When President Trump welcomed President Vladimir Putin to a U.S. military base in Alaska, the world took note—and Europe nearly trembled. One can only imagine the shockwaves among clueless elites across the pond, who have spent years virtue-signaling about Russian aggression but have done next to nothing tangible to stop it. Meanwhile, in a single breathtaking move, President Trump invited Putin into the American sphere to hammer out a potential settlement that could halt the bloodshed in Ukraine.

Is it risky? Absolutely. But hand-wringers in the European Union offer no serious alternatives. Instead, they’re content to posture and whine about “appeasement” while contributing only the tiniest fraction of their own defense budgets to the region’s stability. If American leadership is the only meaningful attempt at a resolution, then so be it. There's an overriding sense that Europe wants to manage the conflict without ever standing firm, letting the United States do all the heavy lifting.

At the Alaska summit, a red carpet welcomed Putin, signaling a willingness to try diplomacy instead of endless stalemate. But that doesn’t mean President Trump gave the store away. Yes, major concessions—like an immediate cease-fire—did not manifest on day one. Yet we’ve seen the mainstream meltdown that inevitably occurs whenever President Trump attempts bold foreign moves. This is the same crowd that downplayed four years of success in the Middle East and Asia. Now they’re sputtering that no deal came out of Day One, ignoring the reality that ending a major invasion is rarely as simple as signing a piece of paper.

What truly has European leaders quaking is that President Trump might press Ukraine to cut the best possible deal. These Western bureaucrats, who rarely put up real support, will screech about a potential compromise. But can anyone deny that their halfhearted measures have dragged the conflict out? Their “tough talk” yields only emboldened aggression, while sacrificing Ukrainian men and women in the crossfire.

Critics must also remember that dealing with Vladimir Putin requires a certain brand of audacity. Instead of fruitless scolding, President Trump made it clear he’s open to a broader peace agreement, but on Washington’s terms—ones that ensure Ukraine’s security and demonstrate to Russia that any foul play will meet real American resolve. The flailing European approach has done little more than produce toothless sanctions, which apparently failed to end the fighting.

All signs suggest there’s a long road ahead. Yet the meltdown from the usual left-leaning crowd reaffirms that they prefer indefinite conflict over acknowledging that President Trump might actually broker peace. They point to a second day of no cease-fire as an abject failure, ignoring the possibility that real negotiations may take time.

In the meantime, President Trump’s critics are stuck complaining from their plush offices, offering no solutions of their own. American leadership sometimes demands big moves, and that’s precisely what’s happening. Beyond the media hysteria and dramatic headline-grabbing, the possibility remains that Friday’s handshake in Alaska could be the beginning of a breakthrough. And if so, the same naysayers will find some fresh excuse to claim it’s not good enough. With President Trump and Vice President JD Vance at the helm, at least all sides know that this White House aims to end the bloodshed and bring a more stable footing to the global stage, whether or not Europe likes how it’s done.