UK’s Mixed Messages About Peace in Ukraine

Since the raucous meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy last Friday, it has been the topic of talk across all media outlets, big and small. For reasons unknown to a moral and rational mind, most European countries do not wish the war between Ukraine and Russia to end. Zelenskyy’s demeanor and disrespect last Friday were evidence of this claim.

After being kicked out of the White House, Zelenskyy headed toward England, hoping to salvage his disastrous meeting with Trump and J.D. Vance.  There, he was met with sympathy from the U.K. and verbal support to continue to fight the war against Russia.

The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised his nation would give Ukraine £3 billion pounds annually until 2030. In addition, Starmer is willing to send his soldiers to fight as a part of the security guarantee Zelenskyy wants.  He writes, “I do not say that lightly. I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm’s way. But any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine’s security is helping to ensure the security of our continent and the security of this country.”

Sending English troops to fight against the Russians raises a significant question about whether England or Europe will be more secure or if they will be drawn into an endless conflict, a position Trump refuses to entertain for America. The Prime Minister then writes, “While European nations must step up in this moment – and we will – U.S. support will remain critical, and a U.S. security guarantee is essential for a lasting peace, because only the U.S. can deter Putin from attacking again.”

The problem for Ukraine and Starmer is that Trump has no intention of agreeing with the guarantee of security because a deal like that would force the United States to continue to fund and send U.S. Troops to Ukraine. Trump has clarified his America First policy is not achieved by sending U.S. troops into a meat grinder. Besides, where is the United Nations contribution? The UN peacekeeping forces are supposed to fulfill this function, but they are nowhere to be found. Perhaps it is time to defund the United Nations.

Another fact seems absurd: Europe spends more on purchasing gas from Russia than it gives to Ukraine, funding both Russia and Ukraine at the same time. How does that make any sense? Europe is between a rock and a hard place. If it stops buying energy from Russia, how will it be powered? If it stops supporting Zelenskyy, it will be accused of taking Putin’s side. Starmer is right—no peace will come without American intervention. 

Trump and America hold all the cards. Zelenskyy’s arrogant posture will change once the U.S. squeezes him by withholding funds and military hardware.  After the debacle in the Oval Office, not only did Trump throw out the dictator but also ordered a pause on all military aid to Ukraine. We encourage the Trump administration to make the pause permanent and force the two dictators to the peace table.

Presently, Zelenskyy has no intentions of forging a peace plan. On Sunday, he said the end of the Russian war is “very, very far away.” Trump responded to Truth Social by saying that Zelenskyy didn’t want peace as long as he had the backing of the U.S. and Europe.

Without support from the U.S., Europe’s bravado about defending Ukraine against its energy supplier will soon crumble. What is needed to end this war is to stop supplying Ukraine and Zelenskyy with money and arms and not send troops to fight the war that Ukraine cannot win. Withholding troops and money will force Zelenskyy to negotiate for peace. It is the only way forward.   

What we are seeing now from Europe is the last gasp of the globalists who fear Russia not because of her military might but her refusal to engage and play nice with their agenda.