The confrontation between President Trump, JD Vance, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy was historic. Usually, such harsh comments are reserved for private meetings, away from the cameras. It was long overdue, tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands dead late. Trump wanted an economic agreement with Ukraine, at least with that in hand, he could say America had a stake in their war. Zelenskyy blew that opportunity by trying to lecture the Americans. It came across as arrogant and condescending on the part of the Ukrainian leader. A grateful and thoughtful leader would have thanked the President, signed the mineral rights agreement, and committed to finding a way to end the war. Instead, he decided to try to play to the media, hoping to “educate” Trump and Vance. Showing up dressed as a GI Joe action figure was merely window dressing to his conceited attitude.
It’s not entirely his fault. Politicians around the globe have been fawning over him since the start of the war. The sycophants from Hollywood followed suit. While it played well for photo ops and the easily manipulated legacy media, it couldn’t erase the reality that the US has zero interests in this conflict from the start.
This created a certain inevitability that, at some point, a leader like Trump, would call out the Zelenskyy. It was destined to happen. Pouring billions into a country, with no hope of ever being paid back or gaining an ounce of security made the stopping of the proverbial gravy train inexorable.
Adding fuel to the confrontation was the argument that Russia has to be defeated in Ukraine because if they are not stopped there, Putin will roll into the rest of Europe has been proven to be a convenient lie. Russia became bogged down by tiny Ukraine early in the conflict. The myth of the vaunted Russian war machine was shattered. Supporters of Zelenskyy can’t have it both ways, with Russia being an existential threat and being pinned to the mat by Ukraine’s paltry military.
The US kept blindly funneling in arms and cash to prop up the country in the erroneous belief that somehow Russia would be driven out of Ukraine. It was yet another lie generated to give gullible American hope that complete victory was possible. Much like the Angel of Kyiv, it was fiction to justify reckless spending. The only way that Russia could ever hope to be driven out of the territory they conquered is for the US and other nations to join the fight, igniting world war three in the process.
The US gave more money to the war effort than any other nation. What were our strategic interests with Ukraine? None. They were not a major trading partner. They were not a military power to augment our defenses around the globe. Until Trump tried to create an economic tie in the last few weeks, there was no reason we should have to encourage them to continue to fight Russia.
Our obligation to protect our NATO allies is often thrown out as justification for this fiscal folly. But NATO was never threatened. The European powers have flirted with war by sending hardware and advisors, but in reality, they were never at risk.
Were the Ukrainians grateful? No. In fact, the Biden Administration’s constant sending of cash only made them complacent and dependent. How many times have we been told that if money doesn’t flow to Ukraine by X day that the Russians would win? Four, six? Even a hint that the money flow might stop and we got videos of Ukrainian troops desecrating our flag. They were like that friend that was your best buddy as long as you were buying the drinks.
As evidenced at the White House last week, Ukraine expects, nay, demands, that their security be ensured as part of any agreement. For the naïve, this means US boots on the ground. Should America send its sons and daughters to Ukraine to fight Russia? To what end? Will Russia, any time in the next decade, invade any NATO country?
So why do the governments of the world want to invest in the Ukrainian effort? The truth is simple. There have been discussions in quiet circles in Washington DC about the post-war rebuilding effort. These nations have an expectation that the United States and other countries will dump billions more into Ukraine to rebuild the damaged infrastructure. They all are salivating for a piece of the pie in the form of lucrative reconstruction contracts. The irony is that nations believe they stand to profit, or recover some of their profits, from the rebuilding of a country that we didn’t even destroy.
While we have gained some military intel about Russian capabilities, our own hardware’s performance, the effects of drones, etc. This has come at the expense of lives on both sides of the conflict.
You can hate Russia and still not be in favor of continuing to fund Ukraine. For example, I find Putin despicable, but I also don’t think funding the war is the right move. Is Putin bad? Absolutely. Is Zenenskyy bad? Yes. Let’s not forget, he’s a man that has refused to hold free elections since the start of the war, using said elections as a bargaining chip.
What went down last week was destined to happen. Eventually someone has to stand up to other nations and confront them with the cold hard realities of the world. Given our deficit, we need to ask; can we afford to give money to fund wars where we have no national interests at stake? As always, America needs to pick its fights carefully, as well as the people we opt to support.
Blaine Pardoe is a New York Times Bestselling and award-winning author canceled by one of his publishers in 2022. His conservative political thriller series, Blue Dawn, is the story of the violent overthrow of the government by radical progressives. His new series, Tenure, is about a Punisher-like hero that goes after the woke. He also authors the bestselling military science fiction series, Land&Sea.
