Latest stories

Trump's Xi and Takaichi calls ring market alarm bells

Why Goldman Sachs is so optimistic about China

US dangles F-35s as Saudi hunts edge in shifting Mideast skies Beyond Wilsonian fantasies

What particularly enrages the neo-Wilsonians is that the plan would require Ukraine to forswear NATO membership. Good. NATO expansion into Ukraine was always a fantasy-a dangerous one that helped precipitate this war in the first place.

Germany and France blocked Ukrainian membership at the 2008 Bucharest summit precisely because they understood the strategic realities that the American foreign policy establishment refused to acknowledge.

Russia, for all its many flaws, has legitimate security interests. Just as America would never tolerate a hostile military alliance on its borders (remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?), Russia was never going to accept NATO bases in Ukraine.

You don't have to admire Vladimir Putin's authoritarian regime to recognize this basic geopolitical reality. Strategic empathy isn't moral endorsement-it's simply understanding how the world actually works rather than how we wish it would work.

Real American interests

The vital question that our foreign policy establishment has studiously avoided is: What is the American national interest in Ukraine?

Not what makes us feel good about supporting democracy and self-determination-those are important values, but they are not interests. What concrete security or economic benefit does the United States derive from continuing this war?

The honest answer is: none. Ukraine is not a NATO ally. It has no formal security relationship with the United States. It is not a major trading partner. It does not host critical American assets.

The only American interest at stake is the same reflexive commitment to global hegemony that has led us into disasters from Iraq to Libya to Afghanistan.

Costly ideology

The real scandal isn't Trump's peace plan-it's that the foreign policy establishment prevented any serious diplomatic effort for years while insisting on a military solution that was never achievable.

They told Ukrainians that Western support would help them drive Russia back to pre-2014 borders. They discouraged negotiations. They celebrated Ukrainian victories while remaining silent about mounting casualties. And when Russia's 2022 offensive stalled, they convinced themselves that total Ukrainian victory was just one more weapons package away.

The result? Ukraine's military is exhausted, its infrastructure is devastated, and its population has been reduced by millions through death, displacement, and emigration. Meanwhile, Russia has successfully adjusted to sanctions, found new markets for its energy exports, and deepened its alignment with China.

If this is what“success” looks like, what would failure be?

Imperfect peace over endless war

Yes, Trump's plan is imperfect. The security guarantees are vague. The enforcement mechanisms are unclear. Russia gets much of what it wanted. But perfect peace agreements exist only in the imaginations of think tank fellows and op-ed writers. Real peace deals are messy compromises that leave everyone somewhat dissatisfied.

The question isn't whether this is an ideal outcome-it manifestly isn't. The question is whether it's better than the alternative: continued war that Ukraine cannot win, mounting casualties, economic devastation, and the risk of escalation to direct NATO-Russia conflict.

For anyone genuinely interested in Ukrainian welfare rather than abstract principles or geopolitical scorekeeping, the answer should be clear.