During last week’s Oval Office confrontation with President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received a stark reality check — and Europe is now scrambling to preserve its influence over Ukraine’s future.
First, we must establish a crucial fact: Those who wish to continue the endless war want you to believe that Ukraine must join NATO to ensure its ongoing security in a ceasefire deal. The opposite is true. Russia lost, and it did so without NATO involvement. Russia failed to achieve its primary objective — taking full control of Ukraine. The notion that Russia is poised to invade Poland or other NATO countries is unfounded. Without NATO involvement, Moscow has already demonstrated its limitations.
Will Zelenskyy take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?
This is critical when examining the exchange at the White House between Trump and Zelenskyy. This was not a routine diplomatic meeting — it was an unvarnished display of power dynamics.
Contrary to prevailing narratives, Trump did not instigate the tension. The viral clips circulating on social media omit the preceding 20 minutes, during which Trump consistently offered Zelenskyy an off-ramp.
Trump repeatedly cautioned him, signaling that he should reconsider his stance. Yet Zelenskyy persisted, prompting Trump’s firm response: “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem!”
Zelenskyy had just been publicly put in his place. He came to Washington thinking he could dictate terms. He thought he could guilt America into another blank check. Trump made it clear: Those days are over. At that moment, Zelenskyy grasped reality. He was no longer dealing with an American leader willing to be pressured into indefinite financial and military commitments. He hastily returned to Europe seeking reinforcement.
Zelenskyy returns, tail between his legs
Within hours, European leaders — including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other heads of state — gathered in London. Their objective was to craft an alternative peace framework that would circumvent Trump’s influence. Their true concern is not Russia’s next move but the prospect of an American president who prioritizes U.S. interests over European demands.
In response, the U.K. pledged an additional aid package to Ukraine worth over $4 billion, including a $2 billion loan and another $2 billion for air defense systems. Macron floated the idea of a “coalition of the willing,” which is a euphemism for “If America won’t send troops, maybe we will.”
This approach raises fundamental questions. Are European nations prepared to deploy their own troops? More importantly, are Americans willing to send their sons and daughters to fight in Ukraine? The answer, for many, is a resounding no.
Europe’s power play
The ongoing crisis is less about defending democracy and more about geopolitical maneuvering. European elites are striving to maintain their strategic leverage, and Trump’s economic-based approach threatens to upend their plans.
Trump’s proposal to Ukraine is straightforward: Accept economic investment in rare-earth minerals, or receive no further assistance. It prioritizes economic cooperation over endless war. Ukraine holds vast mineral resources essential to modern technology, and American investors are prepared to help rebuild the nation. The plan represents a mutually beneficial alternative to prolonged warfare. However, Zelenskyy initially rejected it. After reconsidering, he returned to the United States, only to attempt a renegotiation in front of the media. Trump, unwilling to entertain such posturing, dismissed him outright.
This response sent shock waves through European leadership. If Trump’s strategy prevails, the war will conclude, military aid will cease, and Ukraine will transition to an economic recovery model. Such a resolution would strip Europe of its ability to dictate terms while simultaneously disrupting China’s control over global supply chains — an outcome Beijing strongly opposes.
The bigger picture
Connecting these dots reveals a broader reality: European leaders are not advocating for peace — they are maneuvering to retain influence. Their fear is not that Ukraine will fall to Russia but rather that Trump will broker a settlement that excludes them from the decision-making process.
Zelenskyy’s tantrum in the Oval Office was not merely a diplomatic miscalculation — it was the reaction of a leader recognizing that U.S. policy is shifting away from blank-check commitments. The crucial question now is whether Ukraine will seize the opportunity to rebuild through economic engagement or persist in a conflict that serves the interests of European power brokers more than its own people. Will he take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?
“America First” isn’t about abandoning allies but about ensuring we’re not being played. Last week, Trump made it clear: The game is over.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Ukraine war, Russia, Volodymyr zelenskyy, Donald trump, Foreign policy, National interest, Nato, Vladimir putin, Forever wars, Great britain, Kier starmer, Emmanuel macron, France, America first, Opinion & analysis