War Hawks Feast, But Trump Gives Peace A Chance

 The New York Times Editorial Board has been one of President Trump's most ardent critics. Yet, the Times carried a rather glowing piece of Trump's "policy of realism" from a member of its Editorial Board, Farah Stockman: "Trump's Foreign Policy May Be Crude, but It's Realist."

To be sure, the newspaper of record added its usual caveat when publishing a view it knows its readers vehemently reject: "The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles."

Readers of our columns here at TIPP know that we were fans of realism long before President Trump announced plans to run again. For nearly three years, we published over sixty editorials on Ukraine criticizing Western policies for fueling and prolonging a war that was hopeless for Ukraine from the start. We are firm believers in former President Ronald Reagan's vision that a "rising tide lifts all boats." From the outset, the Ukraine war sank boats and lifted no one.

We refused to be persuaded by liberal voices that argued that the West must defend blatant aggression against a sovereign country, even if doing so would result in death, destruction, and strife. No principles of idealism can convince us that these are costs that societies should bear.

Further, we refused to believe Western propaganda because we saw that the West has been interfering in Ukrainian affairs since 2004—when John McCain, Chris Murphy, and Lindsey Graham joined hands with Victoria Nuland at State to topple a legally elected government in Ukraine during the Maidan Revolution in 2014; when Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan brought Ukrainian leader Zelensky to Washington in November 2021 to sign a security agreement that promised weapons to Ukraine; when President Biden's secretary of defense in April 2022, said: "We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine"--we knew that American intentions weren't always pure when claiming to uphold the international order.

America was all for punishing Russia for violating international norms when America herself was secretly guilty of doing the same. The only difference was that America hadn't invaded a foreign country, and Washington was doing its bit to spread democracy.

In her piece, Ms. Stockman superbly summarizes this point: "The key fights in Washington, especially in recent decades, were between neocons who wanted to spread democracy through war and liberals who wanted to spread democracy through soft power like U.S.A.I.D. contracts to bolster civil society."

The Biden administration was overstaffed with both neocons and soft power believers like Nuland to carry out a disastrous policy of an "as-long-as-it-takes" war—and the result has been a conflict with no end in sight. For the record, here are the staggering losses to the world caused by the war.

Human Costs: Total casualties (military and civilian) across both sides likely surpassed 1.1 million (killed and wounded), with some analysts suggesting 1.2 million as fighting escalated in early 2025. Ukraine's population drop (10 million since 2022) and birth rate collapse (87,000 births vs. 250,000 deaths in early 2024) worsened.

Global Economy: The OECD's $2.8 trillion global GDP loss by 2023 probably ballooned to $3.5–4.5 trillion by March 2025, factoring in persistent energy and food price shocks. Ukraine's reconstruction costs pegged at $486 billion in 2023, might now approach $500–550 billion with continued destruction. Russia's direct war costs could exceed $275 billion, with sanctions losses nearing $1.5 trillion.

Energy and Food Markets: Before the war, Russia and Ukraine supplied 27% of global wheat and 70% of neon gas. The war disrupted markets, spiking food prices (wheat hit 2008 highs in 2022) and inflating energy costs (Europe's gas prices soared after Russia cut supplies). The Black Sea Grain Initiative mitigated some food insecurity, but its collapse in July 2023 reversed gains, exacerbating hunger crises in Africa and the Middle East.

Displacement: Over 14 million Ukrainians—over a third of the population—were displaced, with 6.9 million refugees abroad and 3.7 million internally displaced (UNHCR, 2025). Russia forcibly relocated up to 1.6 million, including 260,000 children, adding humanitarian and legal burdens globally.

Geopolitical and Other Costs: NATO countries, especially in Europe, boosted military budgets by 1% of GDP annually (e.g., $807 billion NextGenerationEU stimulus), diverting funds from social programs. The U.S. spent over $50 billion in aid to Ukraine by 2025, with total donor aid nearing $300 billion (Kiel Institute).

Sanctions and Trade: Western sanctions froze $320 billion in Russian reserves and crippled trade, while Russia's countermeasures (e.g., gas cuts) cost Europe billions. Global supply chains for tech (neon, semiconductors) and commodities remain disrupted, fueling deglobalization trends.

Long-Term Fallout: Russia's isolation and reliance on military spending signal a weakened economic future, while Ukraine's recovery hinges on massive aid. Globally, the war has intensified food insecurity (25 African nations rely on Russo-Ukrainian wheat), poverty, and climate transition delays as nations prioritize energy security over renewables.

Total Estimate: The war's global price tag (war spending, aid, damages) and indirect losses (GDP, trade, inflation) will likely exceed $3–4 trillion by early 2025, with human suffering and geopolitical shifts adding immeasurable weight. These figures are rough, as data lags and the conflict's end remain uncertain, but they underscore a profound toll on the world economy and stability.

Anything President Trump does to end this unnecessary war is progress. Each of his moves—whether dealing with Zelenskyy, Russia, allies, or the UN is based on a refreshing dose of realism. And even his critics, such as Ms. Stockman, are amazed: In under six weeks since taking office, Trump's secretary of state, Marco Rubio, announced that if Russia agrees, there will likely be a cease-fire in a few days.

https://tippinsights.com/war-hawks-feast-but-trump-gives-peace-a-chance/#google_vignette