The Never-Ending War crowd wants you to believe three things at once:
- NATO expansion deters aggression—and won’t provoke retaliation.
- Giving Ukraine de facto NATO security guarantees will protect it—but won’t require American blood and treasure if war breaks out.
- Russia will accept NATO troops or bases in Ukraine—but won’t view that as an existential threat.
Their bombast contradicts each of these premises. The war hawks argue that Putin has never complied with any agreement—that he is a liar, a thug, and a geopolitical predator. Yet, they insist that American troops must be a necessary component of any agreement.
What exactly do they believe this will achieve?
A Foreign Policy Without Brake Pedals
If Putin truly views NATO expansion as an existential threat, how will he respond?
And wasn’t this one of the causes of the war to begin with? The foreign policy establishment pretends that Russia’s invasion was unprovoked. Yet, their relentless push for NATO expansion helped ignite this war. Rather than admit their policies provoked conflict, they double down—demanding more of the same, as if the fire can be extinguished with gasoline. Moscow explicitly warned that this would cross a red line, but those warnings were dismissed as mere bluster.
The war hawks—so eager to cite history when it suits them—ignore this inconvenient reality. They believe NATO can plant troops and military infrastructure inside Ukraine without triggering escalation, as if Putin—whom they brand a ruthless expansionist—will suddenly play nice once NATO troops roll up to his border.
The “Ukraine as a Tripwire” Delusion
The foreign policy establishment is pushing a suicidal contradiction: they believe Putin must be stopped at all costs, yet the only way to stop him is to place NATO troops in Ukraine and dare him to test Article 5.
They aren’t willing to say the quiet part out loud. Still, we know what it means: If they have their way, American soldiers will die in Ukraine, not because it is vital to our national interest but because the foreign policy elite backed themselves into a rhetorical corner.
They would rather roll the dice on nuclear escalation than admit they never had a coherent strategy beyond blind faith in economic sanctions and wishful thinking. Their arrogance has put Ukraine in a death spiral, and now they want America to clean up their mess—with American blood.
The “Putin Will Always Break Agreements” Paradox
Perhaps the most laughable contradiction is this: the same people demanding NATO expansion into Ukraine insist that Putin has never honored a treaty or international agreement.
They claim:
- Putin violated the Minsk agreements.
- Putin ignored security assurances.
- Putin lies about his intentions.
Yet, these same people insist Ukraine must be under NATO’s protective umbrella as if that alone will neutralize Russia’s territorial ambitions.
But if Putin had never honored an agreement, why would they assume he would respect NATO’s red lines or come to any deal he would keep that acquiesces to such a security arrangement?
The unavoidable conclusion: They aren’t planning for peace. They are preparing for war.
The Fantasy of “Ukrainian Sovereignty”
The war hawks love to invoke “Ukrainian sovereignty” as their rallying cry. But when pressed, their definition of sovereignty is nothing short of a euphemism for returning Ukraine to its 2014 borders. This goal is utterly unattainable without full-scale multilateral intervention in the Russo-Ukrainian war. For that matter, simply returning Ukraine to its 2022 borders would also require substantial military intervention.
An “evil” Putin, as they constantly remind us, is not suddenly going to capitulate to Western demands because he’s had a change of heart. He will not simply decide that NATO was right one morning and order a complete withdrawal.
If that happens, Stockholm better reserve a Nobel Prize for Tinkerbell—because only her pixie dust could make this fantasy work.
Yet the war hawks continue down this path as if their sheer willpower and moral posturing can alter the realities of war.
A Reality Check the War Hawks Won’t Accept
It will take hundreds of thousands of troops to remove Russia from Ukraine. Suppose the war hawks genuinely believe Putin is determined to take all of Ukraine. In that case, their logic demands an indefinite NATO occupation of Ukrainian territory—with all the catastrophic consequences that entails.
They live in a fantasy world where actions are disconnected from consequences. They assume that:
- Putin will not escalate if NATO moves into Ukraine.
- Despite years of preparation, Russia’s military will fail to respond effectively.
- Western missile defense will work perfectly if Russia retaliates.
They believe that all Russian missiles will fail to function, that Putin will accept defeat with a whimper, and that NATO can dictate terms without firing a shot.
And yet, these are the same people who insist Putin is an irrational madman hell-bent on conquest.
Which is it?
The war hawks claim to revere history, but if Churchill, Truman, Eisenhower, or Marshall were here today and saw their strategy, they would ask: Are you insane?
The Endgame: War Without Limits
This is not a strategy. This is faith-based interventionism, untethered from history, logic, or military reality.
They seek to make Ukraine an extension of NATO while pretending it won’t drag the alliance into direct war. They ignore one of the primary causes of Russian aggression in Ukraine: the threat of NATO membership being extended to Kyiv. The very thing they claim is necessary to “protect” Ukraine is what helped provoke the conflict in the first place.
They don’t want a diplomatic settlement. At best, they are engineering an irreversible commitment that, once made, cannot be undone without war. At worst, they are gambling on an apocalyptic confrontation with a nuclear-armed adversary—who they argue is led by an evil and unhinged Dr. No. Yet, they expect this same unhinged supervillain to politely accept NATO forces at his doorstep without retaliation? The contradiction is staggering. Either he is a dangerous megalomaniac, or he is a manageable adversary. The war hawks can’t have it both ways.
And yet, these same war hawks spew venom at the Trump administration’s handling of this crisis, ridiculing the president’s efforts to avert World War III as though restraint is a vice and escalation a virtue. Their blind commitment to endless war reveals their absolute priority: not securing peace but ensuring that America remains shackled to a conflict with no defined victory conditions and no exit strategy—no matter the cost.
We should demand of each war hawk:
- What are the strategic aims of continued American involvement in Ukraine?
- What military force will be needed to implement these strategic aims? Are they prepared to deploy American troops to fight in Ukraine? If not, who fights this war?
- What, in your view, is a realistic and just peace in this conflict?
- How would such a peace be obtained?
Should Ukraine have to compromise to obtain peace? If not, how would peace be achieved if one side—the side currently losing on the field of battle—refuses to make concessions?
How would you ensure peace if the parties agreed to end the present conflict?
The war hawks had their way during the prior Biden administration, and it was an unmitigated failure.
America has no obligation to sacrifice its sons and daughters for an ideological crusade masquerading as strategy. If Europe insists on lighting the match, they must live with the inferno they ignite.
Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC
image, Pixabay license.
Jesus Christ is King
