Following the exchange involving US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, European leaders came out of the woodwork to give their words of encouragement to Ukraine.
While these pleasantries play online and in think tank communities, the actions of these nations betray their words. Europe has not taken long-term steps to decouple from Russian energy and is, in effect, funding the Russian invasion through these purchases.
The United States has by far provided the most resources to support the Ukrainian war effort, and to pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. Including direct appropriations, indirect aid, and military packages, the US has supplied around $200 billion in assets to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, European assistance has never outpaced their purchases of Russian energy. Europe has reduced its usage of Moscow’s energy since the beginning of the war but has done so kicking and screaming. If not for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines, I highly doubt the reduction would have reached its already painfully slow pace.
Other than France, EU nations have refused to move toward any tangible form of energy independence. Germany and Belgium shuttered nuclear facilities, in some cases destroying them to remove the option of reversing course. In the process, they deepened their dependencies on Russian supplies.
These nations decline to admit their horrible mistake and now want to eat their cake and have it too. They feel good criticizing President Trump for questioning what his citizens’ tax dollars are going toward while powering their halls with Russian crude oil and natural gas.
The stark situation we find ourselves in is that Russia is fine with the current paradigm. Moscow is more than willing to throw lives away, importing soldiers from Syria, North Korea, and Cuba along with large-scale conscription. It is content with a stalemate; in a war of attrition, Putin can outwait Western leaders and force Ukraine into de facto isolation.
During the ramp-ups in war funding, the Russians never came close to calling it quits or seeking a deal; it does not make sense to believe this time is different.
What else is there to try besides making a deal?
I, too, want a solution to the land Russia is occupying, the children stolen, and the lives slaughtered, but what is left to try other than striking a deal? At minimum, we must attempt to proceed by agreeing to stop the fighting to get Russia to the table.
I fully understand not trusting Putin; he has provided no reason to believe him, and safeguards should be designed in any deal. Such safeguards are exactly why an economic mineral deal with the US made so much sense.
I have little remorse for world leaders who want to be able to say one thing and do another in this war. Several European leaders have attempted to play peacemaker while taking zero steps beyond summits.
Photo ops are not foreign policy nor is grandstanding against the largest funder of the Ukrainian resistance. If EU heads of state truly want to hurt Russia, they would stop buying their products and sanction the parts of the Russian economy they rely on.
While I would have preferred the Oval Office discussion to happen in private, Zelensky should have never attempted to litigate the conflict with the president in front of the media.
US taxpayers have spent billions on this war in the pursuit of hurting Russia and defending a democracy; do not lecture us – the criticism from those who themselves will not take action rings hollow and does not help.
The writer was granted the AIPAC Activist of the Year Award in 2019 and 2020. He is an Arizona State University-Watts College of Public Service master of public policy graduate.
Jesus Christ is King
