This week, President Donald Trump took proactive steps to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia, actions that give me cautious optimism. Of course, his bold initiative has led the warmongers and TDS-sufferers to scream, “He’s a Russian agent!” However, Trump’s moves break through decades of neocon-inspired anti-Russian propaganda to strive for a lasting peace in the region. Essentially, Trump is arguing that Russia is more beneficial as an ally than an adversary and that America’s historical decision to promise NATO membership to Ukraine was a significant strategic error. Both these things should be simple common sense.

The geopolitical landscape post-Cold War presented the United States with a unique chance to redefine its relationship with Russia. But instead of fostering an alliance that could bring about long-term peace, the neocons in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations—supported by the military-industrial complex—wanted to keep the NATO bureaucracy alive. So they treated 1990’s Russia as a weakened enemy to be exploited. It was like kicking a dog that’s already seriously injured. Once the dog heals, however, it’s going to remember who kicked it. 

Why did the U.S. continue to treat Russia like an enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union? Every defense I’ve seen for this catastrophic policy usually boils down to soft racism against the Russian people—you can’t trust them; they will always be aggressive; it’s in the Russian blood to try to take over the world, etc. But our bellicose policy is self-fulfilling: by marching up to their borders, we make Russia more likely to be aggressive toward the outside world. Then the neocons can just say, “See? We told you so!” 

At that time, the U.S. should have begun the process of dismantling NATO, whose very reason for existence had disappeared, but instead it went in the opposite direction, beginning the push to expand NATO right to Russia’s borders. This policy continued in the 21st century, and George W. Bush even indicated that Ukraine would eventually be included, a decision that everyone in Russia—from the most hardline to the most liberal—viewed as a direct security threat. 

This is not just my opinion ex post facto, it was the view of high-ranking U.S. government officials at the time. In 2008, William Burns—then the U.S. Ambassador to Russia and now the Director of the CIA—wrote a document titled, “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” in which he argued that the entire Russian political class (not just Putin) saw NATO’s expansion into Ukraine (and Georgia) as a direct challenge to Russian interests. This was the brightest of red lines, but Washington ignored it.

This decision to expand NATO to Ukraine was not just a strategic blunder; it was the prime catalyst for the tensions we see today. For all the fevered talk of Putin wanting to recreate the Soviet Empire, the reality is that we are the ones who greatly expanded our sphere of influence, not them. The end of the Cold War could have marked the beginning of a new era where Russia and the U.S. worked in tandem on international challenges; instead it escalated into a new rivalry.

Trump is the first U.S. leader to recognize the idiocy of this antagonistic and disastrous policy, and to ask the obvious question: Wouldn’t it be better to have Russia as an ally rather than an enemy? If you haven’t been influenced by decades of neocon anti-Russian propaganda, the answer to this question is obvious. 

Trump’s recent diplomatic efforts, therefore, are an attempt to mend this historical rift. His push for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia is a recognition that peace benefits all parties involved, reducing the human and economic toll of conflict. Diplomacy, in this case, serves not only the interests of the involved nations but also global stability. By advocating for peace and a new relationship with Russia, Trump is attempting to rectify the mistakes of past U.S. policy. We need to stop asking Ukrainians to die for these mistakes.

Critics of Trump’s approach will argue that it rewards Russian aggression. However, this perspective ignores our past provocation and it overlooks the reality of international relations where peace requires concessions from all sides. Peace talks de-escalate tensions, potentially leading to a more stable Eastern Europe. The promise of NATO expansion into Ukraine was a direct challenge to Russian security interests, and while that does not justify Russia’s actions, it’s vital to understand the provocations that led to the current standoff.

Moreover, Trump’s strategy reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy where the end goal is not victory over an opponent but stability and cooperation. Too many people today take a comic book view of international relations, where there are only good guys and bad guys, and the good guys (us) have to completely and utterly defeat the bad guys (them). The real world isn’t like that. This isn’t about capitulation but about finding a middle ground where both nations can coexist without the threat of further conflict.

The Washington warmongers, of course, are not happy. They argue for a complete defeat of Russia, not because they think this is actually possible, but because they know that it will make war unending, and keep the funds flowing to their allies in the military-industrial complex. Their words might sound noble, but ultimately for them it’s about the bottom line: war has always been good for business. 

Trump must resist those forces and continue down his current path. Recognizing Russia as a potential ally rather than an eternal enemy will lead to a more cooperative international environment. The promise of NATO expansion to Ukraine was a grievous misstep that was a leading contributor to current tensions, and Trump’s efforts to reverse this narrative through diplomacy should be seen as a step towards rectifying past errors for the sake of peace. This approach, if successful, could not only benefit Ukraine and Russia but also contribute to a more stable global order, something we should all support.

For those more interested in what led to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I highly recommend Scott Horton’s magisterial work on the subject, Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine.