President Donald Trump has firmly dismissed a bold idea from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about the U.S. taking drastic action against Russian President Vladimir Putin.
During a meeting with U.S. oil company executives at the White House on Friday, Trump referenced past U.S. actions against Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro as a comparison, while expressing frustration over the unresolved Ukraine-Russia conflict, despite his campaign pledge to end it swiftly, and noted the heavy toll on Russian forces with 31,000 reported losses in the last month, alongside a struggling Russian economy, as well as recent Russian attacks on Ukraine, including a missile strike on apartment buildings in Kryvyi Rih on January 9, 2026, that killed at least four people.
The ongoing conflict has sparked intense debate over U.S. involvement and the staggering $350 billion sent to Ukraine under the Biden administration, with many questioning whether American taxpayers are getting a fair deal, as Fox News reports.
Trump didn’t mince words when addressing his disappointment with the stalled progress. "I've always had a great relationship with him. I'm very disappointed," he said of Putin, hinting at a personal letdown amid failed negotiations.
Despite meetings with both Zelenskyy and Putin, a resolution remains out of reach. One has to wonder if diplomatic charm can overcome the deep-seated tensions of a war that’s bleeding both sides dry.
Trump’s campaign promise to wrap this up on day one now feels like a distant memory. The reality of geopolitics seems to have hit harder than expected, leaving even a dealmaker of his stature grasping for solutions.
The numbers Trump cited are staggering. "And in the last month, they lost 31,000 people, many of them Russian soldiers," he stated, painting a grim picture of Russia’s battlefield losses. That’s a toll no nation can sustain without serious cracks forming.
Adding to the pain, Russia’s economy is reportedly faltering under the weight of the conflict. While some may cheer this as a sign of weakening resolve, it’s also a reminder of the human cost piling up on all sides.
Meanwhile, Russia’s latest overnight assault on Ukraine, involving hundreds of drones and missiles, targeted energy facilities and civilian infrastructure. Kyiv disputes Moscow’s claim of using a new nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, but the damage—especially in Kryvyi Rih—is undeniable and tragic.
Trump was quick to point out that the U.S. isn’t bleeding cash in this conflict. He argued that arms sales to NATO allies are actually padding American coffers, while NATO’s pledge to boost defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 signals a long-term win for U.S. interests.
Still, that $350 billion sent to Ukraine under Biden sticks in the craw of many taxpayers. Trump’s idea of recouping costs through a rare earth minerals deal tied to ongoing support is a clever pitch—why not turn aid into an investment?
Zelenskyy, for his part, continues to urge the U.S. and the international community to hold Russia accountable for civilian attacks. It’s a fair plea, but one wonders if more funds and weapons will truly shift the needle or just prolong the agony.
The idea of capturing Putin, as Zelenskyy floated, feels like a non-starter, and Trump’s rejection of it seems grounded in pragmatism. After all, comparing it to actions against Maduro ignores the vastly different stakes with a nuclear-armed Russia.
This war’s toll—on lives, economies, and global stability—demands a hard look at U.S. policy. While supporting allies is noble, there’s a growing call to prioritize American interests over endless foreign entanglements, especially when progressive agendas seem to drive unchecked spending.
