But that apparent and sometimes real danger does not determine whether the tide is coming in or going out — ebbing toward failure or flooding toward success.

The Trump administration’s progress in negotiating a peace deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war demonstrates this vividly.

The president’s rhetoric has been blood-curdling. He called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator” and accused him of starting the war when the blame lies entirely with Russia’s imperial aggression against its neighbor’s sovereign territory.

Nor is it only the president’s rhetoric that is sometimes chilling and shameful. His actions can also turn the stomach. It was repellent to watch as the United States sided at the United Nations with Russia and voted against a General Assembly resolution condemning Moscow on the third anniversary of its invasion.

But what was happening while this thunder and lightning drew all attention? Beneath the surface, the Trumpian tide was flowing fast and forcefully toward a U.S.-Ukraine agreement that could be a huge commercial and security success for both countries.

The deal, which still needs some details worked out but gives much reason for hope, explicitly states America’s interest in a “lasting peace” and “durable partnership” that allows massive U.S. investment in “a free, sovereign, and secure Ukraine.”

Under the deal, with Zelensky at a Washington signing ceremony, the two nations will establish a Reconstruction Investment Fund in which Ukraine will invest half of all its earnings from sales of natural resources such as oil and strategic minerals, and the money will be used to rebuild the country and attract further foreign investment.

U.S. business stands to reap hundreds of billions of dollars, recouping the costs of American aid and more. It is an example of Trump’s oft-criticized determined and methodical squeezing of maximum benefit out of every deal. But is that wrong if, into the bargain, Ukraine secures an end to the war, an injection of hundreds of billions of dollars, and turbo-charged foreign investment?

From Washington, it looks a lot like U.S. diplomacy guided by enlightened self-interest. This was once normal until apology and self-deprecation became the guiding spirits of America’s approach to the world under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

OVAL OFFICE SMACKDOWN FOR BRITISH PM KEIR STARMER

It is pointed out that the U.S.-Ukraine deal contains no American security guarantees. But the minerals deal, as it is being called, is itself a huge security reassurance. If Russia is faced not just by a trip-wire NATO peacekeeping force, primarily from Britain and France, but also by entrenched American commercial interests, heavy industry, and personnel, the combination would amount to a major disincentive to renew its aggression.

Trump, speaking in the Oval Office on Feb. 27, said he thought that if a peace deal could be achieved, it would stick. He didn’t think Russia would invade again, he explained, because “I don’t think anybody is going to play around if we are there.”