Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Ukraine's president had been hoping to leave the White House on Friday after positive talks with Donald Trump, capped with the signing of a minerals deal giving the US a real stake in his country's future, if not an outright security guarantee. Instead Volodymyr Zelensky faced an extraordinary dressing down in front of the world's media, after President Trump and his Vice-President JD Vance demanded that he show more gratitude for years of US support…
“The Ukrainian president pushed back at suggestions from his more powerful partners that he should work harder to agree a ceasefire with Vladimir Putin. They responded that he was being ‘disrespectful’. Zelensky was eventually told to leave the White House early before he and Trump could even take the stage for a scheduled news conference. And the minerals deal, which had been trailed and praised by both sides this week, was left unsigned. ‘Come back when you're ready for peace,’ Trump wrote on social media shortly before Zelensky's car pulled away.” BBC
The left criticizes Trump for siding with Putin against Zelensky.
“You had the president of Ukraine who, whatever his flaws, was representing a democracy—a struggling and imperfect democracy, for sure, but one that was invaded by a gangster regime; a country of 38 million people ravaged by a country of 144 million…
“He came to Washington willing to meet with a president whom he knows to be hostile but ready to sign a totally one-sided deal giving that president control over his country’s mineral rights…
“That he decided not to sit there in silence as lies were being told about him and the nature of Putin’s invasion was renamed impertinence. And in that moment… the United States of America symbolically and visibly switched from being the leader of the free world to being a partner of the global authoritarian axis.”
Michael Tomasky, New Republic
“In 2018, the year preceding Zelensky’s election, [Trump] defended Russia’s seizure of Crimea; he has repeatedly refused to acknowledge Russian guilt for various murders; and he has even stuck to Russian talking points on such idiosyncratic topics as the Soviets’ supposedly defensive rationale for invading Afghanistan in 1979 and their fear that an ‘aggressive’ Montenegro would attack Russia, dragging NATO into war…
“In the past few weeks, Trump has made very little effort to conceal his pro-Russian tilt. He called Zelensky a dictator, and when asked if he would say the same about Putin, refused, insisting, ‘I don’t use those words lightly.’… He said Ukraine ‘may be Russian someday’ and blamed Ukraine for starting the war. The U.S. even joined Russia, North Korea, and a tiny bloc of Russian allies to vote against a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine…
“Trump seems to genuinely feel that he and Vladimir Putin forged a personal bond through the shared trauma of being persecuted by the Democratic Party. Trump is known for his cold-eyed, transactional approach, and yet here he was [on Friday], displaying affection and loyalty… He was not explaining why a deal with Russia would advance America’s interests, or why honoring it would advance Russia’s. He was defending Russia’s integrity by vouching for Putin’s character.”
Jonathan Chait, The Atlantic
“Since the end of the second world war, the US has been the primary architect and guarantor of an intricate network of global institutions anchored by NATO, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. Together, these partners crafted a security umbrella whose benefits far outweighed its expense. It produced political stability and provided US and European companies with unrivalled access to markets and resources…
“In his willingness to work with Vladimir Putin, he is ignoring the fact that the existing international system has overwhelmingly benefited the US. Ironically, the world order that Putin advocates for – one shaped by imperial spheres of influence, rather than collective security – would come at significant costs to the US.”
Olga Chyzh, The Guardian
The right generally argues that Europe should shoulder the burden of defending Ukraine.
The right generally argues that Europe should shoulder the burden of defending Ukraine.
“When Zelenskyy says ‘just and lasting peace,’ he has made clear that means two things: all Ukrainian territory lost since 2014 returned and NATO membership. Without those he will not stop fighting. I can understand and sympathize with his demand, but the reality is that neither of those things is going to happen. Even if the US agreed, which we do not, Turkey or some other NATO country would balk at committing to go to war with Russia, and would be right to do so…
“Zelenskyy and all Ukrainians can want whatever they want, but that doesn't give them the right to dictate US policy. US policy is dictated by our permanent vital interests, and who owns Ukraine doesn't matter a whit to us except morally. It really doesn't, once you get past the rhetoric and emotional appeals… The US has no enduring strategic interests in the fate of Ukraine. We would prefer it not be under the Russian boot, but not enough to send Americans to die to prevent it.”
David Strom, Hot Air
“One doesn’t have to side with Russia in that war to recognize that Ukraine, which has fought valiantly, has no prospect of victory… European countries may stand with Ukraine in words, but absent American money, arms, and hard power, what do they have to offer? European armies are small and relatively weak… European social spending has for decades rested on the willingness of the United States to pay for Europe’s defense…
“Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, and nearly forty years after the end of the Cold War, the American president has decided that enough is enough. It is time for Europe to grow up…
“We will now see if Europe’s leadership class can rise to the responsibilities Trump has thrust upon it. Do they want to help Ukraine keep fighting its unwinnable war against Russia? Then they have to pay for it themselves. Do they want to raise armies to defend ‘European values?’ Then they had better reform, and create political and cultural orders that actual Europeans are willing to sacrifice for.”
Rod Dreher, European Conservative
“Knowing Trump’s ego and Vance’s hostility in advance, it was a signal diplomatic failure on Zelensky’s part to get sucked into making argumentative points. The upside of critiquing Trump and Vance in public was nil, while the potential downside — which, unfortunately, Zelensky is now experiencing — was enormous… Regardless, the episode is a disturbing reflection of the resentment the president feels toward a partner whose fundamental offense is wanting to defend itself and regain its sovereign territory.”
The Editors, National Review
Some argue, “Trump has taught our most important strategic partners a lesson they will not soon forget: America can — and will — change sides. Its voters may indeed choose a leader who will abandon our traditional alliances and actively support one of the world’s most dangerous and oppressive regimes. Even if Democrats sweep the midterms in 2026 and defeat the Republican candidate in 2028, that lesson will still hold.”
David French, New York Times
