Yesterday’s White House meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a high-stakes diplomatic encounter that revealed much about where both leaders—and their respective nations—stand on the war in Ukraine. What was meant to be a discussion on peace and cooperation quickly became a tense and sometimes awkward exchange, as Trump questioned Ukraine’s approach to the war, and Zelenskyy pushed back with historical warnings and hard truths.

From attire to alliances, and from gratitude to global strategy, the meeting left conservatives, independents, and Christians alike with much to consider. Let’s break it all down.

The Attire Debate: Zelenskyy’s Sweatshirt and the Symbolism of War

One of the most talked-about aspects of the meeting wasn’t policy, but Zelenskyy’s wardrobe. Dressed in his now-standard sweatshirt and cargo pants, the Ukrainian president faced criticism for what some saw as a lack of respect for the occasion. Many conservatives argued that a meeting in the Oval Office with the U.S. president deserved formal attire—a suit and tie, at the very least.

But before we clutch our pearls over dress codes, let’s take a moment to understand why Zelenskyy wears what he wears. From the very beginning of the war, he has vowed not to don a suit until Ukraine is victorious and at peace. His casual, military-style dress is not about disrespect—it is about solidarity with the Ukrainian people. The man is literally at war, and he refuses to dress like everything is normal because, for his people, it isn’t.

For those who still feel he should have worn a suit, I would ask: Is it more important that Zelenskyy looks like a politician, or that he acts like a wartime leader? Would Winston Churchill have been a better leader had he worn a tuxedo while London was being bombed?

Who Pays the Bill? Russia Should

One of the primary concerns among conservatives is the cost of American support for Ukraine. Why should U.S. taxpayers continue footing the bill for another country’s war when our own borders are being overrun and our own economy is struggling? It’s a fair question. However, instead of focusing on how Ukraine will pay us back, maybe we should be looking at how we can make Russia pay.

Russia’s unprovoked invasion has led to hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets worldwide. These funds—belonging to a nation that launched a brutal war of aggression—should be used to rebuild what Russia destroyed. If a criminal vandalizes a neighborhood, shouldn’t they be the one to cover the damages?

Rather than squabbling over Ukrainian repayment, conservatives should be pushing for legislation that allows seized Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort and eventual reconstruction. That way, the burden doesn’t fall on the American taxpayer—it falls on the war criminal who started this mess in the first place.

Appeasers Then, Appeasers Now: Siding with Russia Is a Historic Mistake

One of the most disturbing trends in American politics today is the growing number of people excusing Russia’s actions or outright siding with Putin. The argument goes something like this: “Ukraine is corrupt. Russia had its reasons. We should stay out of it.”

Sound familiar? Because it should.

This is the exact same rhetoric that was used before World War II. In the 1930s, many Americans believed that Germany had its reasons for expanding into neighboring countries. Hitler’s aggression was downplayed, and many argued that the U.S. should avoid entanglement in Europe’s problems.

That kind of thinking didn’t age well, did it?

If you’re siding with Russia today, ask yourself this: Would you have sided with Hitler’s Germany when it was swallowing up parts of Europe in the 1930s? If your answer is no, then take a long, hard look at what Russia is doing now. The parallels are unsettling.

Zelenskyy’s Skepticism: A History of Russian Lies

Zelenskyy didn’t mince words when he urged skepticism about Russian diplomacy. Was that disrespectful? Not at all. It was common sense. If history has taught us anything, it’s that trusting Vladimir Putin to keep his word is like trusting a fox to guard a henhouse.

For decades, Russia has made diplomatic commitments, only to violate them the moment it became convenient. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result, then expecting Putin to negotiate in good faith is the very definition of insanity.

Here’s just a brief history of Russia’s broken promises:

• The 1994 Budapest Memorandum: Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal—the third-largest in the world—after Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. signed a security agreement promising to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia explicitly vowed not to use force or threats against Ukraine. Then, in 2014, Russia invaded Crimea and backed separatists in the Donbas, ripping that agreement to shreds.
• The 2008 Russo-Georgian War: Russia promised to respect Georgia’s sovereignty, yet that same year, it launched an invasion and occupied 20% of Georgian territory. The international community condemned it, but Russia didn’t care—it took what it wanted and never left.
• The 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements: After Russia-backed separatists launched a war in Eastern Ukraine, ceasefire agreements were signed in Minsk to end the conflict peacefully. Russia agreed to withdraw its forces, disarm illegal groups, and respect Ukrainian sovereignty. But instead of honoring the agreement, Putin used the ceasefires to regroup, rearm, and prepare for his full-scale invasion in 2022.
• The 2022 “No Plans to Invade” Lie: In the months leading up to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin’s government repeatedly told the world that it had no intention of invading Ukraine. Even as Russia amassed 190,000 troops on the border, Putin’s diplomats stood in front of the UN and Western leaders, insisting that the buildup was just a “military exercise.” Two weeks later, Russia launched a full-scale assault.

Forgive Zelenskyy for not wanting to take Putin at his word. The evidence is overwhelmingly in his favor.

Russia’s diplomatic strategy is deception, delay, and destruction. It makes promises to buy time, then uses that time to strengthen its position before attacking again. Expecting Ukraine—or any nation—to trust Putin’s word is not just naive, it’s dangerous.

If Trump—or anyone else—believes that Russia can be negotiated with in good faith, they haven’t been paying attention.

The Ocean Won’t Protect Us Forever

Zelenskyy also made a stark but undeniable observation: Americans feel safe from Russia because the Atlantic Ocean separates us. Historically, that sense of security has been justified. But is it still true today?

For much of our history, Americans have relied on geography as our first line of defense. The vast Atlantic and Pacific Oceans kept foreign threats at arm’s length, giving us the luxury of watching global conflicts unfold from a distance before deciding whether or not to engage. But if the 20th century taught us anything, it’s that war has a way of finding us, no matter how far away it begins.

Take World War II, for example. In the late 1930s, many Americans believed that Hitler’s war in Europe was Europe’s problem. There was a strong push for isolationism, and the Democratic administration at the time resisted involvement. Despite growing warnings, Americans assumed that as long as the conflict remained overseas, it wouldn’t threaten us.

Then came December 7, 1941. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and overnight, America’s illusions of safety were shattered. Distance didn’t matter anymore. Geography didn’t protect us. The war had come to our shores, whether we wanted it or not.

Fast forward to today. Some argue that Russia’s war in Ukraine isn’t our problem because it’s happening “over there.” But how long before “over there” becomes “right here”?

Russia has already expanded its influence beyond Europe, using cyberwarfare, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion to attack the U.S. and our allies without ever firing a shot. Consider the threats that an unchecked Russia poses:

• Cyberwarfare: Russia has already launched cyberattacks on American infrastructure, from hacking U.S. government agencies to targeting our energy grid. Imagine what they could do if they’re emboldened by a Ukrainian defeat.
• Nuclear blackmail: Putin has repeatedly threatened nuclear escalation. If Russia is allowed to grow stronger, what stops them from using nuclear threats to dictate terms to the U.S. and NATO?
• Strategic alliances with hostile nations: Russia is strengthening its ties with China, Iran, and North Korea—nations that share a common goal: challenging American dominance. A stronger Russia means a more aggressive anti-Western coalition, which could have serious consequences for America’s global standing.

Complacency is not a strategy. If history teaches us anything, it’s that tyrants don’t stop when they’re appeased. They stop when they’re defeated.

For those who think that Ukraine’s war is just “Europe’s problem,” I would ask this: If we won’t stand up to Russian aggression now, what makes us think we’ll have the strength—or the allies—to stand up to it later?

Blaming the Victim: Trump’s Worst Take of the Meeting

At one point during the meeting, Trump looked Zelenskyy in the eye and said:

“You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people.”

Wait a second. Zelenskyy is the one gambling with lives? The leader of a nation that was invaded—unprovoked—is the one being reckless? This is victim-blaming at its finest.

Let’s put this logic to the test with a historical comparison.

Would we have told Winston Churchill in 1940 that he was “gambling” with British lives by refusing to surrender to Hitler? Of course not. Britain didn’t start World War II—Nazi Germany did. Britain wasn’t choosing to fight; they were forced to fight because the alternative was annihilation.

The same is true for Ukraine.

Zelenskyy didn’t wake up one morning and decide, “Hey, let’s start a war with Russia.” Putin invaded Ukraine. Russia has bombed cities, massacred civilians, kidnapped children, and committed war crimes. Ukraine is not choosing to fight; it is fighting to survive.

If Ukraine were to surrender today, what would happen? Millions of Ukrainians would fall under brutal Russian occupation. Russia has already shown what that looks like: mass graves, torture chambers, deportations, and the erasure of Ukrainian identity.

The real gamble here isn’t Zelenskyy’s decision to fight. The real gamble is assuming that appeasing Putin will make him stop.

If there’s one lesson we should have learned from the last century, it’s that when you reward aggression, you don’t get peace—you get more aggression. Ukraine is not the problem. Russia is. And shifting blame to the victim doesn’t change that fact.

Trump’s Neutrality: A Dangerous Precedent

Trump also made a statement that sounded diplomatic on the surface but was deeply troubling underneath:

“I’m in the middle. I’m not on the side of Ukraine or Russia.”

At first glance, that might seem like a reasonable position. After all, many Americans are tired of endless foreign entanglements. The idea of staying out of other nations’ wars is always politically appealing. But there is no middle ground between an invader and the invaded. There is no “neutral” stance when one nation is actively trying to erase another from the map.

Imagine if Franklin D. Roosevelt had said in 1938, “I’m not on the side of either Germany or Czechoslovakia.” Would we have applauded his neutrality? Or would history have judged him as a coward for refusing to stand against aggression?

Some fights are black and white.

• Russia is the aggressor.
• Ukraine is the victim.
• America should stand with Ukraine.

This isn’t just a moral question—it’s a strategic one. If the U.S. fails to stand against Putin now, what kind of message does that send to China, Iran, or North Korea? Weakness invites aggression. Sitting “in the middle” doesn’t make the world safer—it emboldens tyrants.

Would Trump have stayed “in the middle” if Russia had invaded Poland? What about Germany? If we abandon Ukraine now under the guise of neutrality, we will be setting the stage for even bigger conflicts down the road.

The choice is clear: We either stand against Russian imperialism today, or we fight something even worse tomorrow.

Is Zelenskyy Ungrateful?

One of the most uncomfortable moments in the meeting came when Senator J.D. Vance pressed Zelenskyy to say “thank you” for U.S. support. It was an awkward exchange, and many conservatives have since argued that Ukraine’s president doesn’t express enough gratitude for the billions in aid America has provided.

Could Zelenskyy have handled that moment better? Probably. A simple, “Thank you, I sincerely appreciate all that the United States has done,” might have helped diffuse the tension. Gratitude, after all, is an important virtue, and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging the sacrifices others have made on your behalf.

But let’s not pretend that gratitude should be the deciding factor in whether we support Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. If Ukraine had to pass a “properly grateful” test before we supported them, we’d be using the wrong metric to determine our foreign policy.

Gratitude vs. Survival: A Leader’s Perspective

Zelenskyy’s lack of frequent “thank yous” isn’t necessarily because he doesn’t appreciate American help—it’s because he’s fighting for his country’s survival. Ukraine is in a brutal war where every day brings more destruction and death. His focus isn’t on public displays of gratitude; it’s on making sure his people don’t get wiped off the map.

Imagine if, during World War II, Winston Churchill had to constantly stop and reassure Roosevelt, “I really appreciate the weapons and supplies, sir!” No one expected that, because the stakes were too high for Britain to play diplomatic games.

Even Biden Had Frustrations—But He Kept Them Private

It’s worth noting that even Joe Biden, behind closed doors, has expressed frustration at Zelenskyy’s lack of overt appreciation. According to former administration officials, Biden at times felt that Ukraine’s president was a little too demanding and not grateful enough for American support.

But unlike Trump and Vance, Biden didn’t turn that frustration into a public spectacle. He handled it privately, as most world leaders do when they have differences with their allies.

Ukraine needs America, and Zelenskyy knows it. But America also benefits from Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression. If Ukraine falls, Russia will be stronger, more emboldened, and more dangerous. The aid we’ve provided isn’t charity—it’s an investment in stopping an expansionist regime before it becomes a bigger problem for the entire world.

So yes, while a simple “thank you” wouldn’t hurt, let’s keep our priorities straight: Gratitude is nice, but defeating tyranny is necessary.

Final Thought: Russia Must Make Concessions, Not Ukraine

During the meeting, Trump suggested that Zelenskyy should be more open to making concessions. But that raises an important question: Why should Ukraine be the one making concessions?

Let’s be clear: Russia started this war. Ukraine didn’t invade Russia. Ukraine didn’t annex Russian land. Ukraine didn’t bomb Russian cities. Russia is the aggressor, and aggressors don’t deserve to be rewarded with concessions.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that appeasing dictators never leads to lasting peace—it only invites more aggression. Putin has already shown that he views ceasefires and peace deals as opportunities to regroup and rearm. If Ukraine were to accept a premature peace deal now—especially one that allows Russia to keep any of the territory it has stolen—it would only set the stage for another war in a few years.

Ukraine’s Survival Isn’t Negotiable

Some argue that Ukraine should be willing to trade land for peace. But what does that really mean? For millions of Ukrainians, it means being abandoned to live under Russian occupation. And we already know what that looks like:

• Mass graves and war crimes in Bucha and other occupied areas.
• Deportation of Ukrainian children to be raised as Russians.
• Religious and cultural oppression, with the Ukrainian language and church being outlawed in Russian-controlled territories.

Telling Ukraine to give up land is the same as telling millions of people that their freedom, their lives, and their future don’t matter.

A Strong Ukraine is in America’s Best Interest

Some conservatives ask: Why should we care? What does Ukraine’s war have to do with America? The answer is simple: A strong Ukraine weakens Russia. And a weak Russia makes the world safer for America and its allies.

• Russia’s military has been devastated—they’ve lost hundreds of thousands of troops and burned through decades’ worth of military equipment. That means they have less power to threaten NATO, Eastern Europe, or even the U.S. in the future.
• Russia’s economy is crumbling. Sanctions and war expenses have made it a global pariah.
• China is watching. If the West lets Russia win in Ukraine, China will take that as a green light to invade Taiwan.

If conservatives want to see a world where American strength still matters, then siding with Ukraine is the only logical path forward. It’s not just about helping Ukraine—it’s about ensuring that tyranny doesn’t go unpunished.

Putin is in a weak position. If Russia wants peace, then Russia must make the concessions—not Ukraine.