Ukraine’s Road to Perdition or Peace

Everything depends on the goal.

More than 1,000 days after Russia invaded Ukraine, the belabored nation is nowhere nearer to peace. Each day that passes results in more loss of life, more people horrifically injured, and a greater threat of losing even more territory. If Ukraine could win the war, it would have. After the contentious meeting in the Oval Office between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, European leaders have doubled down on a losing gambit and seem intent on following Joe Biden’s failed “as long as it takes” strategy.

The Ukrainian president has spent much of the last three years seeking unity among foreign allies. And by placing Donald Trump on the opposite end of the scale, he appears to have successfully welded the heads of state in Europe to his cause. But at what cost? And more importantly, to what end?

A No Peace Strategy

In harmonious synchronization, prime ministers and presidents across the world responded to Friday’s White House blow up by tweeting support for Volodymyr Zelensky. World leaders rushed to bend the political knee in supplication to Ukraine’s war effort, promising plaudits and payola to the Ukrainian defense mission. Essentially, it is the status quo but without US involvement. So what is the actual plan?

It is worth noting that, under President Joe Biden, the strategy involved kind words and cash, and an attitude that is reminiscent of the last words from The Count of Monte Christo: “wait and hope.” The former president made it clear that the US would support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” These same words are now being echoed precisely by UK Prime Minister Sire Keir Starmer. This empty rhetoric has not worked for the last three years of war. Why would it work now?

No world leaders are talking about making a deal. No one is reaching out to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. And remember, a ceasefire requires both sides to agree. There are two ways to end a war. The first is that one side gains enough victories over the other until the loser surrenders or is wiped out entirely. The second is that, through negotiation, both sides agree to stop shooting at each other. Where does that leave the brave people of Ukraine?

Hard Truths

Consider the following list of facts:

1. Ukraine occupies less of its territory than it did on day one of the war.
2. Ukraine has lost so many lives that in April 2024 it was forced to lower the conscription age from 27 to 25.
3. Russia has more people to throw at the war – and, notably, has historically rarely been concerned with the loss of life.
4. NATO countries will not put boots on the ground against a nuclear power for a non-NATO country despite Starmer using this exact phrase.

In reality, more money and more munitions will not change the current course of the war. Russia has more people and easy access to further munitions though ties with China, North Korea, and other nations. The only way to stop the senseless killing is to come to an arrangement.

It is a bitter pill to be swallowed, but no more bitter than the end of Ukraine and the destruction of its population base. While European leaders demand that the put-upon country be defended to the hilt, words are not deeds, and no leader will remain so if they suggest escalating the war by joining the fight with the sons and daughters of those who elected them. Not one leader has suggested actually joining the fight on the ground in Ukraine. Certainly there is discussion of joint peace-keeping forces once a cease-fire is reached, but that is not even on the table while conflict continues. Bringing us back to deal making as the only way to avoid further destruction.

Deal or No Deal

Airwaves and print have been chock full of finger wagging against President Trump and VP JD Vance for the shoddy treatment of Zelensky. But the Ukrainian leader was brought to Washington, DC, to sign a deal. The semi-literate scribes of the legacy media have seemingly failed to realize (or more likely declined to inform their readership) that joint ownership of rare mineral resources axiomatically means that the US has a dog in the fight. When US interests (from oil wells to bases) overseas are attacked, America responds with fire and fury.

If the deal had gone ahead, Putin’s targeting of US interests would have – with high likelihood – been a step too far for the Russian dictator. It would have meant making a direct enemy of the United States; this was a robust diplomatic statement that calls to mind another quote from Dumas, “One for all and all for one.” But it was not Donald Trump that killed the deal.

According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the groundwork had been done more than ten days in advance. All that was left was to sign it and put Putin on notice. Instead, President Zelensky chose to wait until the 11th hour, in front of the world’s press, to say that he didn’t think a diplomatic solution was possible in any way. So why did he come to DC?

VP Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of litigating his case against a peace deal. It seems hard to argue with that assessment. After all, Zelensky began haranguing the president and VP over deals that had not been honored by Putin in the past. Any reservations he had about the compact should have been aired in private, either before meeting the press or in the weeks leading up to the signing. To do it in the Oval Office while the world looked on was an ambush. And what could it have ever achieved?

He Doesn’t Want Peace?

Zelensky came to DC to sign the deal. He had countless opportunities to renegotiate it in advance. Instead, he chose to say bluntly that it would not work in front of the cameras. Was he trying to embarrass Trump? Was it a miscommunication that escalated beyond his level of English?

And what of his newfound closest friends in Europe? He has demonstrated with little room for interpretation that he is not willing to go with a deal that relies on diplomacy. He wants more than cash and weaponry; he wants them to commit lives. That leaves his European colleagues in a political pickle. They can commit to ongoing fiscal support (which has had no effect on stopping the war for the last three years), they can express their admiration and dedication to his cause (which again, has done precisely nothing to stop the flow of blood), and they can bloviate endlessly in the press or on social media (see the last two points for clarification on that particular impact).

What they can’t do – in Zelensky’s own words – is find a diplomatic solution that is acceptable to him.