“What the f— are we doing here?” asked President Trump in the summer of 2017.
Nearly a year into his first term, Trump’s national security adviser had just proposed sending an additional 3,000 to 5,000 troops to Afghanistan, prompting his boss’s frustration that his Cabinet still hadn’t gotten the message. Trump had repeatedly conveyed that he wanted to end the war in Afghanistan, not prolong it.
Between 2012 and 2013, Trump tweeted about the loss of lives, waste of taxpayer dollars, and apparent absence of a strategy to get any value from our investment in the country.
“Afghanistan is a total disaster,” Trump said in 2012. “We don’t know what we are doing. They are, in addition to everything else, robbing us blind."
“Rebuild the U.S. first. Our government is so pathetic that some of the billions being wasted in Afghanistan are ending up with terrorists.”
The $50 billion we poured into Afghanistan annually was having little effect on the country’s long-term security, and it fueled corruption at the highest levels of Afghan government and military. America committed time, troops, and money to a country and, somehow, got nothing in return beyond a vague sense that America was “safer” for having fought the war. For a dealmaker like Trump, these terms were worse than unfair, they were unconscionable—all benefits of the bargain went to them, none to us.
“How does this end?” Trump asked Senator Lindsey Graham, mulling his options.
It never will, Graham replied.
“It’s good versus evil. Good versus evil never ends. It’s just like the Nazis. It’s now radical Islam. It will be something else one day.”
Eight years later, Afghanistan finally behind us, a similar scenario is playing out in Ukraine. And while some on the Right have gotten the message – Senator Graham among them – others have not. Prominent conservative journalists and politicians continue to argue that we must stop at nothing to secure Ukraine, in order to sometime down the road protect the United States.
After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, many assumed it would be mere months, if not weeks, before Russia seized control of the entire country. But after three years of fighting, Putin has secured roughly 20 percent of Ukraine – failing to control key terrain used in previous centuries as avenues of approach into western Russia – and failing to reconstitute his strategic buffer against Europe. America feared during the Cold War that the Soviet Union would dominate Europe in a land war. However, Russia’s failure to meet its objectives in Ukraine has given us a much better understanding of the ledger of power between Russia and Europe.
None of this surprises Trump, who has seized an opportunity to end the war, promising America and the world that he can deliver peace.
“Our concern is that this has become a war of attrition that’s going to kill a whole generation of young men,” Trump’s advisers said last summer.
The ceasefire terms laid out by Trump’s team set a framework for “America first” dealmaking rather than confrontation with Russia. How, they asked, do we end the war in a way that benefits America and the world? The answer seemed clear: end the fighting along the current battle lines; permit Russia to retain territory under its control; give Europe the lead in securing Ukraine, but stop short of its admission into NATO; and partner with Ukraine in the form of a bilateral mining deal.
Unlike members of his first Cabinet, those in Trump’s current Cabinet understand the message and amplify it to the world. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last month told NATO members that reverting to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders was “unrealistic,” and that the United States “does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.” Trump reiterated Hegseth’s position, saying NATO membership for Ukraine wasn’t practical, and it is unlikely Ukraine will get back all of its land.
Europe is beginning to get Trump’s message, too.
While French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer mediate between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, German Chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz publicly acknowledged that Europe “must achieve independence from the U.S.” Europe can start by mobilizing some of the $200 billion in frozen Russian assets to help secure and rebuild Ukraine after the war.
Still, there is resistance to change within Trump’s own party, as politicians, journalists, and pundits advocate the neoconservative point of view that war in Ukraine is existential — the latest chapter in the never-ending struggle between good and evil.
Chief among these advocates is Douglas Murray, a British journalist who defines neoconservatism as a “sense, an instinct, a way of looking at the world” that blends idealism and realism. “We look at the world as it is, but act in the world to make it as we would like it to be,” Murray says.
Murray sees Ukraine not through Trump’s realist prism of what is achievable, what gain can be extracted, and how to generate maximum benefit for America, but through the more mythical archetypes of good (in this case Ukraine) and evil (Russia). He disparages Trump conservatives as admirers of Putin who believe Ukraine “isn’t a real country, that the Ukrainians aren’t a real people.” He asserts that American money to fund the war should continue to flow, and that ceding “even a square mile” of Ukrainian territory will be a victory for Putin.
“If you oppose sending American troops around the world, and you oppose arming countries for their own survival, then do you have any remaining foreign policy at all?” Murray wrote in a 2023 piece published by National Review.
The call to perpetual war has come not only from Europe and the United Kingdom. Among those joining Murray’s argument is Congressman Mike Flood (R-NE). In a recent article published in Newsweek, Flood wrote that any peace deal must “roll back Russia’s land grab, return kidnapped Ukrainian children, and ensure that America’s alliance with NATO remains strong.”
Certainly, these are noble and idealistic goals, but they contradict the president’s terms for settlement, and would exact a huge cost on the United States.
First, rolling back territory gained by Russia would likely require a commitment of American troops, and a willingness to sacrifice American lives. That is something Secretary Hegseth has said is off the table. Second, though repatriation of kidnapped Ukrainian children is a worthy, long-term goal, demanding this as a condition for peace will prolong the war and cause more death and suffering for the people of Ukraine and Russia. Third, a requirement that “America’s alliance with NATO remains strong” seems beyond our explicit control, not to mention that it fails to consider whether a Europe-led NATO is sufficiently strong to safeguard peace in Ukraine, as many believe the United States must turn its strategic attention to China and the western Pacific.
Murray, Flood, and others who advocate the neoconservative philosophy have overstated the threat posed by Russia while sentimentalizing Ukraine. We should commend Ukraine’s soldiers for fighting valiantly and successfully to defend their homeland, while acknowledging the Ukrainian regime has its own problems with graft, corruption, and malfeasance dating back at least to the Maidan Revolution in 2014. Similar to Afghanistan, funneling endless amounts of money into Ukraine fuels corruption in the system, and removes reality-based incentives to negotiate in good faith.
Because American foreign policy is rooted in interests before values, there are countless examples where the United States has dealt shrewdly with adversaries or competitors in pursuit of shared interests. The situation in Ukraine is no different. As President Trump negotiates a deal between Russia and Ukraine, conservatives must embrace the transition from war to peace on reasonable terms that maximize benefits to America and the world.
John J. Waters is a lawyer. He served as a U.S. Marine and a deputy assistant secretary of Homeland Security from 2020-21. Follow him at @JohnJWaters1 on X.
