The debate between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump in the Oval Office is rooted in two diametrically opposed views on the origins of the war and, consequently, on the path to ending it. Understanding the true causes of the conflict is therefore essential to defining an effective strategy for its resolution.

Zelensky’s approach, shared by European leaders, has been shaped by the dominant narrative in mainstream media: that this is a war of imperialist aggression, in which Putin has chosen to deny Ukraine’s independence, aiming to reintegrate it into Russia, following a logic comparable to that of Nazi Germany in 1939. According to this interpretation, negotiating with an imperialist aggressor would be a sign of weakness, serving only to fuel further expansionism. The only way to stop an aggressor, then, is to show firmness and determination. From this perspective, victory can only come in two ways: on the battlefield or by forcing Russia into total surrender at the negotiating table. In no case, however, should compromises be made—neither for moral reasons nor because it would further exacerbate the situation.

The omission of an analysis of the conflict’s causes serves to maintain a Manichean narrative in which the confrontation is reduced to a battle between absolute good and absolute evil. In this ideological framework, it becomes impossible to accept—as proposed by the Americans—a discussion about the concrete interests of the various actors involved. For this reason, supporters of the former Biden administration and most European leaders interpret Trump’s actions as a betrayal of Ukraine and a threat to Europe’s security. Former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, one of the staunchest supporters of the war, summed up this attitude with a striking statement: “Simply shocking. Trump has switched sides. He now supports Putin.” In this ideological framework, peace is not considered an option because the political investment in the war has been too great. Withdrawing from the conflict would mean admitting that the struggle is not between good and evil, but between concrete interests. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen encapsulated this position with a statement that leaves no room for doubt: “Peace in Ukraine will be more dangerous than war.”

The Trump administration’s perspective, on the other hand, is entirely different. Trump has repeatedly stated that if he had been president, the war would never have started. This statement implies that he does not see Putin as acting “à la Hitler” but instead considers his motivations as rational and negotiable. This shift acknowledges Russia’s concerns about NATO expansion in Ukraine and opens the door to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict—one that will inevitably have to take into account the realities on the battlefield. It is precisely this diplomatic path, which Zelensky refuses, that is the real reason behind the debate in the Oval Office.

The war in Ukraine has thus reached a critical turning point. While Trump seeks to disentangle the United States from a costly and unwinnable conflict, Europe remains trapped in a cycle of escalation and ideological rigidity. With Russia determined not to accept an agreement without structural security guarantees, and European leaders pushing for further confrontation, the risk of prolonged instability—or catastrophic escalation—remains dangerously high. However, it seems increasingly likely that the EU could soon find itself in an unsustainable position: while the U.S., Russia, and the majority of Ukrainians discuss the terms of a peace agreement, the EU may be the only party insisting on rejecting diplomacy and prolonging the war.

Europe should adopt a more pragmatic approach and become a strategically autonomous player on the global stage, putting the interests of its own citizens first. It should negotiate a new strategic agreement with Russia that offers a realistic solution for Ukraine, establish a new strategic pact with China, and declare its intention to leave NATO—because a Europe forced to spend 5% of its GDP on defense has no need for the United States.

(Published on Il Fatto Quotidiano)