Zelenskyy’s Twilight Hour: A Fateful Reckoning and the Return of America First Realpolitik

Consider, if you dare, the sheer gall of it - Zelenskyy, a man clad as if he had just stormed a trench, struts into the oval office, that hallowed place where world leaders yearn to tread. He comes not with the humility of a guest humbled by the hospitality of his host, but with the bravado of a pompous “tough guy,” wielding words like a dagger, aimed not at his enemies, but at the very men to whom his country owes its survival. 

What follows is an exercise in hubris, a fatal miscalculation of historic proportions - a colossal blunder for the ages. Accustomed to the obsequious deference of a predecessor, he mistakes Trump for Joe Biden, that pliant Deep State puppet whom he had so easily outmaneuvered before. But No - this is not Joe Biden! This is Donald J. Trump, a man of towering ego who relishes the public spotlight, a man all too adept in the art of the deal. 

With a scornful look on his face, Zelenskyy dares to raise his voice, his tone dripping with condescension as he lectures the vice president on the demerits of diplomacy. 

Sitting across is JD Vance, a Marine corporal with a natural distaste for indiscipline. He has heard enough. Like goodwill, his patience is not infinite. And so, at last, he speaks. His rebuke is swift. He reminds Zelenskyy that he is but a visitor in the house; that gratitude - not overweening arrogance - is the currency of diplomacy. Zelenskyy fails to read the room. He doubles down - with each retort a step deeper into quicksand.

And just like that, the meeting collapses. The deal is dead. The doors swing open, and he is kicked out of the Oval Office. As he exits, the reality of his blunder sets in: here was an opportunity to save his nation, but now he’s left with nothing but the haunting echoes of his own voice. 

There’s an old but timeless adage, “do not bite the hand that feeds you.” Why? To bite the hand that aids is to invite its withdrawal. Were Zelenskyy familiar with this unspoken rule, his country would be in a slightly better position by now. 

The sad, unfortunate reality is that what transpired in the Oval Office was totally evitable. Excluding the last seven minutes, the nearly hour-long exchange between the three men was quite amicable and could’ve stayed as such. Zelenskyy’s objective in that meeting was so simple he couldn’t help but fumble it. All he had to do was sign the long-awaited mineral deal and express his gratitude to the president. Instead, whether due to the tempting snare of the media spotlight, wartime fatigue, or pure emotional incontinence, he squandered a golden opportunity. 

Whatever strong opinions one may have about the war in Ukraine, it isn’t hard to see that Zelenskyy’s conduct was imprudent and unbecoming of a leader in desperate need of help. For one, Zelenskyy and Ukraine owe the United States an incalculable debt of gratitude. The US alone has aided Ukraine with excess of $100 billion, nearly matching that of the entire European Union, which, it bears noting, faces a far greater threat from Russia than the US. 

And yet, we continue to generously assist Ukraine even at immense costs to our nation - depleting stockpile, swelling deficit, and diverting focus away from far more strategic geopolitical theaters. Without US support, Ukraine as we know it may not exist. The least we expected from Zelenskyy was a semblance of humility, if not gratitude - not the petulant attitude displayed toward the Vice President. 

For many prominent “liberals,” particularly those in the foreign policy establishment, the exchange in the Oval Office was an absolute shock. Accustomed to the more passive and absent style of Joe Biden, they couldn’t make sense of the encounter. “How could the President berate a man who is fighting to save his country and uphold ‘Democracy’?” And so, they resorted to their usual playbook, casting the President as a “Russian asset,” “Putin puppet,” and a “kremlin agent.” Scroll any major media platform and you’d find no shortage of prominent leftists wailing about how ashamed they are to call themselves Americans. 

For those of us committed to putting America first, that exchange represented a new era of American diplomacy. It was a clear signal that America First diplomacy is back; that we are done being taken for suckers by people who have known nothing but the unbridled generosity of the American people; that for the first time in a long time, our national interest is once again the primary consideration of our president.

Although peculiar, the reaction from the Left is perfectly understandable when one considers how the Left views the Ukraine War. For much of the Left, the war in Ukraine is an ideological litmus test. The extent of one’s support for Ukraine reveals his or her commitment to the “liberal international order” which they cherish so dearly. In their eyes, this is no mere regional conflict - It’s “Democracy” versus authoritarianism. Even worse, it’s World War II all over again, and the survival of liberty itself hangs upon Ukraine’s fate.

Hence, however impractical the goal may be, Ukraine must “win” at all cost. Anything less - a truce, a negotiation - reeks of betrayal that spells the collapse of the liberal international order. This ideological fanaticism explains the Left’s stern disinterest in seeking a peaceful resolution despite the immense carnage wrought on both sides of the conflict; why the mere suggestion - not attempt - to diplomatically engage Putin is derisively dismissed as “appeasement.” 

Naturally, this worldview clashes head-on with Trump, who unlike his predecessor and the European ruling class, has no fealty to abstractions or lofty ideological crusades. He is a man of instincts with one guiding principle: “America first” - with no ideological strings attached. As he sees it, the conflict has been detrimental for the United States - draining stockpiles, declining financial balance, etc - and also for Ukraine - thousands dead, entire cities destroyed, and a military demoralized. And so, he seeks to end it. 

And herein lies the impasse. To the Left, these practical considerations of the war are either secondary concerns or entirely irrelevant. What is most important is ideological victory. The war must continue not because it serves Ukraine’s best interest but because it keeps “liberal democracy” afloat. And so they squirm and rage interminably against the president’s pursuit of peace, even as the war continues, leaving a bloody trail of shattered lives in its wake.

Author: Alvin Wright

The views expressed are the author's alone and do not represent the official position of the GWCRs.