Its a shame that all the clarity shown with Israel is missing when it comes to Ukraine. Unfortunately the Democrats offered no real alternative. Sticking to the mantra of "dont risk escalation" Biden consistently gave Ukraine sufficient support to avoid defeat but nowhere near enough to win and force Russia back. Now Trump comes in and seems to have a soft spot for Putin. Bad all around
I don't understand what, exactly, the US interest in Ukraine is. I don't understand what the military strategy is, and I don't understand what "winning" means - other than John Bolton's suggestion that Russia surrender its conquered Ukrainian land and Crimea and permit NATO on its border, even though it has a military advantage in this conflict. Wars should not be fought without a clear objective, and this one is as muddy as the Ukrainian plains in April.
Please don't tell me it's about "defending democracy." We could exhaust ourselves defending democracy in a world full of tyrannies, and Ukraine is hardly a shining example of democracy, given the 2014 Maidan Coup and the fact that Zellensky cancelled elections. The fact is he operates today as a self-appointed premier. If he is so popular, why not stand for re-election? If the Ukrainian people support this war so enthusiastically, why are Ukrainian youth fleeing the country to avoid it, and why did Zellensky have to fire generals for selling draft amnesty to worried parents?
It is silly to believe that Ukraine, even with hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign support, is going to prevail in a war of attrition with Russia, or fight to a draw and be able to claw back all of the land they've lost (I'm not including the Crimean peninsula in that statement, which Russia will never surrender).
I suspect this war has always been about expanding NATO into Ukraine (and gaining control of its mineral and agricultural assets in trade) and regime change in Russia (a long time fantasy of the evil Nuland/Vindman contingent in the State Dept and IC). That itself was a reversal of sound US policy during the HW Bush administration, which averred NATO expansion to the Russian border.
I do not support either of the Nuland-era objectives. I don't think they advance US interests in the near or long term, however they may profit certain western interests, and I think they defy common sense.
If the shoe were on the other foot, there is no way the US would tolerate Russia attaching Mexico or Canada in a military alliance, which is what NATO is. There is no way we would allow Russia to have dominion over their governments to gain control of their natural assets. Why is it so difficult to US policy-makers to admit the obvious fact that NATO presence in Ukraine is an important and understandable issue for Russia?
What has the west achieved in pursuing this policy for three years? The US-China-Russia triangulation of the pre-Cold War days has been reversed; Russia and China are now closer than ever, with the US as a common enemy. They are together encouraging/intimidating the BRICS against US interests.
Great job, Washington!
Finally, the main argument for the "interagency-consensus" - or the one that's publicly stated - always revolves around what a disreputable tyrant and rotten rat Putin is. He violates international norms! True enough. But the same is true of Xi, with his recurring threats and military exercises against Taiwan, turning islands in the South China Sea into air bases, not to mention his currency manipulation and violations of trade agreements, human rights, etc.
Putin exists. As long as he exists, a US President needs to deal with him. Joe Biden hadn't spoken to him since the war began, and he didn't speak to him during the 6-month run-up to the war when Putin was massing troops on the border, practically waving his arms and shouting that he might just invade Ukraine. A total failure of American diplomacy.
(As an aside: all those DC weekend warriors who want to depose him need to think more carefully about the men waiting in the wings to replace him).
It is not appeasement or selling out to engage an adversary to unwind or prevent war. The US has engaged with all manner of tyrants since 1945, usually to advance a strategic or economic interest. Supporting a bloody war out of a moral or personal distaste for Putin does neither.
I don't think there is any need to speculate about Donald Trump's feelings about Putin. He doesn't trust him except to pursue his self-interest and on the international stage, that's as far as trust should ever go. Trump regards him an adversary, but one who needs to be engaged and one whose military power should be respected, not mocked. You don't engage an adversary who is a nuclear equal by calling him nasty names and refusing to pick up the phone. Saving face is an important tool in settling wars.
I suspect Trump means what he says: he sees it as a pointless war, at least for the US, and one that could dangerously escalate on the battlefield if continued with NATO backing.
That said, what would I like to see happen? I'd like to see Ukraine and Russia reach an agreement, perhaps ceding the ethnic Russian region on the border, but otherwise maintaining its territorial integrity and its status as a sovereign state. I would like to see them hold elections, under international supervision so no one will suspect Russian (or American) interference, which would otherwise be certain.
Both the NATO nations and Russia should be able to agree that Ukraine will not be militarized by either party (and that includes bioweapons research) and that it will be able to make its own unilateral trade agreements with other nations.
Given its geographical and strategic position between Russia and NATO, Ukraine should be a Switzerland, not another Poland.
What to do if Russia breaks its word (as we never, ever do)? If the agreement is in his self interest, why would that happen? Russia is not an ideological or imperialist actor like the old Soviet Union or Iran. Their conduct of this war is plain evidence that they do not have the capacity to rebuild the old Soviet empire or conduct a broad conquest. The old strategy of containment - not regime change - is the one that should prevail here, and understanding an adversary's self-interest is the key to containment.
What is astonishing to me about the US hawks on Ukraine (across both parties) is their complete disinterest in understanding Putin as an adversary, as any of the great generals we've had studied their opposites.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, David. You've said a lot and I disagree with much of it.
But not much of it goes directly to what I've written here, so we can defer the broader debate for another time.
I have no objection to Trump trying to help settle this conflict. My objection is to what I see as his bias in favor of Russia. I think he's trying to placate Putin, rather than negotiate a balanced settlement.
I presented four reasons why I believe Trump is favoring Putin. The only one you address is Trump's declaration that he trusts Putin. You say you don't believe Trump really does. I said the same thing: "Trump isn’t stupid. Surely, he understands that Putin is untrustworthy."
But by saying he trusts Putin, Trump's laying the ground work for imposing a settlement that relies on trust of Putin -- trust that he won't, after a little while, violate the agreement and renew his aggression, as he has every other time he agreed to a ceasefire/settlement.
I agree that Putin doesn't have the capacity to rebuild the old Soviet empire in its entirety. I do think he can bite off some more pieces of it, including much if not all of Ukraine, after a decent interval in which the Russian economy recovers and its military regroups.
You ask why Putin would violate an agreement that's in his interest. He would because the the agreement likely will be in his interest precisely because it sets the stage for successful future violation. That's the same reason he has violated past ceasefires that purported to halt Russian aggression.
Finally, I reject attempts to equate Russia and the U.S. Yes, we have broken our word on a few occasions, usually by being less bellicose than we promised to be (e.g., Afghanistan). But we have nothing like the record of broken promises Putin has accumulated -- all of which involve being more bellicose than he promised to be.
Fair objections - it's a broad topic and your piece set off a variety of threads in my mind. It's a difficult topic because it's been demagogued to death.
But to the core of it - how you draw out an adversary, engage them, and conduct a negotiation - it has to begin with either a punch in the nose (Manhattan style), or an overture.
Saying you trust Putin is an overture and a reasonable one given the recent hostage exchange. It doesn't really mean you trust him; he's speaking not just to Putin, but to a much larger audience around Putin, including those in his own country. It also gives Putin an opportunity to respond in kind.
Getting Putin to the table is the first goal. That puts him in the spotlight, puts the issues on the table and puts pressure on both players to play their cards.
It may not work out. But it's worth a try.
Finally, I am not suggesting any equivalence between Russia and the US, except that both countries are seeking to maximize their influence and power. There is nothing controversial in that; that's what great powers do. Geopolitics is not the city council or even the US Senate; it's a brutal, tribal, amoral contest of power and advantage.
For the US to claim to be some kind of angel in that game is disingenuous. For three years, we've heard expert after expert assert that NATO expansion has nothing to do with Putin's behavior. How can that be so?
Like I say, put the shoe on the other foot. If I were Putin, I would absolutely draw the line at putting NATO at my border. That's not moral equivalence, it's just business.
I don't trust Putin, and I doubt Trump does, but I think there's something to be said for Trump's Russia first policy. In my opinion --- and I think in Trump's opinion, though it's always impossible to read Trump's mind ---- our goal in the war is, or should be, different from Ukraine's goal. He understandably wants to reclaim all of the land Russia has taken from Ukraine since 2014, while our goal should be battering Putin to the extent he won't attack Ukraine again, and then, possibly, come after some of the NATO countries. Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of troops, dead or injured, and it's economy has been strained by the war. More of the same looms ahead, with the likelihood neither can win on the battlefield any time soon. Clearly Putin can't be trusted, but I don't think the comparison to other Putin breached promises are apt. He could breach those promises because he knew he wouldn't face meaningful pushback. Here he has met meaningful and very painful pushback, with more to come. In these circumstances, I can envision a peace in which Putin will keep the peace because he doesn't want a replay of the last three years, particularly if the peace treaty includes some meaningful deterrents to further Russian aggression. With our goal in mind, it makes sense to start the negotiations with Russia, for if we start with Ukraine as a negotiating partner we will be stuck with positions Putin will never accept. He doesn't have the upper hand in the war, but his prospects are better than Ukraine's. Right now we're in the position that the United States and Europe are funding an endless war. It's time to end the war, and the road to peace begins in Moscow. Jim Dueholm
Its a shame that all the clarity shown with Israel is missing when it comes to Ukraine. Unfortunately the Democrats offered no real alternative. Sticking to the mantra of "dont risk escalation" Biden consistently gave Ukraine sufficient support to avoid defeat but nowhere near enough to win and force Russia back. Now Trump comes in and seems to have a soft spot for Putin. Bad all around
I don't understand what, exactly, the US interest in Ukraine is. I don't understand what the military strategy is, and I don't understand what "winning" means - other than John Bolton's suggestion that Russia surrender its conquered Ukrainian land and Crimea and permit NATO on its border, even though it has a military advantage in this conflict. Wars should not be fought without a clear objective, and this one is as muddy as the Ukrainian plains in April.
Please don't tell me it's about "defending democracy." We could exhaust ourselves defending democracy in a world full of tyrannies, and Ukraine is hardly a shining example of democracy, given the 2014 Maidan Coup and the fact that Zellensky cancelled elections. The fact is he operates today as a self-appointed premier. If he is so popular, why not stand for re-election? If the Ukrainian people support this war so enthusiastically, why are Ukrainian youth fleeing the country to avoid it, and why did Zellensky have to fire generals for selling draft amnesty to worried parents?
It is silly to believe that Ukraine, even with hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign support, is going to prevail in a war of attrition with Russia, or fight to a draw and be able to claw back all of the land they've lost (I'm not including the Crimean peninsula in that statement, which Russia will never surrender).
I suspect this war has always been about expanding NATO into Ukraine (and gaining control of its mineral and agricultural assets in trade) and regime change in Russia (a long time fantasy of the evil Nuland/Vindman contingent in the State Dept and IC). That itself was a reversal of sound US policy during the HW Bush administration, which averred NATO expansion to the Russian border.
I do not support either of the Nuland-era objectives. I don't think they advance US interests in the near or long term, however they may profit certain western interests, and I think they defy common sense.
If the shoe were on the other foot, there is no way the US would tolerate Russia attaching Mexico or Canada in a military alliance, which is what NATO is. There is no way we would allow Russia to have dominion over their governments to gain control of their natural assets. Why is it so difficult to US policy-makers to admit the obvious fact that NATO presence in Ukraine is an important and understandable issue for Russia?
What has the west achieved in pursuing this policy for three years? The US-China-Russia triangulation of the pre-Cold War days has been reversed; Russia and China are now closer than ever, with the US as a common enemy. They are together encouraging/intimidating the BRICS against US interests.
Great job, Washington!
Finally, the main argument for the "interagency-consensus" - or the one that's publicly stated - always revolves around what a disreputable tyrant and rotten rat Putin is. He violates international norms! True enough. But the same is true of Xi, with his recurring threats and military exercises against Taiwan, turning islands in the South China Sea into air bases, not to mention his currency manipulation and violations of trade agreements, human rights, etc.
Putin exists. As long as he exists, a US President needs to deal with him. Joe Biden hadn't spoken to him since the war began, and he didn't speak to him during the 6-month run-up to the war when Putin was massing troops on the border, practically waving his arms and shouting that he might just invade Ukraine. A total failure of American diplomacy.
(As an aside: all those DC weekend warriors who want to depose him need to think more carefully about the men waiting in the wings to replace him).
It is not appeasement or selling out to engage an adversary to unwind or prevent war. The US has engaged with all manner of tyrants since 1945, usually to advance a strategic or economic interest. Supporting a bloody war out of a moral or personal distaste for Putin does neither.
I don't think there is any need to speculate about Donald Trump's feelings about Putin. He doesn't trust him except to pursue his self-interest and on the international stage, that's as far as trust should ever go. Trump regards him an adversary, but one who needs to be engaged and one whose military power should be respected, not mocked. You don't engage an adversary who is a nuclear equal by calling him nasty names and refusing to pick up the phone. Saving face is an important tool in settling wars.
I suspect Trump means what he says: he sees it as a pointless war, at least for the US, and one that could dangerously escalate on the battlefield if continued with NATO backing.
That said, what would I like to see happen? I'd like to see Ukraine and Russia reach an agreement, perhaps ceding the ethnic Russian region on the border, but otherwise maintaining its territorial integrity and its status as a sovereign state. I would like to see them hold elections, under international supervision so no one will suspect Russian (or American) interference, which would otherwise be certain.
Both the NATO nations and Russia should be able to agree that Ukraine will not be militarized by either party (and that includes bioweapons research) and that it will be able to make its own unilateral trade agreements with other nations.
Given its geographical and strategic position between Russia and NATO, Ukraine should be a Switzerland, not another Poland.
What to do if Russia breaks its word (as we never, ever do)? If the agreement is in his self interest, why would that happen? Russia is not an ideological or imperialist actor like the old Soviet Union or Iran. Their conduct of this war is plain evidence that they do not have the capacity to rebuild the old Soviet empire or conduct a broad conquest. The old strategy of containment - not regime change - is the one that should prevail here, and understanding an adversary's self-interest is the key to containment.
What is astonishing to me about the US hawks on Ukraine (across both parties) is their complete disinterest in understanding Putin as an adversary, as any of the great generals we've had studied their opposites.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, David. You've said a lot and I disagree with much of it.
But not much of it goes directly to what I've written here, so we can defer the broader debate for another time.
I have no objection to Trump trying to help settle this conflict. My objection is to what I see as his bias in favor of Russia. I think he's trying to placate Putin, rather than negotiate a balanced settlement.
I presented four reasons why I believe Trump is favoring Putin. The only one you address is Trump's declaration that he trusts Putin. You say you don't believe Trump really does. I said the same thing: "Trump isn’t stupid. Surely, he understands that Putin is untrustworthy."
But by saying he trusts Putin, Trump's laying the ground work for imposing a settlement that relies on trust of Putin -- trust that he won't, after a little while, violate the agreement and renew his aggression, as he has every other time he agreed to a ceasefire/settlement.
I agree that Putin doesn't have the capacity to rebuild the old Soviet empire in its entirety. I do think he can bite off some more pieces of it, including much if not all of Ukraine, after a decent interval in which the Russian economy recovers and its military regroups.
You ask why Putin would violate an agreement that's in his interest. He would because the the agreement likely will be in his interest precisely because it sets the stage for successful future violation. That's the same reason he has violated past ceasefires that purported to halt Russian aggression.
Finally, I reject attempts to equate Russia and the U.S. Yes, we have broken our word on a few occasions, usually by being less bellicose than we promised to be (e.g., Afghanistan). But we have nothing like the record of broken promises Putin has accumulated -- all of which involve being more bellicose than he promised to be.
Fair objections - it's a broad topic and your piece set off a variety of threads in my mind. It's a difficult topic because it's been demagogued to death.
But to the core of it - how you draw out an adversary, engage them, and conduct a negotiation - it has to begin with either a punch in the nose (Manhattan style), or an overture.
Saying you trust Putin is an overture and a reasonable one given the recent hostage exchange. It doesn't really mean you trust him; he's speaking not just to Putin, but to a much larger audience around Putin, including those in his own country. It also gives Putin an opportunity to respond in kind.
Getting Putin to the table is the first goal. That puts him in the spotlight, puts the issues on the table and puts pressure on both players to play their cards.
It may not work out. But it's worth a try.
Finally, I am not suggesting any equivalence between Russia and the US, except that both countries are seeking to maximize their influence and power. There is nothing controversial in that; that's what great powers do. Geopolitics is not the city council or even the US Senate; it's a brutal, tribal, amoral contest of power and advantage.
For the US to claim to be some kind of angel in that game is disingenuous. For three years, we've heard expert after expert assert that NATO expansion has nothing to do with Putin's behavior. How can that be so?
Like I say, put the shoe on the other foot. If I were Putin, I would absolutely draw the line at putting NATO at my border. That's not moral equivalence, it's just business.
Thanks again, David.
I don't trust Putin, and I doubt Trump does, but I think there's something to be said for Trump's Russia first policy. In my opinion --- and I think in Trump's opinion, though it's always impossible to read Trump's mind ---- our goal in the war is, or should be, different from Ukraine's goal. He understandably wants to reclaim all of the land Russia has taken from Ukraine since 2014, while our goal should be battering Putin to the extent he won't attack Ukraine again, and then, possibly, come after some of the NATO countries. Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of troops, dead or injured, and it's economy has been strained by the war. More of the same looms ahead, with the likelihood neither can win on the battlefield any time soon. Clearly Putin can't be trusted, but I don't think the comparison to other Putin breached promises are apt. He could breach those promises because he knew he wouldn't face meaningful pushback. Here he has met meaningful and very painful pushback, with more to come. In these circumstances, I can envision a peace in which Putin will keep the peace because he doesn't want a replay of the last three years, particularly if the peace treaty includes some meaningful deterrents to further Russian aggression. With our goal in mind, it makes sense to start the negotiations with Russia, for if we start with Ukraine as a negotiating partner we will be stuck with positions Putin will never accept. He doesn't have the upper hand in the war, but his prospects are better than Ukraine's. Right now we're in the position that the United States and Europe are funding an endless war. It's time to end the war, and the road to peace begins in Moscow. Jim Dueholm