An attempt to reconcile Russia’s revisionism with Ukraine’s expectations is currently impossible.

If there was anything interesting to say in the English language about Ukraine, it was said or written months and maybe years ago — at least that was the case until Volodymyr Zelensky, President Donald Trump, and Vice President JD Vance got into it in the Oval Office last week. The resulting commentary from that episode has been everything one might expect — the interventionists decried it as boorish, almost blasphemous, and the isolationists crowed about sticking it to a man they view as the party most responsible for prolonging a conflict they want no part of. If there is a middle ground, I reckon Rich, Mark, and MBD have surveyed that half acre as well as can be done.

Ultimately, the event should have never happened because we should be done with Ukraine, and it with us.

Whatever utilitarian argument we have for supporting them — Ukraine fights Russia so we don’t have to — has run its course as we deplete munition stores for which we do not have replacements.

The moral argument, that we should defend an oppressed state against an aggressor, is superficially compelling but falls apart when our attempt to end the conflict requires us to (a) sell the notion that Russia isn’t so bad after all, to keep them at the negotiating table, and (b) agree to defense obligations that we could not uphold vis-à-vis Ukraine in a future conflict that will almost certainly occur.

Here, I’ll offer Sun Tzu’s 10:23:

If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler’s bidding.

We are selling our nation’s soul to hasten a deal that neither player seems interested in making. Why? It’s their men, their matériel, and their territory. . . . Who are we to say “enough” when it has become obvious that they will stay in their fatigues (Ukraine) and their fictions (Russia) until one or both are dead?

To be clear, I don’t want this. But the combatants seemingly do. Credit to Trump for trying to wrap this conflict up. Credit to Zelensky for the pugnaciousness he has exhibited that has kept his country in the fight this long. Credit to the Russian bastards for playing us for fools. Meanwhile, as MBD rightly pointed out, the Europeans are sitting back in their welfare states letting us take the arrows when it’s their rear ends that are allegedly so endangered that we have to prop Ukraine until every city in that country is a Russian-controlled ruin.

I’m tired of it. And not in the exasperated, bored Golbergian sense. I’m tired of watching the same team debate play out month by month while two countries slaughter each other. War is a crime, full stop. Actively, indefatigably pursuing its end is the greatest good. Sometimes, that means stomping on the head of the aggressor until he stops trying to rise (e.g., World War II or the Gulf War). Other times, it’s knowing when a win isn’t possible and expeditiously pursuing a Zaitsev Draw. As it stands, almost 1.5 percent of Ukraine is now a casualty of the war. Russia more closely approaches 1 percent by the day. With birth rates of 1.26 and 1.42, respectively, this is the equivalent of one hospice patient jumping another and the two engaging in a knife fight egged on by the staff.

It’s a crude metaphor to make a point: infantrymen, tankers, and civilians die in their hundreds on a weekly basis while swaths of the American press cheerlead a war that cannot be won to “own the cons” and “stand up for democracy.” Like Lions fans bickering with Vikings fans, the isolationists and the interventionists run to their positions at the bar to express the same talking points concerning a nominal change in the Ukraine war. Some dullard from so-called Real America’s Voice complains about Zelensky’s suit; some mooncalf Atlantic writer moans about Trump being in the pocket of Russia for the umpteenth, but never the last, time — easy way to meet one’s writing quota, one supposes. None of it is serious; none of it matters.

Europe must take our place at the table. They are customers of Russia and have a personal interest in Ukraine’s survival as a buffer. It would appear they are starting to realize this, with Keir Starmer calling on his Old World peers to treat with him as if he were visited last night by a vision of King Henry:

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer rallied his European counterparts Sunday to shore up their borders and throw their full weight behind Ukraine as he announced outlines of a plan to end Russia’s war.

“Every nation must contribute to that in the best way that it can, bringing different capabilities and support to the table, but all taking responsibility to act, all stepping up their own share of the burden,” he said.

Starmer’s exhortation to 18 fellow leaders that they need to do the heavy lifting for their own security comes two days after U.S. backing of Ukraine appeared in jeopardy when President Donald Trump lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and said he wasn’t grateful enough for America’s support.

It is a shame that the gentlemen of England and their cross-channel counterparts have been so long abed.

What the episode in the White House confirmed is that Ukraine does not understand the limitations of the American voters’ support for its cause, and that an attempt to reconcile Russia’s revisionism with Ukraine’s expectations is currently impossible.

For a president with precious little time and a great many objectives, Trump and his team should speak the truth about Russia, make a reasoned case for Ukraine’s continuance of the conflict sans our support, and then focus elsewhere. Peace is worth appearing foolish in the short term, but it takes two to tango, and it has been looking for all the world as if there’s only one “witless ape” on the dance floor, goaded by the ugliest bunch of think-tank and journalist know-nothings yet assembled. Have some humility and an ounce of common sense and get us out of the way so someone else can take a crack at resolving what we cannot and, really, should not.