that has been reached is a direct result of Trump intending to keep his campaign promise to achieve a realizable peace in Ukraine, while Zelensky continues to demand an unattainable victory.

Trump came to office recognizing that U.S. support for Ukraine was always intended as a relatively low-risk way to weaken Russia through an armed proxy. If the Putin regime did not collapse due to domestic pressures, then Moscow would have a pyrrhic victory forced upon it due to significant military losses, a weakened economy, and broader international ostracization.

But this strategy has clearly reached the point of diminishing returns. Russia’s military has not only grown in size and effectiveness, but Russia is vastly outproducing the U.S. in munitions and other defense-related production. The decision of Western companies to abandon Russia has resulted in domestic manufacturers adopting the already existing infrastructure to create a more self-sufficient economy. And the decision by most countries to refuse to impose sanctions on Russia has insulated it from the worst effects of the attempted economic strangulation.

At the same time, U.S. supply stocks are reaching increasingly dangerous levels due not only to former President Biden’s use of the presidential drawdown authority, but also because of the quantity of new weapons and munitions being sent overseas. Continuing to support this conflict will therefore negatively impact the U.S.’s own long-term interests.

Context, Context

The immediate catalyst for Zelensky’s Oval Office meltdown may have been the Ukrainian president’s outrage over Vice President Vance’s statement that the U.S. would continue to work with all parties involved in the conflict to find a viable settlement. However, a full understanding of the diplomatic debacle requires considering the broader context of the meeting.

A series of inimical exchanges led up to the February 28 kerfuffle, during which time the administration realized that Zelensky was actively working against a peace deal. Any such deal requires the U.S. to work with Russia, because its military is currently grinding down Ukraine’s defense in a brutal war of attrition. As Vance made clear, the primary factor contributing to Ukraine’s deteriorating position is its manpower shortage. Russia maintains escalation dominance in the war, hence Trump’s correct statement that Ukraine “doesn’t have the cards.” Continuing the conflict will only result in worse outcomes, and more territorial losses for Ukraine.

Zelensky first made it clear he would not accept a negotiated peace when he expressed outrage over the high-level diplomatic meeting between the U.S. and Russia in Riyadh. Trump was correct in his subsequent analysis that Zelensky is emboldened by the prospect of endless U.S. support. Ukraine’s only path forward is therefore to more deeply intertwine the West with the Ukrainian war effort.

The Ukrainian president’s refusal to countenance the terms necessary for peace is the true cause of the diplomatic showdown in the Oval Office. Rather than acknowledge the reality of his situation, Zelensky came to the White House to seek a concrete security guarantee from Trump that would have further entrenched the U.S. in the conflict.

Zelensky’s obstinance was therefore to the direct detriment of Ukraine, as guaranteeing the United States access to something like 50% of realized profits in the extraction of rare earth minerals was the best possible deal that could be reached. This is true not simply due to the economic and geopolitical benefit for the U.S., but also because of its potential to ensure stability in the region.

It would have simultaneously allowed the United States to receive a degree of repayment for its hundreds of billions of dollars in investment in Ukraine (although the U.S. is the largest single contributor to Ukraine, this still doesn’t accurately capture the full picture of our support, as Washington is far and away the greatest contributor of military hardware).

Additionally, these materials are essential as competition in tech and AI will continue to expand over the coming decades. Two of Ukraine’s four lithium deposits remain in territory still controlled by Kiev. And because two other deposits are located in Russian-held territory, Trump is also attempting to reach a minerals agreement with Russia, thus maximizing the U.S.’s geopolitical gain from the eventual conclusion of the war.

The deal would have simultaneously provided something like a tripwire should Russia choose to invade Ukraine again (the most common argument of the pro-Ukraine side against entering negotiations with Russia). Moscow would likewise know that the inevitable collateral damage to American business interests could likely elicit a U.S. response, providing a degree of strategic ambiguity that would provide effective deterrence. At the same time, a deal would have actively kept Western-supplied weapons capable of offensive operations against Russia out of Ukrainian territory, which has always been Moscow’s primary concern with NATO.

Even European political leaders were keen for the mineral deals, because they acknowledge their capacity to act as a de facto security guarantee. It is no coincidence that former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson—perhaps the biggest Russia hawk aside from current PM Keir Starmer—was adamantly in favor of the deal. Unless one accepts the ideologically loaded argument that Putin is an irrational actor bent on “reestablishing the USSR,” this would have indeed been the best possible outcome for a lasting peace.

Unfortunately, peace is not what Zelensky came to the Oval Office to seek.

Rather, the Ukrainian president sought to further entrench the United States in the conflict. When it became apparent that this would not happen, he decided to plead his case directly to the U.S. public by appealing to the anti-Trump element of the electorate (the only group who believes war with Russia is in the U.S.’s interest, which itself is inextricable from their hate for Trump), thereby further inflaming domestic divisions and exerting pressure on Trump.

Vice President Vance not only understood exactly what was going on (he accurately called out Zelensky’s attempt to benefit the Harris campaign in October 2024), but also forced Zelensky to expose his true intentions through Vance’s repeated assertion on the need for diplomacy—all the while, knowing that the Ukrainian president had no actual interest in a diplomatic end to the war.

At one point, Trump mentioned that “these two” (Zelensky and Vance) don’t like each other. One suspects that there was likely some behind the scenes tensions, because Vance has been clearly articulating Zelensky’s real position and subsequent intentions vis-à-vis U.S. support for some time. Once the former comedian showed his cards, Trump used his unparalleled ability for rhetorical domination and made it clear that the interests of the American people—and only those interests—would guide his administration’s actions.

Yes, Zelensky was disrespectful—but Trump was always going to put American interests first. No eloquent sales pitch could change that. However, it was Vance who was key in setting the president up to present his case in the most stark and clear manner, juxtaposed as it was against a foreign leader unabashedly telling the U.S. that it had an imperial duty to put the interests of world empire above the well-being and safety of its own citizens.

An America First Vice President

The entire Oval Office affair is the most recent (and possibly clearest) example of how crucial Vice President Vance has been in supporting the president’s America First agenda. He has demonstrated a truly unique talent in articulating the president’s wishes in a manner that serves as a bridge between the overly intellectualized realm of theoretical political science and the hard reality of practical politics. In regard to Ukraine specifically, Vance has become the principal voice in communicating how the United States will act to wind down the war. More than that, he is also showing the broader world exactly what America First truly means.

Fortunately, this time around, Trump has a vice president who is actually on his side. “Every single time the president engages in diplomacy, you guys preemptively accuse him of conceding to Russia,” Vance recently stated. “He hasn’t conceded anything to anyone. He’s doing the job of a diplomat, and he is, of course, the diplomat in chief as the president of The United States.” The anti-Trump establishment will no longer be allowed to use such shameless partisan hackery as a cudgel to impede the president’s efforts to conduct foreign policy without pushback from the administration itself.

Challenging the mainstream narrative on Ukraine has traditionally been enough to get one branded a Putin apologist, insinuating support for his invasion of Ukraine. In reality, the exact opposite is the case. Every honest observer of the conflict has known that the balance of power in the Russo-Ukraine War would necessitate an eventual resolution where Kiev would cede a certain amount of territory and commit not to join NATO. The non sequitur that calling for a realistic assessment of the conflict is the equivalent of excusing or condoning the invasion is particularly egregious given the cost in human lives. International politics does not occur in a vacuum—context matters.

In the months leading up to the incident in the Oval Office, Vance has engaged with public intellectuals on X who have attempted to accuse the Trump Administration of weakness for not continuing the pre-Trump Republican tradition of foreign military engagements with little connection to U.S. national interests. The vice president has made a point of shredding the “moralistic garbage” that dishonestly equates the administration’s commitment to a viable security situation in Ukraine with “appeasement.”

As mentioned earlier, the vice president has correctly stated that Ukraine lacks the capacity for sustained offensive operations, specifically in terms of manpower. The media has consistently misrepresented the conflict, making it seem as though the dynamics of the war can be significantly altered by additional Western aid and the delivery of more advanced weapons systems. Clear-sighted analysis, however, recognizes that the key factor contributing to Ukraine’s perilous strategic situation—its manpower shortage—can only be altered by the involvement of foreign forces.

As Vice President Vance stated in his remarkable speech at the recent Munich Security Conference, American foreign policy is once again promoting the interests of the American people first. The Trump Administration is done with altruistically defending global democracy in order to maintain a “rules-based international order”—an order that has delivered little positive results for Americans who, almost entirely alone, have supported it with vast amounts of blood and treasure.

This explains why the most significant pushback to the Trump Administration’s foreign policy agenda comes from the fact that Europeans recognize that ending the Ukraine War means ending the lopsided system they have benefited from for the past 75 years.

President Trump is likely right that the Ukraine War never would have happened had he been president at the time of Russia’s invasion. What is beyond doubt is that even if the invasion happened under Trump’s watch, he would have worked to find a realistic solution without actively prolonging the fighting for years longer than necessary. Ignoring the battlefield reality has resulted in untold numbers of dead Ukrainians and Russians, as well as the weakening of the U.S.’s geopolitical position.

Besides serving to strengthen Russia, as argued earlier, the Ukraine War’s longevity has also directly benefited China, America’s primary geopolitical competitor. Essentially wedding the natural-resources-exporting Russia to the rising Asian superpower—with the latter subsequently having access to heavily discounted products—puts the United States at a disadvantage, as competition over rare earth minerals and other elements required by advanced tech continues to rise in places like Africa and Latin America. The Biden Administration’s position was that weakening Russia would serve to weaken China. Not only did their policies drive the two together, but they also served to strengthen both countries as well.

A Realist Way Forward

At the end of President Zelensky’s Oval Office outburst, Trump stated that “this is why I kept this going so long, so the people can see.” Given the heated exchange, the president was almost certainly referring to the intransigence and entitlement of Zelensky versus the realistic assessment and continued calls for diplomacy of Vice President Vance.

The United States will not be strong-armed by any other nation into taking an action it does not deem to be in its national interest. Trump, with the assist from Vance, made clear that America is the benefactor of Ukraine—and that America is therefore calling the shots.

Vance’s Munich speech preemptively set up an effective response to the inevitable European reaction to the Oval Office fallout: go ahead and grandstand, make public statements, and pretend you are the defenders of democracy. But remember this: Europe has been able to maintain its left-wing insanity only due to its relationship with the United States—a state of affairs embraced and propped up by former administrations, but no more. Europe is now forced to either mend relations with Russia, grow closer to Communist China, or treat America with the respect we deserve by acknowledging the actual balance of force.

Whether or not U.S. aid to Ukraine is permanently terminated or a subsequent agreement is reached that reflects Trump’s desire for peace, it is clear that the United States will no longer be treated as a passive source of resources to be exploited to spread universal justice or accumulate financial capital. Just like the ongoing work of DOGE, it is in the nature of serious reform to elicit massive blowback from the established forces that are its targets. Too many vested interests rely on the current system for their status, wealth, and warped sense of justice to go down without a fight. Trump remains persistent in his willingness to engage in that fight—but this time, he’s not alone.