Douglas McArthur vs. Marco Rubio
MAY 28, 2025
To achieve victory, first you must seek it.
At no point in the three year history of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine has the leadership of the United States communicated that a Russian defeat on the battlefield and Ukrainian victory is the objective of American foreign policy.
The Biden Administration projected a policy of containment and degradation of Russian military advances, but not victory. The Trump Administration officially rejects a Ukrainian military victory over Russia as an outcome, favoring a policy of concessions and negotiated settlement.
No Substitute for Victory
“In war, there is no substitute for victory.”
— General Douglas MacArthur
Douglas MacArthur, America’s winning General of the Army in WWII, and one of only five men to hold the rank of five-star general, argued that in war there is “no substitute,” no acceptable alternatives to achieving a full victory. He recognized that achieving a decisive and definitive outcome that secures the desired goals for the winning side was the only acceptable object of a just war.
His perspective was rooted in the idea that war should be pursued with maximum effort until the enemy is completely defeated. He believed that any other outcome, such as a stalemate or a negotiated peace, would be detrimental to the United States and its allies.
In contradistinction, The Trump Administration, as articulated before the Congress by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on May 22, 2025, rejects a military solution to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, favoring a negotiated settlement based on broad concessions.
“This war has no military solution.” Marco Rubio to Congress
Why America Must Be Involved
One difference between the situation in Ukraine and those faced by General MacArthur in the Second World War, is that the United States has no boots on the ground in Ukraine. Nor have American troops ever been seriously considered as an option by either the Biden or Trump Administration. There is little American controversy about the “no-boots on the ground” policy.
Even so, America has a significant geo-strategic, ethical and agreement-driven stake in the defeat of the Russian invaders and outcome of the war. Russia is criminal state at war with the West, which has declared its opposition to the United States and engages in daily hybrid warfare against us and our European allies. It has emerged as the largest war criminal state since the Second World War and poses a direct threat to America and our European allies. America is actually obligation-bound to assist Ukraine in the defense of its territorial integrity against the criminal Russian act of invasion because we pledged to do so in exchange for the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine. The Russian invasion stands as the greatest threat to the post World War II law order and if left to stand, becomes impetus for further Russian aggression, with far greater consequences for the peace of the world.
However, rather than projecting a vision of victory for Ukraine (while keeping American servicemen out of the conflict), the Trump Administration has taken a different path, one based on appeasement and concessions of Russia, in the hope of reaching a negotiated settlement. Thus far, the strategy has been catastrophic, actually resulting in more Russian attacks on Ukraine, greater hardship for the people of Ukraine and no sign of a just peace anywhere on the horizon.
The True Foundations for Ending the War
The absence of moral clarity, a definition and pursuit of a just peace, a clear assessment of the enemy, and a commitment to victory has plunged American foreign policy into failure and crisis.
These are the four key points that must be at the forefront of any serious discussion about ending the war in Ukraine. They are the foundation for ending the war.
First, without moral clarity, there will be no resolution. In fact, any “resolution” grounded in moral equivocation will serve only as a prelude to a larger and more destructive war.
Second, the only meaningful definition of peace is just peace. If that is not the goal, then so-called peace efforts are worse than useless—they are dangerous.
Third, based on history, precedent, and the explicit words and actions of the Russian regime, true and lasting peace can only be achieved if Russia is soundly and unequivocally defeated.
Fourth, Russia can be defeated. The myth of an invincible Russia has been tested—and found wanting. Russia is far weaker, less organized, and less capable than the West imagined. The present reality on the ground in Ukraine after three years is proof positive.
The necessary steps toward defeating Russia are as follows:
- Moral clarity—recognizing the criminality of the regime, the invasion, the war crimes committed, and the moral imperative of accountability.
- Comprehensive economic sanctions.
- Arming Ukraine to the hilt.
Secretary State Marco Rubio’s claim that there “is no military solution” is false. There was no resolve for victory under President Biden. There is no clear resolve for support or victory under President Trump. Rubio’s vision of a “negotiated settlement” can only yield a meaningful outcome if Russia is negotiating from a position of debilitating weakness. Even then, unless Russia experiences decisive defeat, the threat will persist.
The only strategy that has never been fully tested—and which remains the surest path to peace—is the combination of full economic sanctions and arming Ukraine for military victory.
This is the war which sets the stage for good or evil, with every major threat to freedom over the next quarter of a century. In this war, there is no substitute for victory.
DW Phillips, Esq.
Director/Producer
Ukraine Story
Subscribe to 🇺🇸 Lights, Camera, Freedom 🇺🇦
By DW Phillips ·
With camera in hand, DW shares frontline stories of perseverance and humanity in the great battles of the 21st Century. He brings the perspective of a filmmaker, journalist and constitutional attorney to his commentaries
…………
Comment from :
Yuri Teodorowych
Spot on DW. The US and Europe need articulate their intent to win and what is that definition. “As long as it takes” isn’t a winning mindset but strategy for a draw which favours the incumbent or aggressor.
There is mass amnesia in the west where I think the we have forgotten how to do things, what to drive and how to win. In peace times we have gotten attitudinally complacent.
Ukraine really is showing the west how to be great again – what it means to be an authentic ‘western democratic nation’ is all in the attitude on the battlefields and in political theatre. That is history in the making.
What Rubio and Trump don’t understand about negotiated peace is that the west beat Germany and Japan into submission, we won and forced them to negotiate. Negotiating without force is appeasement and Chamberlain is what that looks like.
Carl von Clausewitz said – War is simply the continuation of political discourse by other means, so the lesson for today’s political class is that unfortunately it just doesn’t work the other way around.
DW P replies :
Perfectly stated. Thank you.
Edvin Kornelius
All good and fair, but not for Trump and his MAGA supporters who believe that it’s not their war and that business with Russia might be more attractive than Ukraine’s sovereignty. Therefore, in my view, it’s naive to expect to see American leadership form the White House under Trump. Europeans are wasting very valuable time by continuing living in the world of illusions, while still paying the Kremlin billions for the Russian energy…
Phil Wood
DW P. – just my opinion: in the specific context of a Ukrainian victory, the US has moved from being an unwilling partner to being an unreliable partner. Success cannot be achieved with either of these positions, so those who genuinely want victory must bring about change in that position (unlikely) or remove the US influence (difficult and scary), as long as they are prepared to fill the gaps in support that would result.
Christopher J. O’Shea
DATELINE KYIV OBLAST – DAY 1191 : 4017
The most egregious feature of the Biden Administration’s policy regarding the war in Ukraine was its failure after 24 February 2022, at any point, to explicitly articulate its overarching strategic objective in the fight.
As Europe finally awakens to the existential threat posed by the Russian Federation, it’s imperative that its leadership not repeat the same mistake.
European leaders must, sooner rather than later, declare that henceforth their shared strategic objective will to enable the decisive defeat of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Ukraine and with all deliberate speed.
Only the speedy and conclusive defeat of Russia’s armed forces in Ukraine will lead to a just and equitable peace in Ukraine and a brighter future for Europe and the world.
#russiaisaterroriststate!
V/r – IB
An American in Ukraine
(2019 – Present)
Pavel K.
Wars only end with victories, then lasting peace comes. Negotiations without defeat only freeze the conflict to be an epicenter of a new war in the future or convert the war into “slow war” – look how negotiations around Korean war placed South Korea under the endless row of attacks and sabotage from day one untill today. North Korea regularly starts shelling, attack South Korean vessels, in very recent past kidnapped people.
War in Cyprus led to formation of unrecognised state of N.Cyprus, large no-man’s land including Famagusta city, regular political tensions with a lot of bullets shot in 1980-s and 1990-s; and you won’t like what will happen thete – when not if! – Ergodan who openly tries to build Osman Empire 2.0 turns his attention into Western direction.
Eduardo Dominguez de Jesus
Europe will defeat Putin, and they will rejoin our alliance as soon as Trump, his vice, and their entourage are imprisoned for openly violating the United States Constitution.
Dr. Volodymyr Ivanenko | Др. Володимир Іваненко
Entrepreneur, Professor & Scholar. Journalism, American, Russian, Ukrainian & Ukrainian Diaspora Studies