Zelensky emphasized that it wouldn’t be worth sacrificing countless lives just to reclaim Crimea by force. Instead, he expressed a strong desire to pursue the region’s return through diplomatic avenues.
The idea of a cease-fire, paired with European security assurances, aligns with a long-standing American goal to shift focus towards Asia, particularly with projecting strength in the Pacific. While Russia presents its challenges, China is considered a more significant threat due to its expansive economy and conventional military power, despite having a smaller nuclear arsenal. European nations, enhancing their military expenditure, are more than capable of deterring Russia, allowing the U.S. to allocate more resources towards the Far East.
Crafting peace deals poses a considerable challenge. Neither side is poised to easily concede. Ukraine will stand firm against any resolution that compromises its sovereignty, and Putin is equally rigid in opposing allied forces on Ukrainian ground.
Historically, even leaders as uncompromising as Mao Zedong and Kim Il Sung eventually agreed to a cease-fire during the Korean War after military endeavors failed. There’s no definitive reason to assume Putin is more unyielding than some of history’s most notorious dictators. By continuing to support Ukraine, the prospect of peace remains viable.
In other matters, rectifying the ongoing disruptions caused by Donald Trump is no simple task. My Sunday column shed light on this issue. A change in leadership could redirect the course, yet our allies have taken a valuable lesson to heart: America’s reliability is questionable.
Even if the Democrats secure victories in the 2026 midterms and triumph over the Republicans in 2028, that perception will linger. Allies understand that international partnerships hinge precariously on the outcome of each presidential election, with commitments potentially lasting only until the next term.
Under these conditions, formulating a dependable defense strategy is incredibly challenging, if not impossible. It hampers the implementation of consistent trade policies and undermines diplomatic stability. If agreements risk being overturned with each new administration, it raises doubts about whether any rational global power would trust America’s promises or its long-term allegiance.
Additionally, this week saw my discussion with Jessica Riedl, a noted scholar from the Manhattan Institute known for her expertise on the federal budget. As fiscal conservatives, we share a critical view of DOGE, and here’s a glimpse into why:
French: Your analysis suggests that DOGE is causing significant disruption within federal operations without addressing America’s long-term fiscal issues.
Riedl: What DOGE is engaging in could be termed “government spending-cut theater.” Their targets—such as D.E.I. contracts, Politico Pro subscriptions, federal employees, and foreign aid—are largely negligible in terms of financial impact. They do, however, resonate with certain cultural touchpoints among conservatives. Ultimately, DOGE serves as a distraction from the actual spending hikes and tax cuts Congress is enacting at the moment.
