There is much to be made about the recent clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and United States President Donald Trump in the Oval Office this past week. What can be said with certainty is that tensions between Trump and Zelenskyy making it into the public eye have massive consequences. Most notably, it shows that Ukraine–at least if it wants U.S. support under the newly reappointed Trump administration–must move toward peace and show real progress toward doing so very soon. 

At the time of writing this column, Trump has halted all military assistance and intelligence sharing to Ukraine and the prospect of a strong U.S.-Ukraine relationship looks dim. The meeting between the two leaders, however–which some outlets describe as being the “139 minutes that upended the U.S.-Ukraine alliance”–did not just put the U.S.-Ukraine relationship at stake, but also the entire security apparatus that has protected Europe since the end of WWII. 

Despite NATO still being intact, Europe is scrambling over solutions to incentivize a continued U.S. presence and military support in the region. Trump’s security realignment represents a seismic shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Russia and the European continent as a whole, with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer claiming that “Europe is at crossroads in history,” suggesting Europe can no longer be complacent by passively relying on the United States for security – which, of course, it has done for far too long. 

Many are asking who should be faulted for the awkward flare-up between Trump and Zelenskyy. Many Western outlets have ascribed Zelenskyy a victimhood status and Trump and Vice President JD Vance the role of the unprovoked aggressor. However, after watching the full length of the meeting, it is obvious that Zelenskyy was insensitive to the fact that Trump is attempting to secure a deal that would put an end to the bloodshed in his country. Instead, Zelenskyy took the opportunity to label Russian President Vladimir Putin “a killer and terrorist” and said that there would be no “of course no compromises with the killer about our territories”–all statements clearly targeted at derailing Trump and Putin’s recent negotiations to end the war. 

Putin has earned himself these harsh descriptions, but the reality for Ukraine is even harsher. According to Mark Cancian and Chris Park of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, even with a “steady stream of American equipment” the “prospects for Ukraine are bleak.” They continue to write that “in the best case” for Ukraine “U.S. and European aid continues, which is enough for Ukraine to stabilize the front lines, blunt Russian attacks, and buy time for a negotiated settlement.”

Unfortunately for Ukraine and proponents of continued war, if the U.S. keeps military aid and intelligence suspended, whatever “Ukraine receives from the Europeans, other global sources, and its own industry will keep its forces in the field but with declining capabilities.” Russian advances will only become more aggressive and “Ukrainian lines will break.” 

Trump and Vance did not appreciate Zelenskyy’s combative and accusatory words given the unfavorable negotiating position of his country. Trump’s stated goal is to end the war and bring peace to Ukraine–something that Zelenskyy rejected following the Istanbul talks in the Spring of 2022, which “would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives” according to Zelenskyy’s former advisor Oleksiy Arestovych. This is the fundamental tension between the two countries: Trump and Zelenskyy both know they want opposite outcomes. 

While a case can be made that both Vance and Trump overreacted (especially with their obsession over Zelenskyy’s clothing decisions), and disrespectful demands of gratitude, Zelenskyy playing hardball with Trump by publicly challenging his stated goal of a diplomatic resolution to the conflict is not the best strategy, considering Zelenskyy wants future security guarantees backed by the United States.

Instead of publicly committing to an effort toward diplomacy, Zelenskyy instigated a reaction from Vance by challenging the notion of diplomacy in the first place: “What kind of diplomacy, [Vance], are you speaking about? What do you mean?” (I recommend reading the full transcript for relevant context). Vance’s response clarified Ukraine’s manpower issues, and that the type of diplomacy Vance aims for is the kind that will “end the destruction” of Ukraine. 

And, in reality, this is the best solution for Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine has a right to defend itself against an illegal invasion of its territory and has done so heroically for the past three years. The realities on the battlefield, however, confront us with a moral test: are we in the United States ready to commit our resources (and urge our allies to commit theirs) to continue this bloodshed?

Hundreds of soldiers are dying every day and Ukraine has begun recruiting citizens as young as 18 years old in hopes of replenishing a depleted military. Both Ukraine and Russia are experiencing horrific losses and to push this conflict further would be a violation of basic, common-sense morality.

However, there are still those who claim that improvements in Russo-American relations are akin to treason and that the U.S. is aligning itself with the world’s authoritarians instead of its democracies. This, however, is simply the residual Cold War era Russophobia that remains embedded in our institutions at almost every level. Great powers armed with nuclear weapons should communicate and negotiate with each other in times of crisis–it is really that simple. 

It was, after all, former President Bill Clinton who said that in his experience, Putin was trustworthy behind closed doors and always “kept his word.” Clinton added that in dealing with world leaders, “if you want them to help you, avoid embarrassing them in public”–a strategy which Trump is employing in his renewed diplomacy with Russia. 

It must be stressed that dealing with Russia is not a sign of weakness, nor is anything outlined in this article a simple regurgitation of Russian talking points. Putin is a dictator, there is no way around that. However, there is no evidence at all that the U.S. is suddenly allied with Russia–Trump just sees the war in Ukraine and the overall project of NATO expansion as needless escalation and a waste of American resources, which it undoubtedly is. And with a rising China (which this week announced a boosted military budget), Trump may be seeking to pivot his focus to the theatre in East Asia. Therefore, if you’re Zelenskyy, it only makes sense to agree to Trump’s solution. 

Seeking unrealistic security guarantees from the U.S. is not the right course of action. Ukraine and the West must forget their NATO aspirations and instead focus on de-escalation measures. The U.S. should not be funding proxy wars so it can perch on Russia’s doorstep. Putin may lament the fall of the Soviet Union, but it is not a realistic possibility that he could ever reestablish it. Instead of being demonized, these peace efforts should be lauded. Americans should not condone the continued slaughter of both Ukrainians and Russians, let alone finance it. Europe does not need to be engulfed in further conflict.

It’s time for peace. Luckily, it appears that Trump and Zelenskyy are preparing to mend their relationship and work together toward a deal. Much of what Ukraine will look like after such a deal has yet to be determined, but the situation appears at least to be moving in the right direction. Avoiding further catastrophes in Ukraine and Russia and at the same time soothing nuclear tensions between Russia and the West – should it be possible – are all welcome developments.