Trump as Louis XVI: Is the US President Ready to Help Ukraine Win?

In July 2026, the United States celebrated the 250th anniversary of the declaration of its independence. And perhaps right now it would be worth remembering what a chance the Americans were given by the help of a friendly country – France. The young United States during the war for independence received blows from Great Britain, a country that was many times more powerful than them, until the French intervened and saved them.

If the United States had helped Ukrainians the way France once helped Americans, then Russia’s war in Ukraine would have ended long ago. And America had a new powerful ally in Europe, which became a support for democracy throughout the region.

The historical parallels between the American Revolutionary War and the modern Russo-Ukrainian War open up a wide field for geopolitical analysis, demonstrating how the fate of young democracies opposing empires critically depends on the determination and scale of external support.

When the thirteen American colonies rebelled against the British Crown in April 1775, they faced an 18th-century military and economic superpower whose potential, resources, fleet, and financial capabilities vastly outweighed those of George Washington’s Continental Army.

Despite the colonists’ high morale and local successes, the material exhaustion and absolute superiority of the British at sea left America no chance of achieving the desired complete victory in the long run.

The turning point that effectively saved the American Revolution from defeat and ensured the emergence of a new independent state was the direct military, financial, and naval intervention of the Kingdom of France.

Moreover, French aid was not limited to the supply of weapons or the provision of loans, as Paris went to maximum escalation. It sent regular ground troops under the command of the Count de Rochambeau and a powerful navy of Admiral de Grasse, which blocked British ships in the Chesapeake Bay near Yorktown.

A complete siege from land (by the forces of Washington and Rochambeau) and from sea (by the fleet of de Grasse) forced the British to surrender on October 19, 1781. This effectively ended active hostilities in the United States.

Although France acted based on its own strategic interests in weakening its main geopolitical competitor, this determination changed the course of world history. Having formed the defensive power of the United States and forever changing the balance of power on the world stage.

Extrapolating this historical precedent to Ukraine’s current confrontation with the Russian Federation, it becomes apparent that the current United States strategy towards Kyiv is fundamentally different from the comprehensive assistance that the French once provided to the young American republic.

Instead of acting with the determination of the Bourbons of the 18th century, modern Washington has chosen a strategy of dosed crisis management, aimed at preventing the defeat of Ukraine, but at the same time limited by the fear of so-called “escalation” and a direct clash with nuclear Russia.

If the United States had provided Ukraine with assistance of a similar scale, which included not only defensive weapons, but also a full-fledged closure of the skies, the transfer of the most modern strategic missile systems and the direct involvement of logistical or engineering components of Western armies, the course of this war would have been completely different.

A powerful, timely and uncompromising technological preemptive strike from the West could have broken the backbone of the Russian offensive in the early stages, which would have led to the rapid exhaustion of the occupation contingent and forced the Kremlin to make a real retreat, ending the hot phase of the war.

But Washington made a different decision. Despite the fact that the prolongation of the Russian-Ukrainian war due to the political caution of the West not only multiplies the human and economic losses of Ukraine, but also deprives the United States itself of a unique geopolitical prize in the future.

A victory for Ukraine with full and decisive US support would quickly transform Eastern Europe, creating an unprecedentedly powerful and battle-hardened military-political ally of America on the European continent.

The Ukrainian army, with its unique experience in waging a full-scale, high-intensity conventional war in the 21st century, integrated into Western structures and equipped with American technology, would become the main defensive bastion of the democratic world on the European eastern flank.

Such an ally would not only strengthen NATO’s security, but would also significantly relieve US defense resources, allowing Washington to refocus its strategic attention and potential on deterring China in the Indo-Pacific region.

It may be time to remind United States President Donald Trump of the French Intervention of 1778, the entry of the French Kingdom into the American Revolutionary War on the side of the American colonists against Great Britain.

After all, the lessons of history clearly indicate that half-measures in the confrontation with empires only prolong the crisis, while bold and uncompromising leadership, similar to the French intervention of 1778, can not only stop the aggressor, but also form a new, much more stable world order.

Only a decisive military coalition is an effective tool for curbing the imperial ambitions of the aggressor. When the King of France dared to openly support the young American democracy, it did not just change the balance of power on the battlefield, but turned a local colonial conflict into a global strategic defeat for the then hegemonic empire.

On February 6, 1778, the official Treaty of Alliance was signed. This step radically changed the course of the American Revolutionary War, transforming it into a large-scale interstate confrontation with Great Britain.

And today, the policy of dosed military aid and the White House’s desire to avoid escalation demonstrate strategic shortsightedness, as it only creates a false illusion of stability, while a protracted war of attrition systematically destroys the current international security architecture.

The current approach of the Western allies does not stop aggression, but only postpones larger geopolitical crises, exhausting the resources of the democratic camp and encouraging other totalitarian regimes to forceful revisionism.

The only effective way out of this security impasse is an immediate transition to decisive action. After all, only a large-scale, uncompromising involvement of the leadership potential of the United States and its partners can inflict a quick and convincing defeat on the Russian Federation in Ukraine.

Only such a power scenario will allow us to fix a new, stable distribution of forces on the international arena and ensure global stability through the implementation of the classical doctrine of lasting peace through force.

Of course, the current capital of the world – Mar-a-Lago is far from Versailles, and the ghost of Louis XVI is unlikely to wander the corridors of the White House now. But if the 47th US President Donald Trump shows the will to truly help Ukraine, he can go down in history as a politician who was able to stop the largest war in Europe since World War II.

Having returned the lost stability to the global security system and proving that US global leadership is determined by the ability to defend justice and international law. France once helped the United States survive and win independence, so is Donald Trump ready to repeat for Ukraine what Louis XVI did for America?