Two pressing questions emerge: When did the effort to save countless lives, including many children, become something to criticize? And if we send a large number of Ukrainian soldiers into the fray against Russia’s military without a solid plan for victory, has it become a reckless policy for some neoconservatives?
These questions came to mind while reading two recent opinion pieces. One was from Rich Raleigh of the New York Post, titled “Trump is All the Ukraine-Russia War Wrong,” which argues that Trump complicates the situation further. The other was written by former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Bridget Brink, sharing her perspective on Trump’s foreign policy and her resignation.
Over the years, I’ve taken issue with a lot of Lowry’s writings about Ukraine. I mean, his latest views didn’t do much to change that. Some people think he serves as a voice for neoconservatives who consistently push for ongoing military engagement. It’s interesting to note that he was once the editor of National Review, where a notable piece titled “Never Trump” seemed to fuel a significant movement among certain neocons and elite Republicans.
A common argument from critics of Trump’s approach to the war is that Putin must be stopped at all costs. But it looks like Ukrainians have, perhaps regrettably, become pawns in a much larger proxy confrontation. It’s tough to see this as a genuine effort to protect Ukraine or its infrastructure.
Looking back over two decades leading to the Iraq War, many neoconservatives and their advisors defended actions meant to remove Saddam Hussein, labeling him as villainous.
These so-called “experts” pushed for war without any personal stakes; they weren’t on the frontlines, nor did they have loved ones in danger. How is it considered brave to advocate for conflict while sitting comfortably far away?
The outcomes of that “justified” war were dire—around 4,500 American soldiers lost their lives, 32,000 were injured, and estimates suggest that between 100,000 and 400,000 Iraqis died. The region remains unstable and continues to breed terrorism.
Now, regarding Brink’s column—she’s free to express her views, and she refers to Russia’s actions in Ukraine as “pure evil.” Her statement that “peace is not peace at all but to alleviate it” stands out.
But what is her proposed path for Ukraine to succeed against Putin? As Trump has questioned since the start, how many lives are we willing to sacrifice? The Pentagon and CIA have reported that extensive destruction has occurred in Ukraine, resulting in massive casualties over the course of the war.
Since the beginning, Trump has advocated for ending the conflict, citing two crucial reasons: preventing further needless deaths of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, as well as civilians, and mitigating the risk of escalating into World War III due to various triggers on the battlefield.
Recently, Trump posted on his social media saying he would reach out to Putin to address the ongoing violence that claims, on average, over 5,000 lives weekly. He suggested that if he were in power, this intense conflict could have been avoided.
I previously wrote about a ceasefire offer that was reportedly made to Putin over three years ago, which was subsequently blocked by the Biden administration and UK leadership. Now, with thousands continuing to die each week, we must ask: how many more lives need to be lost before an immediate ceasefire is recognized as a humanitarian necessity?
Critics may dislike Trump, but if his advice had been taken three years ago, perhaps we wouldn’t be grappling with a million casualties. What, really, is the worth of all this lost life?
