Pity the Oscars. There they were, thinking they were hogging the stage for sheer compelling screen time – the frocks! The gum-throwing! The big, shocking reveals! Jeff Bezos at the after-parties! But we all knew different. The most outrageously gripping spectacle of the past few days was the incendiary showdown on Friday at the White House between Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trump, with Vice President JD Vance also in attendance. Then, it was over to Sir Keir Starmer to provide a more muted but equally symbolic display of diplomacy – from accompanying Zelensky to his car to the supportive hand on his shoulder. It was all riveting because, unlike Hollywood, this was real.
Most of us likely watched between our fingers as Trump and Vance confronted Zelensky in what was effectively a two-against-one political assault. The Ukrainian president was not only shouted down but also faced outright refusal from the Trump camp to acknowledge Ukraine as the victim of aggression. Then came the petulance: JD Vance’s extraordinary comment—“You never said thank you.” Many had expected Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy and a man once admired for his underdog-to-success story, to be a voice of restraint in Trump’s unpredictable orbit. Instead, he came across as the school bully’s eager sidekick.
With Trump’s erratic diplomacy on full display, many Europeans, including Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, are scrambling to put together a framework that secures Ukraine’s interests while keeping the volatile former U.S. president engaged. The assumption, of course, is that Europe must play the role of the responsible adult while Trump indulges in his usual theatrics.
But before we get too carried away in the narrative of European sensibility versus Trumpian chaos, it is worth asking a controversial question: Does Trump have a point?
On social media, Trump wrote:
“I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels that our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want Advantage. I want PEACE.”
And then, in another incendiary post on Truth Social, he declared:
“Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelensky, talked the United States of America into spending $350 billion dollars, to go into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a war that he, without the U.S. and ‘TRUMP,’ will never be able to settle. The United States has spent $200 billion dollars more than Europe… In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia, something all admit only ‘TRUMP’ and the Trump Administration can do.”
Hyperbolic? Certainly. But is he completely wrong?
It may well be that Trump’s idea of peace involves conceding to Russia’s territorial gains, including the Donbas, and shelving Ukraine’s NATO ambitions indefinitely. Many would argue that this is a moral and strategic failure. However, it is undeniable that until Trump forced the issue, there was no real peace process—only a war of attrition, with both sides hoping the other would eventually collapse under the strain.
Trump exaggerates when he claims that “millions have unnecessarily died”—the BBC estimates roughly 70,400 Ukrainian military casualties and up to 200,000 Russian deaths, excluding civilians. But he is correct that Europe had ample opportunity to push for peace but largely opted to support the continuation of the war.
More Read
So, what now?
Should Ukraine put its NATO and EU aspirations on hold? Many would say they were never realistic options in the first place. The British Prime Minister has rightly insisted that Ukraine must be part of any negotiations, and there must be a security framework—likely involving Britain and France—to ensure the country’s future stability. But this also highlights an uncomfortable reality: years of defence cuts under successive Conservative governments have left Britain in a weak position to offer serious military guarantees.
And what about Trump’s claim that half of the $122 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine has gone missing? It would be naïve to dismiss the possibility outright. Ukraine has historically struggled with corruption, ranking 105th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index. While this represents an improvement, it remains difficult to track the allocation of vast sums of money during wartime. Ensuring accountability should be a post-war priority, especially when the inevitable reconstruction efforts begin—an area where corruption traditionally flourishes.
For all Trump’s bluster, let’s judge him on substance. He did not invade Iraq. He did not orchestrate regime change in Libya. He has not been responsible for the kinds of military interventions that his predecessors pursued with disastrous consequences. Of course, his future actions remain unpredictable—he may yet impose an unpalatable settlement in Gaza or even rekindle his bizarre interest in acquiring Greenland.
But for now, can we at least acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, he has a point? Peace is better than war. And until Trump barged onto the scene, a path to peace was nowhere in sight.
