Thanks. As I mentioned, I’ve been writing about the Russo-Ukrainian War since 2022, and I’ve created an index page with links to most of those articles, some of which you might find interesting:
" ... since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" (Thucydides Book 5 in The Melian Dialogue).
John Mearsheimer, while not having a memorable single-line quote in his majesterial Tragedy of Great Power Politics to match Thucydides', his argument nevertheless mirrors that principle:
in an anarchic international system, Great Powers must continuously seek to maximise their power, leading them to dominate weaker states; alliances with smaller powers are based solely on self-interest and immediate strategic benefits, rather than on deep-seated loyalty; and when the costs of supporting a smaller state outweigh the benefits or when strategic calculations change, Great Powers may quickly abandon or side-line these allies. Both Thucydides’ observation and Mearsheimer’s theory stress that international politics is governed by power dynamics, that "might makes right".
On a less analytical level, I can imagine there were hundreds of millions of Americans, when watching that Vance/Trump v Z WWF Smackdown, were fist-pumping the air and chanting "You-Ess-Aye!".
(PS. Of course, Mearsheimer contradicts his theory in The Israel Lobby and the profusion of his subsequent videos: were the USA to treat Bibi as it has Zelensky ... )
I don’t know what possessed Zelenskyy to recite a litany of complaints to the Secretary of State, the Vice President and the President of the United States instead of negotiating but it’s the last straw in the process of separating us from Europe.
I don’t want to appease Putin, I want the exact opposite. I want the EU which has a GDP 8.5 times Russia’s to fund their own defense to stop the thug. Why is that so hard to understand? Ukraine with assistance from Europe and the US has already destroyed a lot of Russia’s offensive capability and if Europe (which has its own nuclear arsenal) would just get their shit together they could easily create an overwhelming defense capability against a weakened enemy. That would allow the US to devote more resources to our own unmet domestic needs like education and healthcare.
Finally, everyone has to acknowledge that both the UK and Germany are actively suppressing the free speech of their citizens. That should be disqualifying for our continued military partnership. We need to pressure or persuade them to get back on track in this important area.
A litany of complaints? Trump tells him that not to worry, V. Putin can be trusted to keep his word, and Zelensky’s just supposed to smile and nod along with that b.s.?
Thomas: So you want us to commit to sending our children to fight and die in Ukraine to back up the agreement? Please give us a yes or no answer. Even Biden wouldn’t do that. I don’t trust Putin but the killing has to stop.
Thomas: That’s the assurance that Jelensky is seeking. No American president including Trump and Biden would or could give him that assurance because its a de facto NATO membership. You don’t seem to understand what is being negotiated. We have no idea if Putin will stick to any agreement he makes (and he is not to be trusted) so we can’t commit to an armed response by our troops to his perfidy. We can only say that if it does happen we will continue to supply weapons and ammunition. Are you beginning to understand what is being negotiated?
That’s not being negotiated. In fact, there are no negotiations. Now that his “peace deal” has collapsed (as I expected), Trump will just walk away: cut off aid to Ukraine and declare that it’s not his problem. And the war will go on.
I am going on sixty nine years now. Writing to you from up north. In all my years following American politics, I was a little boy when JFK was murdered. Through Watergate all the way up until today. I have never ever seen anything so disgusting so UN AMERICAN.
As much a I love America , I can only say that for the very first time in my life i am unsure about your country
you saw to fit to conclude this 'analysis' with the three now very tiresome ad hominems. The German eugyppius pulled out all the analytical stops somewhat further. See what you think:
Did you watch the whole video or just the CNN selective edit? For the first half Trump and Vance are gracious, courteous and constructive, while Zelensky acts like a moody teenager. It becomes clear that Zelensky is not there to sign the deal - his pretext for the meeting - but to try and renegotiate on live TV - he gets the short shrift he deserves. There was a genuine and generous deal on the table and Zelensky managed to blow it all by himself. He let his country down while insulting his hosts and the United States. He seems to think he is entitled to endless handouts without even offering a constructive attitude. He has learned that Trump owes him exactly nothing.
Hmm. I think they all behaved poorly. Zelensky, ostensibly, came on Friday and accepted the invitation because he was ready to sign an agreement. He pretty clearly was not.
There were no surprise changes in the agreement. Trump has laid it out all week which is why we were all surprised Zelensky came to sign it.
But of course, he kinda punked them. He did not come to sign but rather to argue, on camera, about the deal and what Trump said.
What did Zelensky think would happen after making clear he was not there to sign? Oh, and add in calling Vance a "bitch" on camera in front of people who can translate for Vance and surely did?
The bullying was not pretty or statesman like, but it started AFTER Zelensky started arguing with Trump. It would have been much better if Trump had simply said, "So, you came here to debate the agreement and NOT to sign today? Well, we came here thinking we had a deal, not to debate the issue. So, I am sorry for inviting everybody to come and witness this historic signing. Clearly it's not happening today. I'm sorry president Zelensky that you did not come here for an agreement, because that's all we're here for today. So let's adjourn this meeting. Again. Thank you all for coming. Have a good night."
‘Americans don’t know where Ukraine is and have no reason to care,’
Americans don’t know where 90 per cent of the rest of the world’s counties are, and don’t care. I live in Aotearoa New Zealand. I’ve visited nearly every US state and lost count of the US cities I’ve visited. I care about America, love American people, enjoy her politics, justice system - for all the faults.
Do you even know who the PM of Aotearoa New Zealand is? Our parliamentary system? Constitution? And do you care?
Scarier than hell then that what the above NZer took back and introduced to that country following her interpenetration of America, was of all things the cruellest, most ostracising, most criminally ineffective and vigilantism-inducing part of all US "justice" culture!
What a collection of buffoons. Vance is going to regret abandoning his stated 2015-22 view of Trump as a gas-filled buffoon full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Trump's first term did not feature scenes like this, and did produce something constructive (like the Abraham Accords and the major ramp-up of natgas exports), only because Trump's White House was filled and surrounded by more conventional Republican figures from the Old Days (when competent people actually did something), like Pompeo, Pence, and Bolton. The cabinet now is no longer Republican or conservative, but Trumpist -- that is to say, crackpot.
The analogy with Sudetenland has too many parallels. Another parallel has been give to us this weekend: Trump has publicly signalled to Putin that the Russian leader can do whatever he wants; anything Trump says now to oppose Russia will be seen as utterly non-credible.
The difference is probably that, while Chamberlain simply would not go to war in 1938 (he lost his brother in WW1, the Britain Empire lost over 1m soldiers, and many multiples more so severely wounded they died not long after, etc), Trump is by nature a transactional deal-maker, and is strongly motivated to reduce US over-extension and redirect America's dwindling economic and military power.
Nobody is ever going to give security guarantees to Ukraine. The United States won’t under Trump and wouldn’t have even if Biden was still in charge. Security guarantees require that military action be commenced if Russia was to commence an invasion again after a cease fire is declared. The American people would never stand for that. Most Americans don’t care about Ukraine. Even those who do, care about it mostly in the abstract but wouldn’t support spending more money or putting American service members at risk to back up security guarantees.
Europe won’t be offering Ukraine security guarantees either. Sure, the British and others can offer to put boots on the ground to separate the combatants, but the Europeans don’t have the ability to provide a meaningful guarantee without an American backstop that Trump won’t give and shouldn’t.
Even Americans who theoretically support Ukraine simply won’t tolerate putting the lives of American service members at risk if enforcing those guarantees puts those service members at risk. Practically speaking, this means that Russia has defeated Ukraine. Perhaps early in the war, armed the right way, Ukraine could have prevailed but, of course, we will never know.
All of the consternation in Europe about the Oval Office imbroglio stems from the fact that Europe is finally confronting the reality that Ukraine’s goose is cooked. You don’t need to like this reality to understand that reality is, as often as not, quite unpleasant.
Biden should never have goaded Putin into invading.
Konstantin Kisin put it quite aptly in his very interesting Substack where he said,
“For the last 3 years, [Zelensky]has led his country in a heroic defence against a brutal and barbaric invasion. He saw innocent Ukrainian civilians being slaughtered, tortured and raped. He watched missiles and drones rain down on his towns and cities. He welcomed Ukrainian POWs on their return from Russian prisons and torture camps, only to discover they were emaciated, bruised and broken. He has spoken with Ukrainian parents whose children have been stolen and taken to Russia.
During the same time period, he has received standing ovations in every room he has entered. In Europe, across the political spectrum, Ukraine’s cause is seen as just, righteous and important for our collective safety. Foreign leaders have travelled to Kiev for photo ops with him. He has spoken in every major parliament in the world. Praise and attention have been lavished on him from every direction. At every turn, he has been told “we stand with Ukraine”, “Slava Ukraine” and so on.
This is one of the reasons his negotiating position appears somewhat disconnected from reality. During the press conference he argued that Russia must pay for the war on the basis that in history “whoever starts the war, pays”. What he appears to be missing is that this isn’t remotely true: in history, whoever wins makes the losing side pay. While neither side has defeated the other, Ukraine can hardly claim victory.
For all these reasons, the reality vortex he entered in the Oval Office yesterday would have been a shock. The fact is that MAGA, the dominant force in the world’s leading nation, does not share the European view of President Zelensky. You may agree or disagree, but to the current occupants of the White House, their advisors and their base, President Zelensky - and forgive me for putting this bluntly- is an untrustworthy leader of a corrupt country on the other side of the world who keeps asking for more money America doesn’t have to fight a war they neither care about nor feel he can win. Most of these perceptions stem primarily from domestic American politics and the hatred MAGA has for anyone and anything President Biden touched. Most Americans don’t know where Ukraine is and have no reason to care. To them, this is just another “forever war” like Iraq and Afghanistan.
In other words, President Zelensky walked into a room in which people who don’t particularly like him, don’t particularly trust him, and don’t particularly care about his “just and righteous cause” were nevertheless prepared to continue giving him money, weapons and political support in order to make this problem go away. All he had to do was look grateful. When you are attempting to convert other people’s good will into hard currency, that is the bare minimum. And for 40 minutes, Zelensky just about managed.
The rationale for the argument he then instigated with JD Vance is not without merit. Zelensky’s primary concern has to be what are known as “security guarantees” - this is a fancy way of saying that Putin is a proven liar who can’t be trusted to stick to any agreement reached. Therefore, the only way to prevent another invasion is through a permanent presence of European or American troops in between Russia and Ukraine. He kept making this point over and over during the press conference and did so diplomatically enough.
But the way he challenged Vance directly in front of the cameras was catastrophically stupid. Sure, if you hate Trump and Vance and think they’re taking part in a Youtube debate, then Zelensky made a valid point. But this was not a debate. They’re all supposed to be on the same side. And the person who has the most to lose from them not feeling like they’re all on the same side is President Zelensky, or, more importantly, his nation. The arguments about security guarantees should have been made with tact, diplomacy, and in private.”
Is it likely that Putin would launch an invasion if NATO gave Ukraine a security guarantee and there were NATO troops in the country to enforce a ceasefire? No. All Trump’s doing is kicking the can down the road. His talk of a grand peace deal was nothing but hot air and now the risk of a wider war is much higher than it needs to be. Good job, Donald.
NATO and Europe do not have five hundred thousand Ukrainians to contain Russia. Europe does not have an economy geared towards war, does not have enough weapons, equipment and ammunition.
Putin knows this, he knows that he can bite off small pieces of Europe and Europe will give in each time, fearing a big war.
He knows that China, Iran, North Korea are behind him and are trying to expand their influence in the Middle East and Africa.
The only way to make him abandon further aggression is a crushing defeat.
Is it likely that Putin would launch an invasion if NATO gave Ukraine a security guarantee and there were NATO troops in the country to enforce a ceasefire? If NATO troops sans American soldiers were standing between Russian forces and Ukrainian forces, it’s unlikely but still quite possible that Putin would decide to invade, especially if it’s clear that the United States wouldn’t come to the defense of those NATO forces. It’s a chance that nobody, especially the Europeans want to take.
If American forces stood between the Russian and Ukrainian forces it’s even less likely that Russia would violate a cease fire by invading again. But the reality is that there will never be American peacekeepers in Ukraine. Trump won’t put them there and neither would Biden if he was still President. My belief is that Harris might have agreed but she was a nincompoop.
In any case, one of the reason Putin invaded Ukraine was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Given his current advantageous military position, why would Putin acquiesce to a cease fire that puts NATO troops (with or without American forces) in Ukraine when that is precisely what Putin wanted to avoid in the first place?
Trump came up with an ingenuous plan that might have worked. Ukraine and the United States would be tied together by their economic interests over mineral rights. No troops would have been involved but perhaps, just perhaps, Putin would be discouraged from invading to avoid jeopardizing his budding relationship with the United States. To make this plan work, Putin needs to be brought in from the cold.
Sadly, it looks like Zelensky might have blown it. Hopefully the deal can be resurrected. It may be Ukraine’s only chance.
Trump had no plan, as Friday’s Oval Office burlesque made quite clear. The idea that his b.s. mineral deal would have given any security to Ukraine is simply ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is all the fear and trembling over what Russia might do. Russia isn’t a superpower. It’s a degenerate, declining despotism that hasn’t been able to defeat Ukraine, a much smaller country, despite three years of war. In a world ruled by rational calculation, Russia would go in fear and trembling of America and NATO. Putin gets away with his aggression only because he has apologists in the West who are tireless in their rationalizations of his actions, e.g. with the ridiculous claim that his invasion of Ukraine was inspired by fears of NATO aggression. Simply put, that’s b.s.
It’s true that Russia has had three years to defeat Ukraine and hasn’t succeeded although Russia is winning slowly but surely. Of course the United States had twenty years to defeat the Taliban and failed completely.
If Russia is so militarily incompetent, why aren’t France, the UK, Germany and the rest of the European NATO members willing to provide a buffer zone in the absence of an American backstop? If they agreed with you about the incompetence of the Russian military and if they were as convinced as you are about their own military competence you would think that they would be happy to man a buffer zone with their soldiers even if the United States was unwilling to come to the rescue if things go wrong.
My guess is that all of this is merely academic because Russia will never permit NATO forces in Ukraine. Trump’s plan may have been a longshot, but establishing a sphere of American economic influence in Ukraine and bringing Russia and Putin in from the cold is the only chance that Ukraine has. The only other likely outcome is total defeat for Ukraine.
Very likely true. But why did Zelensky even come to the meeting? Why didn't he decline? He made it look like he was there to sign and then started arguing. That was why. In my opinion, both Vance and Trump reacted with hostility. Just my take. The meeting was for assigning not for negotiations. So don't come if you're not going to sign.
Z was not invited to the so called negotiations in Saudi and must have known that his best shot at getting an acceptable deal would have to be face to face. Without the US backstopping him diplomatically and without US armaments the Ukraine position would be much weaker, and Putin more likely to hang in there for total victory. Of course Trump knew that, which is why he had Z over a barrel, and why he totally lost it when Z demurred.
I read that Zelensky assured Rubio he was ready to sign and that Rubio therefore talked Trump and Vance into allowing Zelensky to come (which would explain Rubio's obvious anger that day). At any rate, we shall see what comes of all of this now that Zelensky is at the table again. He does need US help to stay alive in all of this as he knows the EU will not do what is needed either (for all their finger pointing at the US), so like it or not, he needs to play WITH Trump not against him.
M. Wig-Wag, you have written a fine evaluation of what went down in the Oval Office yesterday, except for one thing: Zelenskyy could not actually “look grateful” to Trump’s duplicitous diplomacy, because the only meaningful way he could do that, and eweasel out of the ambush, would be to accept the crappy results of that diplomacy: a meaningless cease-fire bought at the cost of Ukrainian sovereignty over its own mineral rights, on Trump’s terms. Once back in Ukraine he would have to disown the deal as soon as the so-called cease-fire agreement was broken by Putin.
Trump is a gangster. As a businessman he made crooked deals, and he continues in the same vein while occupying the WHite House. He should be in prison — maybe shot or hung or whatever is done to traitors nowadays — but instead he is allowed to sell out America’s global leadership for the sake of some staged photo-ops sucking up to dictators.
Let’s assume for the moment that everything you’ve said about Trump is true. He’s a mobster. He’s a cad. He’s a charlatan. He’s a duplicitous crook. How is any of this relevant to what happens to Ukraine?
The money and arms spigot flowing from the United States to Ukraine is about to slow to a trickle and that’s the best case scenario. Europe is running out of weapons to send Ukraine and even if it increases aid, it’s not in a position to make up for an American shortfall. To make matters worse, Ukraine is suffering from a manpower shortage and its infrastructure has been decimated.
In light of all of this, how can Ukraine survive as an independent country? It seems to me that under the circumstances the best thing it can hope for is an armistice. Absent an armistice and without adequate weaponry, Ukraine could easily be overrun by the Russians. Would Russia agree to an armistice with NATO peacekeepers (even without American soldiers)? Maybe, but I highly doubt it.
I get it R. Hodson; you think Trump is despicable. I hope your primal screams about Trump make you feel better. What you haven’t told us is how you think Ukraine can be saved under the current circumstances. Trump’s idea is to tie the United States and Ukraine together economically while incentivizing Putin to behave by bringing him in from the cold. Will it work? It’s hard to know. But if you (or any of Thomas’s other loyal readers) have a better idea, I’d love to hear it as long as the proposal is realistic under the circumstances.
Hello again Wig-Wag -- Yes, I agree that Trump's plan kinda-sorta ties the US to Ukraine (more, ties US commercial/financial interests to Ukraines - that's a big difference - more about the significance later), but 'bringing Putin in from the cold' doesn't incentivize him very much because we are already bringing Putin in, handing him a nice warm toddy and a seat by the fire, and unlocking all the drawers to America's secrets for him to access -- all this before Putin has signed onto anything.
The thing about making a deal for money is that, well, it's just money. A money-making deal on Ukrainian minerals might yield big profits for US companies, but Russia could conceivably offer a better deal, making much more money, if the US just saw its way clear to let some little green men slip over whatever temporary border all the parties solemnly swore to observe. A good deal for the US -- more money! -- and for Russia -- Ukrainian land and minerals! -- but too bad for the poor Ukrainians, about whom both the US and Russia see as expendables. Don't believe for a moment that Trump wouldn't let a little thing like a solemn treaty obligation stand in the way of personal enrichment via doing a few favors for his favorite despot.
Lastly I feel obliged to inform you, M. WIg-Wag, that I have uttered no primal screams concerning Despicable Don. (I do have an ongoing headache for which I blame the war, the Don and all social media in general).
As for coming up with a better idea than the Trump "Peace Plan" -- well, poisoning Putin's soup comes to mind, but that presents logistical problems for which no solution occurs to me a present.
I suppose that, given sufficient resources and some technical help, Ukraine could deploy more drones and enough robot armies to fend off the Russians. They might also continue their advance into Russia's Kursk region and sink some more of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, just to be really aggravating.
As for a practical solution to an historical problem that has troubled Eiurope for a millenium...hmmm...offer me an hourly contract and I'll study up on the possibilities -- right now I'm just spit-ballin'.
You assume that Russia is on the verge of winning the war. But no. The war is basically stalemated. The Russian Army has numerical superiority but nothing else. Over the past year it’s paid a high blood price for marginal gains. Russia can’t conquer Ukraine. It’s no longer a superpower. All Trump has done is prolong the war.
To paraphrase the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, 500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to defend them from 150 million Russians. It makes no sense.
No, they’re not. That’s the natcon narrative about NATO, and it’s b.s. The Atlantic Alliance kept the peace in Europe for three-quarters of a century in the face of the USSR. Now it faces that pitiful remnant, V. Putin’s Russia, the sick man of Europe, and America is supposed to go in fear and trembling of that twenty-first century version of the decrepit Habsburg Monarchy. What have we got to fear from that ramshackle despotism, that can’t even defeat Ukraine?
Probably the same thing that Russia has to fear about the U.S. armed forces that couldn’t defeat the Taliban given 20 years to accomplish the task. By the way, the remarks I paraphrased didn’t come from a natcon, it came from the Polish Prime Minister who is an enthusiastic supporter of Ukraine.
He came to sign on Friday. Why did he come to the White House then when he knew it was supposed to be for signing? Why didn't he turn it down? That's my question
The issue is the EU, for all their pointing at the US, will never give Ukraine enough help to survive this situation. Ukraine needs Trump's help - like it or no- and Ukraine really cannot dictate what they want. They are currently, sadly, not winning against Russia. They would need much more to win. Neither the EU nor the US is prepared to eacalate this fight. So Z has to accept what is offered, honestly. Making demands and refusing offers did not make it easier for him, it made it harder. So, I do not see the point. At any rate, he came back and we shall see if this goes anywhere. Putin is winning, so unless the US offers Russia something it wants to leave this war, I do not see it happening. But maybe Trump is ready to concede something. What I do not know.
Unless this war is so unpopular in Russia that Putin needs it to be over. But, it seems to me that China is helping buffer Russia from economic impacts, so I do not see it. And I do not see what Trump could offer Putin that would entice him to end this war without getting more territory than currently taken. But maybe I am wrong. Who knows.
For Z, playing with Trump matters as, if Russia will not negotiate reasonably, Trump then will need to continue supporting Ukraine. Z was smart to apologize and return. Unless he grandstands again giving Trump an excuse to walk off as well if Russia will not play.
To actually win, and stop Ukrainians from being killed, either the war must end and concessions be made OR the EU and /or the US must help fight. I wish we would do the latter personally, but hardly any are willing to do so. If we were, Putin would never have started this entire venture.
I believe Putin would NEVER accept a real-deal peace agreement for Ukraine, mainly because it would include constraints on his ambitions. I believe him when he says that "Ukraine should not exist"; Putin wants a conquest, the complete erasure of a state and a nation, language culture and history.
If I am wrong, and he does agree to accept conditions, such as getting to keep occupied Donbass and Luhansk in return for ceasing his attacks on the rest of Ukraine, I am sure he will do so with the idea of waiting a few years to build up his forces ( read, wait for more 14 year olds to enter conscription age).
After a few years and Western supporters of Ukraine have "moved on", Putin could then renew the attacks under some transparently false accusation (such as kicking those dastardly Nazis out of Kiev, or teaching Ukrainians a lesson for refusing to speak Russian instead of their own language...how dare they?).
Of course, until that next phase of the so far not very successful "SMO" against Ukraine and Western encroachment, Putin and his toadies will whine about NATO on their doorstep and how unfair the West is towards poor, misunderstood Russia. The election of Trump 2.0 tells me that RUssia is more successful with their propaganda and "direct action" subversive techniques than they are fighting a conventional war against a much smaller a weaker enemy.
I agree with you that until Ukraine can get all the support they need from Europe, Z needs to continuing to work on 'handling' Trump, which unfortunately means a good deal of unseemly butt-kissing. Maybe some patriotic Ukrianinans could be persuaded to erect a large, gold-plated statue of Trump in the Maidan and invitr Trump to the unveiling. Not JD, hough, unless he learns how to behave in front of his betters.
Completely agree with your entire assessment. I knew we had common ground.
Thanks. As I mentioned, I’ve been writing about the Russo-Ukrainian War since 2022, and I’ve created an index page with links to most of those articles, some of which you might find interesting:
I’ll give them a look. Thank you.
ἐπισταμένους πρὸς εἰδότας ὅτι δίκαια μὲν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ λόγῳ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης ἀνάγκης κρίνεται, δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
" ... since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" (Thucydides Book 5 in The Melian Dialogue).
John Mearsheimer, while not having a memorable single-line quote in his majesterial Tragedy of Great Power Politics to match Thucydides', his argument nevertheless mirrors that principle:
in an anarchic international system, Great Powers must continuously seek to maximise their power, leading them to dominate weaker states; alliances with smaller powers are based solely on self-interest and immediate strategic benefits, rather than on deep-seated loyalty; and when the costs of supporting a smaller state outweigh the benefits or when strategic calculations change, Great Powers may quickly abandon or side-line these allies. Both Thucydides’ observation and Mearsheimer’s theory stress that international politics is governed by power dynamics, that "might makes right".
On a less analytical level, I can imagine there were hundreds of millions of Americans, when watching that Vance/Trump v Z WWF Smackdown, were fist-pumping the air and chanting "You-Ess-Aye!".
(PS. Of course, Mearsheimer contradicts his theory in The Israel Lobby and the profusion of his subsequent videos: were the USA to treat Bibi as it has Zelensky ... )
I don’t know what possessed Zelenskyy to recite a litany of complaints to the Secretary of State, the Vice President and the President of the United States instead of negotiating but it’s the last straw in the process of separating us from Europe.
I don’t want to appease Putin, I want the exact opposite. I want the EU which has a GDP 8.5 times Russia’s to fund their own defense to stop the thug. Why is that so hard to understand? Ukraine with assistance from Europe and the US has already destroyed a lot of Russia’s offensive capability and if Europe (which has its own nuclear arsenal) would just get their shit together they could easily create an overwhelming defense capability against a weakened enemy. That would allow the US to devote more resources to our own unmet domestic needs like education and healthcare.
Finally, everyone has to acknowledge that both the UK and Germany are actively suppressing the free speech of their citizens. That should be disqualifying for our continued military partnership. We need to pressure or persuade them to get back on track in this important area.
A litany of complaints? Trump tells him that not to worry, V. Putin can be trusted to keep his word, and Zelensky’s just supposed to smile and nod along with that b.s.?
Thomas: So you want us to commit to sending our children to fight and die in Ukraine to back up the agreement? Please give us a yes or no answer. Even Biden wouldn’t do that. I don’t trust Putin but the killing has to stop.
What the hell are you talking about? Who wants to do that. Of all the b.s. arguments of the Putin huggers, that one’s the most stupid and dishonest.
Thomas: That’s the assurance that Jelensky is seeking. No American president including Trump and Biden would or could give him that assurance because its a de facto NATO membership. You don’t seem to understand what is being negotiated. We have no idea if Putin will stick to any agreement he makes (and he is not to be trusted) so we can’t commit to an armed response by our troops to his perfidy. We can only say that if it does happen we will continue to supply weapons and ammunition. Are you beginning to understand what is being negotiated?
That’s not being negotiated. In fact, there are no negotiations. Now that his “peace deal” has collapsed (as I expected), Trump will just walk away: cut off aid to Ukraine and declare that it’s not his problem. And the war will go on.
Except, Z needs Trump as evidenced by his turn around. The EU will never give Z what he needs. After his tantrum, he recalled this fact.
Thomas
I am going on sixty nine years now. Writing to you from up north. In all my years following American politics, I was a little boy when JFK was murdered. Through Watergate all the way up until today. I have never ever seen anything so disgusting so UN AMERICAN.
As much a I love America , I can only say that for the very first time in my life i am unsure about your country
you saw to fit to conclude this 'analysis' with the three now very tiresome ad hominems. The German eugyppius pulled out all the analytical stops somewhat further. See what you think:
https://open.substack.com/pub/eugyppius/p/you-dont-have-the-cards-right-now?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3pkhw
Did you watch the whole video or just the CNN selective edit? For the first half Trump and Vance are gracious, courteous and constructive, while Zelensky acts like a moody teenager. It becomes clear that Zelensky is not there to sign the deal - his pretext for the meeting - but to try and renegotiate on live TV - he gets the short shrift he deserves. There was a genuine and generous deal on the table and Zelensky managed to blow it all by himself. He let his country down while insulting his hosts and the United States. He seems to think he is entitled to endless handouts without even offering a constructive attitude. He has learned that Trump owes him exactly nothing.
Hmm. I think they all behaved poorly. Zelensky, ostensibly, came on Friday and accepted the invitation because he was ready to sign an agreement. He pretty clearly was not.
There were no surprise changes in the agreement. Trump has laid it out all week which is why we were all surprised Zelensky came to sign it.
But of course, he kinda punked them. He did not come to sign but rather to argue, on camera, about the deal and what Trump said.
What did Zelensky think would happen after making clear he was not there to sign? Oh, and add in calling Vance a "bitch" on camera in front of people who can translate for Vance and surely did?
The bullying was not pretty or statesman like, but it started AFTER Zelensky started arguing with Trump. It would have been much better if Trump had simply said, "So, you came here to debate the agreement and NOT to sign today? Well, we came here thinking we had a deal, not to debate the issue. So, I am sorry for inviting everybody to come and witness this historic signing. Clearly it's not happening today. I'm sorry president Zelensky that you did not come here for an agreement, because that's all we're here for today. So let's adjourn this meeting. Again. Thank you all for coming. Have a good night."
‘Americans don’t know where Ukraine is and have no reason to care,’
Americans don’t know where 90 per cent of the rest of the world’s counties are, and don’t care. I live in Aotearoa New Zealand. I’ve visited nearly every US state and lost count of the US cities I’ve visited. I care about America, love American people, enjoy her politics, justice system - for all the faults.
Do you even know who the PM of Aotearoa New Zealand is? Our parliamentary system? Constitution? And do you care?
No cheating 🙂
Scarier than hell then that what the above NZer took back and introduced to that country following her interpenetration of America, was of all things the cruellest, most ostracising, most criminally ineffective and vigilantism-inducing part of all US "justice" culture!
They might know the *name* of our country, which is "New Zealand".
Aotearoa New Zealand on my passport
And the world indeed does not so revolve.
What a collection of buffoons. Vance is going to regret abandoning his stated 2015-22 view of Trump as a gas-filled buffoon full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Trump's first term did not feature scenes like this, and did produce something constructive (like the Abraham Accords and the major ramp-up of natgas exports), only because Trump's White House was filled and surrounded by more conventional Republican figures from the Old Days (when competent people actually did something), like Pompeo, Pence, and Bolton. The cabinet now is no longer Republican or conservative, but Trumpist -- that is to say, crackpot.
Well, Musk and DOGE are serious about domestic problems, but Trump's attempts at international diplomacy are a dangerous farce.
Now we see why Chamberlain did not invite Benes to Munich in 1938.
Rape is better done in private.
I agree that Ukraine is done - I realized that when I heard all the European leaders yelling "Slava Ukraine" after the WH meeting.
I had hoped that Europe would find its manhood in the vacuum that Trump created. I was naive.
I wish that there was a better outcome for Ukraine, but I don't see it.
Ukraine will join 1939 Poland in the pantheon of "plucky countries".
As an aside, what the hell was Zelensky thinking?
You don't bite the hand that feeds you. You don't give Trump an excuse to walk. And you don't argue in a foreign language.
First real failure for Zelensky. But it wouldn't have mattered.
I sure hope that the U.S. can salvage something from this mess.
The analogy with Sudetenland has too many parallels. Another parallel has been give to us this weekend: Trump has publicly signalled to Putin that the Russian leader can do whatever he wants; anything Trump says now to oppose Russia will be seen as utterly non-credible.
The difference is probably that, while Chamberlain simply would not go to war in 1938 (he lost his brother in WW1, the Britain Empire lost over 1m soldiers, and many multiples more so severely wounded they died not long after, etc), Trump is by nature a transactional deal-maker, and is strongly motivated to reduce US over-extension and redirect America's dwindling economic and military power.
Nobody is ever going to give security guarantees to Ukraine. The United States won’t under Trump and wouldn’t have even if Biden was still in charge. Security guarantees require that military action be commenced if Russia was to commence an invasion again after a cease fire is declared. The American people would never stand for that. Most Americans don’t care about Ukraine. Even those who do, care about it mostly in the abstract but wouldn’t support spending more money or putting American service members at risk to back up security guarantees.
Europe won’t be offering Ukraine security guarantees either. Sure, the British and others can offer to put boots on the ground to separate the combatants, but the Europeans don’t have the ability to provide a meaningful guarantee without an American backstop that Trump won’t give and shouldn’t.
Even Americans who theoretically support Ukraine simply won’t tolerate putting the lives of American service members at risk if enforcing those guarantees puts those service members at risk. Practically speaking, this means that Russia has defeated Ukraine. Perhaps early in the war, armed the right way, Ukraine could have prevailed but, of course, we will never know.
All of the consternation in Europe about the Oval Office imbroglio stems from the fact that Europe is finally confronting the reality that Ukraine’s goose is cooked. You don’t need to like this reality to understand that reality is, as often as not, quite unpleasant.
Biden should never have goaded Putin into invading.
Konstantin Kisin put it quite aptly in his very interesting Substack where he said,
“For the last 3 years, [Zelensky]has led his country in a heroic defence against a brutal and barbaric invasion. He saw innocent Ukrainian civilians being slaughtered, tortured and raped. He watched missiles and drones rain down on his towns and cities. He welcomed Ukrainian POWs on their return from Russian prisons and torture camps, only to discover they were emaciated, bruised and broken. He has spoken with Ukrainian parents whose children have been stolen and taken to Russia.
During the same time period, he has received standing ovations in every room he has entered. In Europe, across the political spectrum, Ukraine’s cause is seen as just, righteous and important for our collective safety. Foreign leaders have travelled to Kiev for photo ops with him. He has spoken in every major parliament in the world. Praise and attention have been lavished on him from every direction. At every turn, he has been told “we stand with Ukraine”, “Slava Ukraine” and so on.
This is one of the reasons his negotiating position appears somewhat disconnected from reality. During the press conference he argued that Russia must pay for the war on the basis that in history “whoever starts the war, pays”. What he appears to be missing is that this isn’t remotely true: in history, whoever wins makes the losing side pay. While neither side has defeated the other, Ukraine can hardly claim victory.
For all these reasons, the reality vortex he entered in the Oval Office yesterday would have been a shock. The fact is that MAGA, the dominant force in the world’s leading nation, does not share the European view of President Zelensky. You may agree or disagree, but to the current occupants of the White House, their advisors and their base, President Zelensky - and forgive me for putting this bluntly- is an untrustworthy leader of a corrupt country on the other side of the world who keeps asking for more money America doesn’t have to fight a war they neither care about nor feel he can win. Most of these perceptions stem primarily from domestic American politics and the hatred MAGA has for anyone and anything President Biden touched. Most Americans don’t know where Ukraine is and have no reason to care. To them, this is just another “forever war” like Iraq and Afghanistan.
In other words, President Zelensky walked into a room in which people who don’t particularly like him, don’t particularly trust him, and don’t particularly care about his “just and righteous cause” were nevertheless prepared to continue giving him money, weapons and political support in order to make this problem go away. All he had to do was look grateful. When you are attempting to convert other people’s good will into hard currency, that is the bare minimum. And for 40 minutes, Zelensky just about managed.
The rationale for the argument he then instigated with JD Vance is not without merit. Zelensky’s primary concern has to be what are known as “security guarantees” - this is a fancy way of saying that Putin is a proven liar who can’t be trusted to stick to any agreement reached. Therefore, the only way to prevent another invasion is through a permanent presence of European or American troops in between Russia and Ukraine. He kept making this point over and over during the press conference and did so diplomatically enough.
But the way he challenged Vance directly in front of the cameras was catastrophically stupid. Sure, if you hate Trump and Vance and think they’re taking part in a Youtube debate, then Zelensky made a valid point. But this was not a debate. They’re all supposed to be on the same side. And the person who has the most to lose from them not feeling like they’re all on the same side is President Zelensky, or, more importantly, his nation. The arguments about security guarantees should have been made with tact, diplomacy, and in private.”
Is it likely that Putin would launch an invasion if NATO gave Ukraine a security guarantee and there were NATO troops in the country to enforce a ceasefire? No. All Trump’s doing is kicking the can down the road. His talk of a grand peace deal was nothing but hot air and now the risk of a wider war is much higher than it needs to be. Good job, Donald.
And what will stop Putin from invading?
NATO and Europe do not have five hundred thousand Ukrainians to contain Russia. Europe does not have an economy geared towards war, does not have enough weapons, equipment and ammunition.
Putin knows this, he knows that he can bite off small pieces of Europe and Europe will give in each time, fearing a big war.
He knows that China, Iran, North Korea are behind him and are trying to expand their influence in the Middle East and Africa.
The only way to make him abandon further aggression is a crushing defeat.
Is it likely that Putin would launch an invasion if NATO gave Ukraine a security guarantee and there were NATO troops in the country to enforce a ceasefire? If NATO troops sans American soldiers were standing between Russian forces and Ukrainian forces, it’s unlikely but still quite possible that Putin would decide to invade, especially if it’s clear that the United States wouldn’t come to the defense of those NATO forces. It’s a chance that nobody, especially the Europeans want to take.
If American forces stood between the Russian and Ukrainian forces it’s even less likely that Russia would violate a cease fire by invading again. But the reality is that there will never be American peacekeepers in Ukraine. Trump won’t put them there and neither would Biden if he was still President. My belief is that Harris might have agreed but she was a nincompoop.
In any case, one of the reason Putin invaded Ukraine was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Given his current advantageous military position, why would Putin acquiesce to a cease fire that puts NATO troops (with or without American forces) in Ukraine when that is precisely what Putin wanted to avoid in the first place?
Trump came up with an ingenuous plan that might have worked. Ukraine and the United States would be tied together by their economic interests over mineral rights. No troops would have been involved but perhaps, just perhaps, Putin would be discouraged from invading to avoid jeopardizing his budding relationship with the United States. To make this plan work, Putin needs to be brought in from the cold.
Sadly, it looks like Zelensky might have blown it. Hopefully the deal can be resurrected. It may be Ukraine’s only chance.
Trump had no plan, as Friday’s Oval Office burlesque made quite clear. The idea that his b.s. mineral deal would have given any security to Ukraine is simply ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is all the fear and trembling over what Russia might do. Russia isn’t a superpower. It’s a degenerate, declining despotism that hasn’t been able to defeat Ukraine, a much smaller country, despite three years of war. In a world ruled by rational calculation, Russia would go in fear and trembling of America and NATO. Putin gets away with his aggression only because he has apologists in the West who are tireless in their rationalizations of his actions, e.g. with the ridiculous claim that his invasion of Ukraine was inspired by fears of NATO aggression. Simply put, that’s b.s.
It’s true that Russia has had three years to defeat Ukraine and hasn’t succeeded although Russia is winning slowly but surely. Of course the United States had twenty years to defeat the Taliban and failed completely.
If Russia is so militarily incompetent, why aren’t France, the UK, Germany and the rest of the European NATO members willing to provide a buffer zone in the absence of an American backstop? If they agreed with you about the incompetence of the Russian military and if they were as convinced as you are about their own military competence you would think that they would be happy to man a buffer zone with their soldiers even if the United States was unwilling to come to the rescue if things go wrong.
My guess is that all of this is merely academic because Russia will never permit NATO forces in Ukraine. Trump’s plan may have been a longshot, but establishing a sphere of American economic influence in Ukraine and bringing Russia and Putin in from the cold is the only chance that Ukraine has. The only other likely outcome is total defeat for Ukraine.
Very likely true. But why did Zelensky even come to the meeting? Why didn't he decline? He made it look like he was there to sign and then started arguing. That was why. In my opinion, both Vance and Trump reacted with hostility. Just my take. The meeting was for assigning not for negotiations. So don't come if you're not going to sign.
Z was not invited to the so called negotiations in Saudi and must have known that his best shot at getting an acceptable deal would have to be face to face. Without the US backstopping him diplomatically and without US armaments the Ukraine position would be much weaker, and Putin more likely to hang in there for total victory. Of course Trump knew that, which is why he had Z over a barrel, and why he totally lost it when Z demurred.
I read that Zelensky assured Rubio he was ready to sign and that Rubio therefore talked Trump and Vance into allowing Zelensky to come (which would explain Rubio's obvious anger that day). At any rate, we shall see what comes of all of this now that Zelensky is at the table again. He does need US help to stay alive in all of this as he knows the EU will not do what is needed either (for all their finger pointing at the US), so like it or not, he needs to play WITH Trump not against him.
I apologize for typos because I was using voice to text. And I should have slowed down and edited. Sorry
M. Wig-Wag, you have written a fine evaluation of what went down in the Oval Office yesterday, except for one thing: Zelenskyy could not actually “look grateful” to Trump’s duplicitous diplomacy, because the only meaningful way he could do that, and eweasel out of the ambush, would be to accept the crappy results of that diplomacy: a meaningless cease-fire bought at the cost of Ukrainian sovereignty over its own mineral rights, on Trump’s terms. Once back in Ukraine he would have to disown the deal as soon as the so-called cease-fire agreement was broken by Putin.
Trump is a gangster. As a businessman he made crooked deals, and he continues in the same vein while occupying the WHite House. He should be in prison — maybe shot or hung or whatever is done to traitors nowadays — but instead he is allowed to sell out America’s global leadership for the sake of some staged photo-ops sucking up to dictators.
Let’s assume for the moment that everything you’ve said about Trump is true. He’s a mobster. He’s a cad. He’s a charlatan. He’s a duplicitous crook. How is any of this relevant to what happens to Ukraine?
The money and arms spigot flowing from the United States to Ukraine is about to slow to a trickle and that’s the best case scenario. Europe is running out of weapons to send Ukraine and even if it increases aid, it’s not in a position to make up for an American shortfall. To make matters worse, Ukraine is suffering from a manpower shortage and its infrastructure has been decimated.
In light of all of this, how can Ukraine survive as an independent country? It seems to me that under the circumstances the best thing it can hope for is an armistice. Absent an armistice and without adequate weaponry, Ukraine could easily be overrun by the Russians. Would Russia agree to an armistice with NATO peacekeepers (even without American soldiers)? Maybe, but I highly doubt it.
I get it R. Hodson; you think Trump is despicable. I hope your primal screams about Trump make you feel better. What you haven’t told us is how you think Ukraine can be saved under the current circumstances. Trump’s idea is to tie the United States and Ukraine together economically while incentivizing Putin to behave by bringing him in from the cold. Will it work? It’s hard to know. But if you (or any of Thomas’s other loyal readers) have a better idea, I’d love to hear it as long as the proposal is realistic under the circumstances.
Hello again Wig-Wag -- Yes, I agree that Trump's plan kinda-sorta ties the US to Ukraine (more, ties US commercial/financial interests to Ukraines - that's a big difference - more about the significance later), but 'bringing Putin in from the cold' doesn't incentivize him very much because we are already bringing Putin in, handing him a nice warm toddy and a seat by the fire, and unlocking all the drawers to America's secrets for him to access -- all this before Putin has signed onto anything.
The thing about making a deal for money is that, well, it's just money. A money-making deal on Ukrainian minerals might yield big profits for US companies, but Russia could conceivably offer a better deal, making much more money, if the US just saw its way clear to let some little green men slip over whatever temporary border all the parties solemnly swore to observe. A good deal for the US -- more money! -- and for Russia -- Ukrainian land and minerals! -- but too bad for the poor Ukrainians, about whom both the US and Russia see as expendables. Don't believe for a moment that Trump wouldn't let a little thing like a solemn treaty obligation stand in the way of personal enrichment via doing a few favors for his favorite despot.
Lastly I feel obliged to inform you, M. WIg-Wag, that I have uttered no primal screams concerning Despicable Don. (I do have an ongoing headache for which I blame the war, the Don and all social media in general).
As for coming up with a better idea than the Trump "Peace Plan" -- well, poisoning Putin's soup comes to mind, but that presents logistical problems for which no solution occurs to me a present.
I suppose that, given sufficient resources and some technical help, Ukraine could deploy more drones and enough robot armies to fend off the Russians. They might also continue their advance into Russia's Kursk region and sink some more of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, just to be really aggravating.
As for a practical solution to an historical problem that has troubled Eiurope for a millenium...hmmm...offer me an hourly contract and I'll study up on the possibilities -- right now I'm just spit-ballin'.
GOod night.
You assume that Russia is on the verge of winning the war. But no. The war is basically stalemated. The Russian Army has numerical superiority but nothing else. Over the past year it’s paid a high blood price for marginal gains. Russia can’t conquer Ukraine. It’s no longer a superpower. All Trump has done is prolong the war.
To paraphrase the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, 500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to defend them from 150 million Russians. It makes no sense.
No, they’re not. That’s the natcon narrative about NATO, and it’s b.s. The Atlantic Alliance kept the peace in Europe for three-quarters of a century in the face of the USSR. Now it faces that pitiful remnant, V. Putin’s Russia, the sick man of Europe, and America is supposed to go in fear and trembling of that twenty-first century version of the decrepit Habsburg Monarchy. What have we got to fear from that ramshackle despotism, that can’t even defeat Ukraine?
Probably the same thing that Russia has to fear about the U.S. armed forces that couldn’t defeat the Taliban given 20 years to accomplish the task. By the way, the remarks I paraphrased didn’t come from a natcon, it came from the Polish Prime Minister who is an enthusiastic supporter of Ukraine.
He came to sign on Friday. Why did he come to the White House then when he knew it was supposed to be for signing? Why didn't he turn it down? That's my question
Z is an optimist. Z is a brave man. Maybe he would have accepted the deal if some sort of supplemental conditions were agreed to by the US.
The issue is the EU, for all their pointing at the US, will never give Ukraine enough help to survive this situation. Ukraine needs Trump's help - like it or no- and Ukraine really cannot dictate what they want. They are currently, sadly, not winning against Russia. They would need much more to win. Neither the EU nor the US is prepared to eacalate this fight. So Z has to accept what is offered, honestly. Making demands and refusing offers did not make it easier for him, it made it harder. So, I do not see the point. At any rate, he came back and we shall see if this goes anywhere. Putin is winning, so unless the US offers Russia something it wants to leave this war, I do not see it happening. But maybe Trump is ready to concede something. What I do not know.
Unless this war is so unpopular in Russia that Putin needs it to be over. But, it seems to me that China is helping buffer Russia from economic impacts, so I do not see it. And I do not see what Trump could offer Putin that would entice him to end this war without getting more territory than currently taken. But maybe I am wrong. Who knows.
For Z, playing with Trump matters as, if Russia will not negotiate reasonably, Trump then will need to continue supporting Ukraine. Z was smart to apologize and return. Unless he grandstands again giving Trump an excuse to walk off as well if Russia will not play.
To actually win, and stop Ukrainians from being killed, either the war must end and concessions be made OR the EU and /or the US must help fight. I wish we would do the latter personally, but hardly any are willing to do so. If we were, Putin would never have started this entire venture.
I believe Putin would NEVER accept a real-deal peace agreement for Ukraine, mainly because it would include constraints on his ambitions. I believe him when he says that "Ukraine should not exist"; Putin wants a conquest, the complete erasure of a state and a nation, language culture and history.
If I am wrong, and he does agree to accept conditions, such as getting to keep occupied Donbass and Luhansk in return for ceasing his attacks on the rest of Ukraine, I am sure he will do so with the idea of waiting a few years to build up his forces ( read, wait for more 14 year olds to enter conscription age).
After a few years and Western supporters of Ukraine have "moved on", Putin could then renew the attacks under some transparently false accusation (such as kicking those dastardly Nazis out of Kiev, or teaching Ukrainians a lesson for refusing to speak Russian instead of their own language...how dare they?).
Of course, until that next phase of the so far not very successful "SMO" against Ukraine and Western encroachment, Putin and his toadies will whine about NATO on their doorstep and how unfair the West is towards poor, misunderstood Russia. The election of Trump 2.0 tells me that RUssia is more successful with their propaganda and "direct action" subversive techniques than they are fighting a conventional war against a much smaller a weaker enemy.
I agree with you that until Ukraine can get all the support they need from Europe, Z needs to continuing to work on 'handling' Trump, which unfortunately means a good deal of unseemly butt-kissing. Maybe some patriotic Ukrianinans could be persuaded to erect a large, gold-plated statue of Trump in the Maidan and invitr Trump to the unveiling. Not JD, hough, unless he learns how to behave in front of his betters.