Ukraine’s president just used his Christmas message to wish for Vladimir Putin’s “perish[ing],” exposing how far this war has drifted from peacemaking and how much the prior globalist approach failed to deliver real security.
Story Snapshot
- Zelensky’s Christmas remarks about Putin “perishing” reveal a deepening cycle of bitterness after years of war.
- The comments highlight how diplomacy under past globalist leadership failed to end the conflict or protect civilians.
- With Trump back in the White House, U.S. policy is shifting toward hard‑nosed bargaining instead of blank checks.
- Conservatives are re-evaluating what genuine American interests and constitutional priorities should look like in Ukraine.
Zelensky’s Christmas Message and a War-Weary Nation
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used his Christmas Eve address to acknowledge that many Ukrainians want to see Russian President Vladimir Putin dead, saying, “May he perish, each of us may think to ourselves.” That single line captured the exhaustion of a nation entering yet another winter of blackouts, shelling, and separation from loved ones. After years of casualties and displacement, it is unsurprising that emotions have hardened far beyond ordinary diplomatic language.
For American conservatives, Zelensky’s words underscore what endless war does to a people: it normalizes hatred, dehumanizes opponents, and pushes any realistic path to peace further out of reach. When a leader feels compelled to echo such sentiments publicly on a holy day, it signals just how thoroughly prior “peace plans” and cease-fire talks failed. That failure is tied directly to the old globalist formula of open-ended aid with no clear end state or enforceable settlement.
How Globalist Policy Helped Entrench a Forever War
Under the previous administration, Washington poured tens of billions of dollars into Ukraine with vague objectives, weak oversight, and little transparency for U.S. taxpayers. Officials framed the spending as a defense of “democracy,” yet offered no serious strategy for compelling negotiations or defining a stable post-war order. This approach echoed the worst habits of past foreign policy adventures: enormous commitments, minimal accountability, and no clear exit ramp for American involvement.
That old model also sidelined core constitutional concerns. Congress too often rubber-stamped huge aid packages under emergency labels, limiting real debate over where the money went or how long funding would continue. At the same time, the administration pushed culture-war priorities abroad, tying aid and partnerships to progressive social agendas that many American families reject at home. By blurring legitimate security interests with ideological export schemes, it weakened domestic trust in foreign policy itself.
Trump’s Return and a Hard Reset on Ukraine Policy
With Trump back in the Oval Office, conservative voters now expect a sharp break from that blank-check mentality. Recent policy describes a model where the United States supports Ukraine’s defense while forcing NATO and European partners to shoulder more of the financial burden and define realistic terms for ending hostilities. The emphasis has shifted from open-ended assistance to conditional support tied to clear interests, measurable outcomes, and tighter oversight of how weapons and funds are used.
This shift aligns with long-standing conservative principles: defend American sovereignty, avoid unnecessary entanglements, and insist that allies carry their share of the load. A more disciplined approach also protects U.S. taxpayers already squeezed by years of inflation, debt-driven spending, and domestic needs that went unmet while Washington wrote massive foreign-aid checks. The contrast with the prior administration’s posture could not be clearer to readers who watched deficits soar without corresponding gains in security.
Balancing Moral Outrage with Strategic Restraint
Zelensky’s Christmas remark about wanting Putin to “perish” resonates emotionally with a people who have buried soldiers, civilians, and children. Yet for Americans committed to ordered liberty and constitutional government, emotion cannot substitute for strategy. U.S. policy must weigh the human cost of continued fighting against the real dangers of escalation, potential direct confrontation between nuclear powers, and further strain on an already overextended federal budget.
Conservatives therefore face a dual responsibility: acknowledge the evil of aggression against Ukraine while insisting that American involvement stay limited, accountable, and clearly tied to our own national interest. That means backing deterrence and real negotiations, not indulging slogans about regime change or permanent conflict. It also means refusing to let Washington use distant wars as a pretext for new surveillance powers, speech controls, or bureaucratic expansions at home that erode the freedoms our Constitution guarantees.
