On Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was reportedly asked to leave the White House after a failed negotiation. Over the weekend, he expressed concerns about the war’s trajectory, stating that peace was still far off. Former President Donald Trump responded by questioning this assertion and implying that a prolonged conflict was not in anyone’s best interest.

A senior White House official confirmed that all options regarding Ukraine were being considered. In a significant development, the Biden administration halted funding for new arms sales to Ukraine and is considering freezing further weapons shipments. This decision raises questions, as similar actions by Trump previously led to impeachment proceedings. However, there has been no comparable backlash against the Biden administration.

This pause in military aid could pressure Zelensky to return to negotiations. Trump criticized European nations for not contributing as much as the U.S. in supporting Ukraine, arguing that they should bear more of the financial burden. He suggested that European countries have been strategically smarter than Biden by securing loans rather than outright aid.

Trump also noted that European nations have spent more money purchasing Russian oil and gas than on defending Ukraine. This situation has reignited debates about NATO’s role and the potential necessity of a stronger European military presence. In response to Trump’s stance, European leaders have pledged billions more in defense spending, aligning with his long-standing demand for increased military investment from NATO allies.

Some critics have accused Trump of being too lenient toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, comparing his approach to past U.S. diplomatic efforts. Historically, American leaders, including JFK, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton, have engaged in various negotiations with Russia. Trump argues that his approach is merely an attempt to broker peace, a goal that should be universally supported.

Trump and his allies have emphasized the need for a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. He believes that a deal could be reached quickly if both sides were willing to negotiate. However, he suggested that certain individuals may be obstructing the process for their own interests.

Zelensky’s recent actions have strained relations with the U.S. administration. Three key missteps have been highlighted: his abrupt rejection of a mineral agreement with the U.S., his casual attire at a White House meeting, and his failure to sign an economic agreement that could have strengthened ties between Ukraine and the U.S.

Prior to his White House visit, Zelensky met with Senate Democrats, who reportedly influenced his stance against a peace deal. Senator Chris Murphy publicly stated that Ukraine would not accept a settlement that heavily favored Russia, further complicating diplomatic efforts.

Critics argue that the Democratic Party lacks a clear plan for resolving the war. While they oppose Trump’s negotiation efforts, they have not proposed a viable alternative for securing Ukraine’s victory or ending the conflict. Trump’s supporters contend that his strategy—direct negotiations with Russia—aligns with public opinion and would benefit global stability.

Ending the war could reduce energy prices, lower inflation, and strengthen European defense capabilities. It would also allow the U.S. to focus on growing threats from China and Iran. Additionally, excessive reliance on sanctions has weakened the U.S. dollar’s dominance in global trade, pushing nations toward alternative currencies. Resolving the Ukraine conflict could mitigate these economic risks and reassert American strategic influence.