Trump-Zelenskyy brawl could actually bring peace deal closer
The real tragedy following last week’s meeting with Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy and Vice President Vance, is not just that the Oval Office quarrel derailed a peace effort that might have stopped the killing in the Ukraine-Russia war, but also that so many people are still working hard to keep the war from ending.
Why? Because they hate President Trump more than they love peace.
The good news is that the spat between Trump and Ukraine President Zelenskyy has brought European leaders to the table; their increased commitments to defense could bring a proposed peace deal closer.
That is not how Trump’s critics see it. They blame the president for the rupture, of course.
Holdovers from the Obama and Biden White Houses like former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, all of whom have criticized Trump’s peace proposal, do not want the president to succeed because a cease-fire deal would highlight their failures. The Obama team allowed Russia to slice off Crimea and invade other regions of Ukraine with zero penalty, emboldening Putin to strike again.
Biden’s group failed to prevent Russia’s 2022 invasion and then never developed a plan to end the war; they never spoke of actually winning. Even that hapless crew knew that Ukraine would never triumph over Russia. At best they hoped for a stalemate; but that modest goal proved elusive, as Ukraine gradually, inevitably, lost territory while PresidentJoe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken congratulated each other on uniting Europe…in defeat.
Democrats do not want Trump to end the war because they know that shutting down the carnage and the outflow of U.S. money would be wildly popular with voters. Almost certainly, a peace agreement would help the GOP maintain their control of Congress next year.
Never-Trumpers also hate the idea of success, because they bet against a man who defied the odds and won the popular vote last year. Liz Cheney, who posted on X that Trump is “busy surrendering to a KGB butcher” doesn’t want a win for Trump; opposing the 45th president cost Cheney her political career. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – a state Trump won by 10 points – claimed the Oval Office brawl made her “sick to her stomach”; bucking the president will almost certainly end her career, too.
Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy, who claims that the White House is an “arm of the Kremlin” would hate to see Trump succeed. He is desperate to become the Next Big Thing in the leaderless Democratic Party, curiously positioning himself as an extreme anti-Trumper, notwithstanding the president’s strong approval ratings.
Murphy and other Democrats met with Zelenskyy ahead of the Oval Office gathering, reportedly coaching him to push back against the proposed deal; they have blood on their hands.
Some blame President Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance for causing the rift. But it is undeniable that the White House team who gathered in the Oval Office did so expecting that Zelenskyy was ready to sign a deal that would lead to a ceasefire with Russia and ultimately to peace. He had signaled agreement earlier in Europe, but had insisted on traveling to the White House to ink the pact.
But then…Zelenskyy wanted to relitigate the deal, in front of the media. This was not smart.
The irony is that the blowup in the Oval Office may accomplish a principal ambition of President Trump’s: getting Europe to shoulder a greater share of the West’s defense. There has already been progress. NATO reports: “Over the past decade, European Allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defence – from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024…” Recent pronouncements from EU heads of state and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer suggest that more spending is likely.
Starmer, who recently met with President Trump, says he thinks the commitment of the U.S. president to peace is “completely sincere” but that the minerals deal on its own will not guarantee Ukraine’s security. He has offered increased support and boots on the ground. If France and Germany also step up, a comprehensive, strong agreement could result.
The proposal from President Trump, which entails the U.S. partnering with Ukraine to exploit that country’s minerals and rare earths, has been described by Treasury Secretary Bessent as an “elegant” solution. It would accomplish these objectives:
- The partnership would allow Ukraine’s valuable resources to be developed. Ukraine cannot manage such an undertaking on its own, since it lacks both the money and know-how to do so. The U.S. could provide both.
- Money from the mining and production of these resources would be available not just to repay the U.S. taxpayer, but also to the repair of Ukraine, which has been shattered by three years of war.
- American voters will support our continued involvement with Ukraine if they see some dividends; Congress will follow their lead.
- Large-scale U.S. investment in Ukraine will deter Vladimir Putin from invading the country, knowing Americans will be willing and eager to defend their property. That is the backstop that critics of the deal refuse to acknowledge. However, a European peace-keeping force adds more protections.
- The arrangement provides U.S. security without putting boots on the ground.
The proposed scheme has the added advantage of lessening U.S. reliance on China. While Democrats are quick to accuse Trump of policies that favor Putin, few have explained why Joe Biden insisted on energy diktats that clearly deepen our dependence on China. Pushing the U.S. towards electric vehicles or solar panels meant greater imports of critical materials from our number one enemy. Being able to source some of those ingredients from a friendly nation would be a win.
Trump’s proposal makes sense, but becomes more credible and immediate with the involvement of Europe. The Oval Office brawl could, in the end, lead to peace.
Everyone should be on board.
Published on Fox News
