Red Right Daily

Truth in Freedom

JD Vance Responds To Historians Statement

JD Vance Responds To Historians Statement

President Donald Trump is bringing a long-overdue dose of realism to the Ukraine conflict, a war that, under the Biden administration, seemed destined for perpetual escalation with no clear objective or exit strategy. While the political establishment—on both sides of the aisle—has been content to funnel billions into the war effort without demanding accountability, Trump is finally pushing for a resolution that prioritizes American interests.

For years, questioning the U.S. approach to Ukraine was equated with supporting Russia. It didn’t matter if the strategy was failing or if European allies were relying too heavily on American support. Any call for reevaluation was dismissed outright. But with Trump back in office, the conversation has shifted. Instead of blindly continuing the cycle of aid packages and arms shipments, his administration is asking the fundamental question that has been ignored for too long: What is the actual plan for victory? And if victory, as defined by the Biden administration, is not possible, then what is the path to peace?

Trump’s team has faced criticism, notably from historian and Hoover Institution fellow Niall Ferguson, who invoked the words of George H.W. Bush in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait: “This will not stand.” But as Trump’s allies have pointed out, this comparison is flawed. Every war is unique, and applying outdated historical parallels to justify endless conflict is not a strategy—it’s an excuse.

The facts on the ground are clear. Russia holds a significant numerical advantage in manpower and weaponry, one that will not be erased by more U.S. aid. European nations, while benefiting from America’s military and financial support, continue to pursue domestic policies that often run counter to American values, all while failing to build up their own defense capabilities. The continued strain on U.S. resources—from depleted military stockpiles to economic consequences of prolonged sanctions—makes the conflict increasingly unsustainable. And most importantly, while the war has been disastrous for both Ukraine and Russia, it has also weakened America’s global standing by entangling us in an unwinnable quagmire.

Given these realities, Trump is pursuing what should have been the goal all along: a negotiated peace that ends the war on terms that serve both American interests and long-term stability in Europe. His administration understands that securing peace requires direct engagement with the key players in the conflict, rather than moral posturing or empty declarations of unwavering support.

Trump’s critics argue that his approach concedes too much—removing NATO membership from the table, acknowledging territorial realities, and even considering international peacekeeping forces that might include China. Ferguson himself has voiced concerns that such an approach might lead to a future partition of Ukraine, leaving the country vulnerable to another invasion down the line. But the alternative—an indefinite war with no clear strategy for success—would be even worse.

The response to Trump’s position has been overwhelmingly positive among conservatives. Senator JD Vance’s statement defending Trump’s strategy was met with applause, with figures like David Limbaugh calling it “one for the ages.” Representative Thomas Massie reinforced the point, celebrating a president and vice president who put America first and are willing to acknowledge the difficult truths about Ukraine.

Written by Mark Stevens - February 23, 2025