Nate Vance: The war isn’t about your egos, gentlemen

This is a guest op-ed for The Correspondent.

Nate Vance is a retired U.S. Marine and a first cousin of Vice President JD Vance. He spent nearly three years in Ukraine as a volunteer fighter and previously worked in the oil industry. He currently works in Kyiv for the R. T. Weatherman Foundation.

The tragedy currently unfolding between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky is larger than the heated exchanges between the two leaders. What started as a strategic difference of opinion has devolved into a personality conflict where neither seems willing to yield.

Neither of them will ultimately pay the price for this disagreement. It will be paid for by soldiers in the field and innocent civilians in their homes. Both have made diplomatic mistakes that make cooperation more difficult.

Their respective responsibilities are not to safeguard their own egos but rather to safeguard the people whose lives are in their hands.

President Trump has repeatedly called for an end to the violence, saying he wants the “killing to stop.” But believing his stated desire for peace is genuine does not exclude examination of whether his actions bring that peace any closer.

Earlier this month, Trump announced an agreement to permit Russian diesel exports, accompanied by temporary relief from U.S. sanctions. The administration has presented the arrangement as part of its effort to address energy market pressures and encourage Russia toward a settlement.

I’ve criticized whether this agreement will materially reduce fuel prices while warning that it could benefit Russia economically and undermine Western pressure on Moscow.

To the average Ukrainian, anything that provides the Russians with economic respite is a tough pill to swallow. Vocalizing anger, even if it is justified, does not equate to effective diplomacy.

This argument has unfolded amid reports of new restrictions surrounding the sharing of intelligence and Ukraine’s use of Starshield for vital military functions. The disparity in reporting and comments makes realities increasingly difficult to identify.

If these restrictions turn out to be real, the question that needs to be asked is: What strategic objective is sought by weakening Ukraine’s defenses?

Trump’s administration may truly believe that pressure is required to bring about the end of the war. If this is true, pressure on both sides is the only way to ensure that a regional bully is not emboldened.

The aggressor in this war is Russia. That is not a complicated proposition, nor does it become less true because the Ukrainian president has made diplomatic mistakes.

Trump’s private motivations regarding this diesel deal and subsequent actions may only ever be fully known to him — what we can do is analyze his actions to determine their consequences.

There is a danger that the dispute has become less about the substance of peace negotiations and more about who is winning the argument.

I am reminded of Senator John McCain’s vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017.

McCain had spent years opposing the law, yet he cast the decisive vote against the repeal effort. His motives were debated, and it would be too simple to reduce his decision to personal animosity toward Trump. This is certainly the implication, however — that a remarkable military and political career was sullied by one final spiteful vote.

Trump’s recent conduct draws an unfortunate resemblance. His stated desire to stop the killing is resulting in conditions that accelerate it. A president’s legacy is not determined only by his stated intentions. It is also determined by the consequences of his choices.

Trump’s recent decisions are rewarding the aggressor. This always leads to more aggression.

Zelensky has no excuse at this point for failing to realize that lashing out at Trump rarely results in a positive outcome. Trump is a professional political mudslinger. This is his game, and the US maintains enormous leverage over Ukraine’s future.

Zelensky may feel justified in responding with hostility to actions he perceives as threatening to his country. He may even be correct regarding Trump’s recent behavior. Being justified does not always equal being effective.

Leaders sometimes are forced to swallow their pride in lieu of issuing what may feel like a satisfying response. This does not equate to weakness; it is the prioritization of the security of a nation over the satisfaction gained by “winning” an argument.

The situation for Ukraine is particularly dire, and it can ill afford to treat its relationship with Washington like a typical diplomatic argument. It is important to remember the immediacy of the consequences.

When an air defense system is without ammunition, a drone cannot be guided to the target it is intended to intercept, or a warning is not delivered, the result is a dead soldier, a destroyed home or a family torn apart. No amount of political rhetoric can replace a loved one.

Any pain Zelensky may experience by exercising restraint in his dealings with Trump pales beside the pain of a Ukrainian family that loses someone because the country lacked the means to defend itself.

I am not implying that Ukraine should capitulate and accept any peace agreement thrown at them, or that the US should provide unlimited support in perpetuity.

Simply, any agreement (if one is even possible) should be equitable. If this standard fails to be met, it will essentially be rewarding aggression. We will find ourselves in a similar situation in a few years.

Trump must understand that applying pressure on Zelensky unilaterally fails to solve the issue of Russian aggression. Zelensky needs to understand that maintaining a working relationship with the United States, regardless of how personally insulting, remains a strategic necessity.

Both men need to understand that their cooperation has little impact on either of them. Their cooperation impacts strangers far removed from their personal animosity who stand to lose their lives if cooler heads fail to prevail. Trump and Zelensky do not need to become friends; they do need to realize that their personal feelings are subordinate to the lives of their countrymen.

When Trump says he wants the killing to stop, I choose to believe him. This sincerity does not manufacture an excuse for enacting policies that run counter to this stated intent.

Zelensky maintains the right to defend his country, but he needs to remember that direct confrontations with Washington can produce unintended consequences.

There is still time to repair this relationship. Trump can exercise a diplomacy that does not present as an either-or scenario.

Zelensky can demonstrate that his commitment to security for his people is greater than his (justifiable) anger by simply exercising restraint.

The question becomes, is either of them capable of setting their pride aside? If they cannot, neither of these men will be forced to pay the price.

The people of Ukraine will.