No More Globalist Delusions: Ukraine’s War Strategy Has Failed

March 4, 2025 by Charlton Allen

The globalist vision for Ukraine is a fantasy. Washington (although this has changed with President Trump’s inauguration on the policy level), Brussels, and London pretend Kyiv can restore its pre-2014 borders, put Putin on trial, and impose lasting consequences on Moscow—all without answering a simple question: How? Where will the troops and weapons come from?

The math doesn’t work. Reclaiming lost territory—whether in Donetsk, Luhansk, or Crimea—would require hundreds of thousands of troops. Ukraine doesn’t have them. Europe has spent decades neglecting its defenses. And the United States is neither willing nor able to send an occupying force into a nuclear-armed Russia’s backyard.

A War Strategy Built on Delusions

For all the grand rhetoric about Ukraine standing for democracy, the harsh reality is that Ukraine has been at a massive manpower disadvantage from day one. While Kyiv launched some successful counteroffensives early in the war, Russian forces quickly adapted, strengthening defensive positions and replenishing their ranks.

Western leaders bet everything on Ukrainian counteroffensives amidst a primarily defensive war. This approach failed. Ukraine suffered heavy losses, and Russian lines held firm. The long-promised breakthroughs never materialized. Now, Ukrainian cities face relentless missile barrages, and Russia is advancing methodically, capturing more terrain while Ukraine burns through its remaining stockpiles and yields more of its territory.

Yet, instead of reassessing their approach, Ukraine’s globalist backers keep doubling down, demanding more weapons, more money, and more commitment from the United States and NATO.

The reality is that Europe is not prepared for war—years of military neglect have left NATO members critically under-resourced. A recent Hudson Institute assessment lays bare the alarming gap between NATO’s actual capabilities and the firepower Russia has built up.

Germany is still struggling to meet its 2% defense spending commitment, and most European militaries are bureaucratic shells, ill-equipped for a sustained conflict. The idea that they could muster a force capable of changing the war’s trajectory is a fantasy.

The NATO Dilemma: How Far Will Europe Go?

While some European leaders whisper about sending troops, they refuse to acknowledge the consequences. If European nations were to deploy ground forces in Ukraine and Russia retaliated, would NATO invoke Article 5, the collective defense clause?

Trump should make it clear: If European troops enter Ukraine and Russia retaliates, NATO’s Article 5 does not apply. The alliance was designed for mutual defense—not to bail out European leaders who blunder into war. A reckless European escalation would be their war, not NATO’s.

Yet, the globalists refuse to accept this reality. Friday’s Oval Office episode with Zelenskyy exposed their blind commitment to escalation. Zelenskyy, whose country depends entirely on Western support, showed outright disrespect to President Trump and Vice President Vance, deliberately pushing the same reckless strategy that could lead to direct confrontation with Russia.

Even NATO’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, is signaling a shift. He warned Zelenskyy to “restore” his relationship with Trump, clearly acknowledging that Ukraine cannot afford to alienate the one leader who can determine its future. Yet Zelenskyy lectured the President of the United States instead of engaging in diplomacy—a move that deepened Ukraine’s isolation.

As Trump made clear, he will not be bullied into World War III. The globalists are doubling down, urging European nations to fill the gap if America pulls back. But Europe stepping in does nothing to change the battlefield reality—and risks triggering an existential response from Moscow. Then what?

If Russia retaliates with tactical nuclear weapons, as its longstanding doctrine allows, is the West genuinely prepared for the consequences? What if a threatened Russia opens another front elsewhere, drawing more nations into the conflict?

At this point, it seems some in the West—and stateside within the Democrat party and the neocon foreign policy apparatchiks—are less interested in securing peace than in setting the stage to blame Trump for Ukraine’s inevitable defeat. They know Ukraine is trapped in the Russian meatgrinder, burning through its last reserves of manpower and ammunition, but their priority is political optics, not real-world outcomes.

They aren’t strategizing for Ukraine’s survival—they’re strategizing for political survival in Washington. Rather than accept the reality that Biden’s failed policies brought Ukraine to this moment, they would prefer to shift responsibility onto Trump—hoping to absolve themselves of blame while setting up a phony narrative of betrayal.

Globalists’ Endgame: A Recipe for Disaster

Those insisting that Ukraine must achieve total victory refuse to answer key questions:

• Where will the troops come from? Europe won’t provide them, and America isn’t about to send them.

• What happens if European troops push into Russian territory? Do they believe a cornered Putin won’t retaliate, possibly with nuclear weapons?

• What was Biden’s definition of victory, and what did his administration do to achieve it? If the goal was to bleed Russia dry, why is Russia in a stronger military position on the ground now?

The Biden administration’s Ukraine strategy was never grounded in reality. It was a mix of wish-casting and geopolitical arrogance, assuming that economic sanctions and arms shipments alone would cripple Moscow. That theory has been proven false—at significant cost to Ukraine itself.

Trump’s Approach: Deterrence, Not Escalation

Trump understands that actual deterrence requires clarity. His administration must make it plain to European allies that if they escalate this war by deploying European troops or other escalations, the United States will not be dragged into this conflict against our will by NATO’s collective defense obligations. The difference between defending NATO territory and getting entangled in a non-NATO war must be crystal clear.

A realistic end to the war must involve negotiations—not fantastical visions of toppling Putin and marching into Moscow. The sooner Europe and the globalists accept this reality, the better for everyone involved.

America’s Interests Must Come First

The United States cannot and should not be responsible for securing every European border when Europe refuses to secure its own. The war in Ukraine has exposed just how hollow Europe’s security architecture has become.

The globalists overpromised, failed, and now expect America to foot the bill for their delusions.

Trump’s response? No more blank checks. No more globalist wars. No more illusions—America First.

Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC