Long after the war in Eastern Europe ends, the president of Ukraine would like the U.S. and other leading powers to go to war for his country the same way they would to protect the nation of Israel.

As the United States and Russia opened international peace talks Tuesday to end the fratricidal war between Moscow and Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insisted the West give Ukraine the same privileged place in foreign policy as Israel.

“What we need, we really don’t know how it works, but when Iran attacked Israel, the United States, France, U.K., and some other guys — and Israel is not a member of NATO — but all these guys, even Jordan with air defense, all those guys began to defend [the] Israeli people, which had been under missiles from Iran,” Zelensky told NBC’s Kristen Welker in an extended interview. He felt it was “great” that these nations “destroyed Iranian missiles, but they are not in NATO. So, it meant that they have security guarantees, specific security guarantees from the United States, France, U.K., and other allies.”

He wanted the West to give Kyiv the same military commitment as Tel Aviv. 

“I think we need it very much,” Zelensky told Welker.

The war in Ukraine has already impacted Israeli security. The New York Times revealed in early 2023 that the Biden administration weakened Israeli defenses by transferring hundreds of thousands of artillery shells from Israel to Ukraine.

On Friday, Zelensky maintained that NATO must accept Ukraine as a member or furnish Kyiv with nuclear weapons and the wherewithal to build a million-man army.

Failure to accede to Ukraine’s petition for NATO — whose members promise to go to war for one another — would result in Russia overrunning Europe, Zelensky asserted. “If Putin will break us, he will occupy Europe. He can destroy all the army of Europe if they are without United States.” He further declared, “If I’m not in NATO and if everybody will recognize that we need more than one million people of army, so we will need money for all these people. If we can’t use, for example, fleet of NATO or jets from NATO, we will need hundreds of jets.”

President Donald Trump categorically rejected Zelensky’s assessment that Putin intends to wage war on NATO nations, saying, “I don’t agree with it, not even a little bit.”

Zelensky has also said the U.S. should give him nuclear weapons, since the nation jettisoned its nuclear missiles in 1994. “The chance of [Ukrainians] getting their nuclear weapons back is somewhere between slim and none,” balked Ukraine peace envoy Keith Kellogg earlier this month.

On Saturday, Zelensky stated that if America will not offer a security guarantee to fight for Ukraine, the European Union (EU) should create an “armed forces of Europe” to be placed at its members’ disposal. A European Army has been a longtime goal of EU globalists.

Zelensky told Welker his defense plans are “very, very expensive,” claiming Ukrainian NATO membership is “the cheapest [solution] for United States and for Europe.”

The Ukrainian president also asked Brussels to “immediately” make Ukraine a member of the EU — which regularly transfers wealth from more prosperous to less prosperous members — as one “part of economical security guarantees” to his country.

‘American Taxpayers Have Had It with Funding This War’: Congressman

Republicans showed little support for Zelensky’s expansive plans to have American soldiers continue to underwrite and fight Ukraine’s wars for years to come. “I think the goal of most Americans — including those in the fourth congressional district — is to get this war over with,” Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) told “Washington Watch” on Monday.

The congressman also looked askance at providing more funding to Ukraine. “The American people, the American taxpayers, have invested some $300 billion … There’s $100 billion supposedly unaccounted for,” said Alford, who has a 92% rating with FRC Action. “I think the American taxpayers have had it with funding this war in Ukraine, which is threatening to turn into somewhat of a Vietnam situation.”

His words echoed those of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who said, “This needs to be a permanent end to the war.”

But Zelensky’s comments appeared to have some impact on U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, which commenced Tuesday in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Waltz dismissed Russian refusals to return any of the land it now occupies to Ukraine. “We know just the practical reality is that there is going to be some discussion of territory and there’s going to be discussion of security guarantees,” he said.

“I think this is going to end up with Vladimir Putin retaining at least part of the Donbas region and certainly Crimea, which he gained during the Obama administration,” predicted Alford on “Washington Watch.” Vice President J.D. Vance promised to reach “a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine” to end the almost three-year-long war during a stirring speech last week before the Munich Security Conference.

U.S. negotiators also seemed to rebuff Russian President Vladimir Putin’s contention that Zelensky became an illegitimate president when he remained in office after his term as president expired last May and, thus, he cannot negotiate a peace treaty. Russian officials on Tuesday asked U.S. officials to have Ukraine hold new elections, believing Zelensky stands little chance of winning reelection. Zelensky’s approval rating has fallen 40% from its wartime high, and reelection appears to be a challenge.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump threw his support behind holding an election in Ukraine. “We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law, essentially,” said Trump on Tuesday. “If they want a seat at the table, wouldn’t the people of Ukraine have [a] say?” he asked.

He hastened to add the call to end martial law and reestablish democratic order in Ukraine is “not a Russia thing. That’s something coming from me and many other countries also.”

The bilateral nature of the Russo-American peace negotiations ruffled feathers from Kyiv to London. “I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine, never,” vowed Zelensky in public.

But Zelensky is in no position to impose his will, either on Russia through the battlefield nor on the United States via the diplomatic stage. On Monday, Ukraine struck the Kropotkinskaya pumping station of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) in Kazakhstan, where U.S. oil companies own just over 26% of CPC (including 15% owned by Chevron). Western nations own nearly one-third of the company. 

While Rubio held out the possibility of inviting Europeans to participate at later stages of the negotiations, German Chancellor Olof Scholz, whose Social Democratic Party is facing an electoral annihilation, said he too “will never accept a dictated peace” from the U.S. and Russia. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer boasted Monday he was “prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others, if there is a lasting peace agreement.” But the unpopular Labour Party leader admitted Tuesday that Europe cannot maintain the peace in Ukraine without a U.S. “security guarantee,” an “American backstop” to bear the cost of his military policy.

But for the time being, the Trump administration has relegated Europeans to “a separate kids’ table,” groused the CEO of German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall, Armin Papperger. “If you don’t invest, if you’re not strong, they treat you like children,” he continued. “The U.S. is negotiating with Russia, and no European is at the table — it has become very clear that the Europeans are the kids.” That irked European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who has claimed without evidence that, “financially and militarily, Europe has brought more to the table than anyone else” vis-a-vis Ukraine.

“Only 35% of the European countries have met their NATO obligations of [allocating] 3% of GDP to paying for NATO. If they are so serious about defending Europe, they need to put up or shut up,” stated Alford. “As President Trump made clear in his first administration and will again, that they need to pay their fair share to make Europe strong.”

Starting Peace Talks ‘Should Have Been Done Several Years Ago’

Some foreign policy analysts criticized President Trump for opening direct talks with Russia, which Biden administration officials attempted to portray as an international pariah. But many believe Trump can pry Russia away from its alliance with China, which Putin strengthened after the Clinton administration reneged on a promise not to expand NATO.

“A lot of people have suggested maybe you can split Russia from China,” former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe under President Clinton and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley Clark (Ret.) suggested. “Is it possible that President Trump sees a way of bringing Putin back into the world community in such a way as to use Putin with us, instead of Putin with China?” during an interview with Newsmax’s “American Agenda” Monday.

Secretary Rubio emerged from the talks with a concrete commitment that to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict, both nations must staff up their respective embassies that were decimated by the Biden-Harris administration’s failed policy to isolate Moscow, and to work toward joint economic initiatives. Rubio said the U.S.-Russian discussions could “unlock the door” to “incredible opportunities” for both nations.

“This should have been done several years ago,” said Alford,” lamenting that “the Biden administration did not have the intellect … to do so.”

Holding the talks in Riyadh is “very wise on President Trump’s part. If he can make Saudi Arabia look strong and other nations like Jordan look strong, that only makes Iran look weaker,” added Alford.

America must refocus on the Chinese Communist Party, which seeks “to overtake the United States of America,” said Alford. “I think by bringing an end to this war, it will allow the U.S. to move on, to recoup our resources, our armaments, so that we might be ready, God forbid, if we have to take on China over Taiwan,” possibly “as soon as 2027.” The United States has no formal commitment to defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion; Washington instead embraced a policy of strategic ambiguity, refusing to confirm or deny how we would react. President Joe Biden made an ironclad commitment to defend Taiwan on national television in 2022, which his advisers contradicted in real time.

Military commanders have warned Biden’s policy of distributing foreign aid (which members of both parties considered unconstitutional according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers until relatively recently) to Ukraine and Israel has diverted supplies Americans troops will need if they have a prayer of defeating the People’s Republic of China. “The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Hamas attack on Israel are depleting stocks the Indo-Pacific might need,” the Defense Department summarized in remarks from Navy Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, last November.

“I hope and pray [war with China] does not happen,” said Alford. “But we need to be ready.”