The meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy sent shockwaves across Europe, unleashing tangible dread over the beleaguered continent. European leaders rushed to affirm their support for Ukraine and President Zelenskyy. British prime minister Keir Starmer declared that Britain confronts a 'generational challenge' in national security, adding that his country 'needs to do more.'

This brings to mind a snarky quip from my generation, reserved for when someone belabored the blindingly apparent: 'Thanks, Captain Obvious.'

A NATO breakdown for 2024 indicates that the United States contributed approximately 16% of NATO’s annual expenditures, sharing the top spot with Germany. The other 30 member nations lagged significantly behind, with France and the UK coming in at just 10% apiece.

Beyond NATO contributions, the United States allocates nearly a trillion dollars annually to its overall defense, significantly bolstering NATO’s capabilities when required. For instance, an aircraft carrier stationed in the South China Sea could swiftly redirect to the Mediterranean to reinforce NATO in a pinch.

Despite the United States’ substantial contributions to NATO, both direct and indirect, a prevailing sentiment across Europe holds that under Donald Trump, the U.S. is forsaking its allies, fracturing a web of alliances forged after World War II and strengthened following the Soviet Union’s collapse.

This perspective is, naturally, scandalously asinine. 

The United States has far exceeded its share in fortifying the transatlantic partnership. What unsettles Europe is the return of a President who dares to draw a line and deliver a blunt truth: this is your continent, and it’s high time you shoulder more of your own security burden. After all, the United States is protected by, as Zelenskyy put it, 'a nice big ocean.'

What about the claim that Donald Trump disgraced himself and the United States during that Oval Office clash? Is that accurate, or did Trump simply voice a necessary truth?

Critics of Trump’s approach to the Ukrainian-Russian conflict -- whether in the U.S. or Europe -- offer no substantive strategy. They can’t define what a Ukrainian victory looks like, nor can they outline a clear path to achieve it. This leads me to believe their plan boils down to sending Ukrainians, armed with American taxpayer-funded war tools, into an endless meat grinder. 

But what happens when Ukraine, where soldiers are already averaging over 40 years of age, runs out of manpower? Is Europe counting on the United States deploying troops? That would mean significant American casualties and the specter of nuclear war escalating to a level not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

President Trump sees the bigger picture. He understands that Ukraine, unfortunately, holds little leverage in this conflict. Plainly stated, Ukraine cannot sustain its resistance against Russia without U.S. backing, and dragging the war out for another three years is unconscionable -- indeed, it’s immoral.

Ukraine can stage a defiant stand and delay the inevitable with continued American financial and military support. They can put on a show, with EU leaders clapping like trained seals in the background. Trump detractors across all continents might even feel good about it. But ultimately, Ukraine will fall, and in the meantime, countless more lives will be lost -- to what end?

Trump is a tough negotiator, often brusque, but I see a genuine intent to stop the bloodshed, and he’s applying pressure to the one leader in this conflict where it might actually make a difference.

Acknowledging that Ukraine cannot win this war is not a sign of weakness. Choosing to negotiate an end to the bloodshed, rather than committing American lives and risking the threat of nuclear war, is not a betrayal of Reagan’s principles. It is precisely the opposite. It reflects strength and a deep respect for the sanctity of human life.

No one is dragging a nuclear-armed Putin out of his bed and putting him on a plane to The Hague to face war crimes charges. Russia will not permit Ukraine to join NATO. For the past forty years, every Russian expert -- regardless of political affiliation, American or European -- has consistently warned that Ukraine joining NATO is a blood-red line. Anyone who believes Putin would accept such a loss of face without resorting to extreme measures fails to grasp his character or the deep-rooted conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which stretches back a thousand years.

However unpalatable these truths may be, Donald Trump understands them. Until his detractors can articulate a clear vision of what a Ukrainian victory entails and provide a coherent plan to achieve it -- while guaranteeing we steer clear of nuclear war -- they should hold their tongues and let him do his work. Their current rhetoric offers nothing of substance; it’s just empty platitudes that do nothing to save lives.

Image: Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine