Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Tripoli]

Victor Hanson on Friday's kerfuffle.  While VDH is always worth reading, one particular point he makes must, (IMHO)  always be kept in mind IRT the Ukraine war: This is fundamentally about the containment of an aggressive China.  Trump wants to end the war and focus the US and Western alliance on the China threat.  He would also like to end the Russia alliance with China, and possibly eventually bring Russia into the Western camp. 


https://www.frontpagemag.com/10-bad-takeaways-from-the-zelenskyy-blow-up/

1. Zelenskyy does not grasp—or deliberately ignores—the bitter truth: those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American Left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those with whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (cf. his Scranton, Penn. campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being "briefed" by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront Trump, given their interests are not really Ukraine's as they feign.

2. Zelenskyy acts as if his agendas and ours are identical. So, he keeps insisting that he is fighting for us despite our two-ocean-distance that he mocks. We do have many shared interests with Ukraine, but not all by any means: Trump wants to "reset" with Russia and triangulate it against China. He seeks to avoid a 1962 DEFCON 2-like crisis over a proxy showdown in proximity to a nuclear rival. And he sincerely wants to end the deadlocked Stalingrad slaughterhouse for everyone's sake.

3. The Europeans (and Canada) are now talking loudly of a new muscular antithesis, independent of the U.S. Promises, promises—given that would require Europeans to prune back their social welfare state, frack, use nuclear, stop the green obsessions, and spend 3-5 percent of their GDP on defense. The U.S. does not just pay 16 percent of NATO's budget but also puts up with asymmetrical tariffs that result in a European Union trade surplus of $160 billion, plays the world cop patrolling sea-lanes and deterring terrorists and rogues states that otherwise might interrupt Europe's commercial networks abroad, as well as de facto including Europe under a nuclear umbrella of 6,500 nukes.

4. Zelenskyy must know that all of the once deal-stopping issues to peace have been de facto settled: Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO; and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbass and Crimea. So, the only two issues are a) how far will Putin be willing to withdraw to his 2022 borders and b) how will he be deterred? The first is answered by a commercial sector/tripwire, joint Ukrainian-US-Europe resource development corridor in Eastern Ukraine, coupled with a Korea-like DMZ; the second by the fact that Putin unlike his 2008 and 2014 invasions has now lost a million dead and wounded to a Ukraine that will remain thusly armed.

5. What are Zelenskyy's alternatives without much U.S. help—wait for a return of the Democrats to the White House in four years? Hope for a rearmed Europe? Pray for a Democratic House and a 3rd Vindman-like engineered Trump impeachment? Or swallow his pride, return to the White House, sign the rare-earth minerals deal, invite in the Euros (are they seriously willing to patrol a DMZ?), and hope Trump can warn Putin, as he did successfully between 2017-21, not to dare try it again?

6. If there is a cease fire, a commercial deal, a Euro ground presence, and influx of Western companies into Ukraine, would there be elections? And if so, would Zelenskyy and his party win? And if not, would there be a successor transparent government that would reveal exactly where all the Western financial aid money went?

7. Zelenskyy might see a model in Netanyahu. The Biden Administration was far harder on him than Trump is on Ukraine: suspending arms shipments, demanding cease-fires, prodding for a wartime, bipartisan cabinet, hammering Israel on collateral damage—none of which Westerners have demanded of Zelenskyy. Yet Netanyahu managed a hostile Biden, kept Israel close to its patron, and when visiting was gracious to his host. Netanyahu certainly would never before the global media have interrupted, and berated a host and patron president in the White House.

8. If Ukraine has alienated the U.S. what then is its strategic victory plan? Wait around for more Euros? Hold off an increasingly invigorated Russian military? Cede more territory? What, then, exactly are Zelenskyy's cards he seems to think are a winning hand?

9. If one views carefully all the 50-minute tape, most of it was going quite well—until Zelenskyy started correcting Vance firstly, and Trump secondly. By Ukraine-splaining to his hosts, and by his gestures, tone, and interruptions, he made it clear that he assumed that Trump was just more of the same compliant, clueless moneybags Biden waxen effigy. And that was naïve for such a supposedly worldly leader.

10. March 2025 is not March 2022, after the heroic saving of Kyiv—but three years and 1.5 million dead and wounded later. Zelenskyy is no longer the international heartthrob with the glamorous entourage. He has postponed elections, outlawed opposition media and parties, suspended habeas corpus and walked out of negotiations when he had an even hand in Spring 2022 and apparently even now when he does not in Spring 2025.

Quo vadis, Volodymyr?

[Jarhead0331]

As I said, justified or not, this was a huge diplomatic error on Zelensky's part.

[Crossroads]

This is where we are then. When trying to understand someone's viewpoint, just listen to what they say.

President Trump promised to end the war on the first day of his presidency. While we do not need to take this literally, his stated goal is a quick resolution and a shift to other matters. Just stop.

President Zelenskyi, on the other hand, does not agree to yet another ceasefire that would leave him waiting for the next Russian aggression. He would not and does not agree, so he is told he should be removed unless he "comes to his senses," meaning anything short of a quick agreement on Trump's current plan is unacceptable.

And as Zelenskyi "voiced his grievances", as someone who has signed multiple ceasefire and nonaggression pacts with Russia, he was put in his place. That seems to have been the plan. Graham, Rubio, and Kellogg were all quick to thank Mr President for putting America first, delivering the exact same message.

Many Europeans, still holding onto the way Biden handled things, may not have understood what happened. To them, it may have seemed like an ambush, while in reality both the White House and Kyiv were maybe just sticking to their earlier talking points.

President Zelenskyi, who has been part of all the private discussions so far, likely knew the options on the table: appease and accept the cost the current or immediate plan implies, or stay in the fight.

For European leaders, as Professor Greene pointed out in my quotes a few pages back, the question now is whether keeping Ukraine afloat until a fairer peace can be negotiated will make the US just a more unwilling and unhappy ally or an outright adversary.

Attitudes are hardening. And not just about Ukraine and Russia, tariffs and trade wars are looming too. What a time to be alive.

[Jarhead0331]

Stupid question though...What strategic disadvantage does a cease fire have with respect to Ukraine? To me, a cease fire is a strategic win regardless of how Russia responds. If Russia agrees to it and honors it, the break in combat will stop the murder and destruction and give Ukraine a chance to reassess, rest, resupply, remobilize, etc. True, it lets Russia do the same, but I think given the present situation on the ground, Ukraine needs this more than Russia does.

on the other hand, if Russia were to violate the cease fire, or refuse to enter into one altogether, then this would make Trump look bad and likely cause him to shift his public ire to Russia and Putin. In other words, it would cede the moral high ground on the peace effort to Ukraine and Zelensky. So from 30,000 feet, it looks like it would be a strategic and a diplomatic win for Ukraine, no matter how Russia may respond.

Therefore, I'm back at square one with the conclusion that the handling of the oval office conference was a serious diplomatic gaffe on the part of Ukraine.

[Crossroads]

At least for now I view this as just another round of negotiations. This time around it was done publicly.

Ceasefire has not been ruled out completely, Zelenskyi seems to want stronger promises for security guarantees. Which I believe really are not about boots on the ground, but concrete deals on rearmament. That is what he has been saying all along. Give us arms.

So he is seeing out things, still. Now, the European plan for the next steps.

As for that theatre from Friday, it is still so difficult to get accustomed to how Trump does things. But as he said, it was a good TV show. I don't quite agree, but then again, I have never been big on reality tv of any kind.

[JasonPratt]

I thought I saw something in a sidebar about Z returning to the WH for the deal today, but I haven't been able to verify it -- there are a lot of truly 'fake' news outlets on the internet now trolling for clicks.

I saw the VDH post earlier this weekend but it was on Facebook and I couldn't figure out how to link to it (or even copy-paste it since I don't use FB on my computer), but I figured someone else would find it. 

I do want to plant a little flag on this point: "Zelenskyy must know that all of the once deal-stopping issues to peace have been de facto settled: Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO; and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbass and Crimea."

I know this was stated in context of being a deal-stopping issue. But a president did supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take (and so far solidly keep) a substantial part of the Kursk Oblast! And good for Ukraine, as far as I'm concerned. But I would expect that's affecting potential peace or even merely cease-fire deals in more than one way, pro and/or con. Does Russia care more about the Donetsk Basin than Kursk? I'm not sure they'd even care more about the Crimea than Kursk (and taking the Donbas was largely a factor for properly supplying Crimea.) 

[Anguille]

Again, i don't believe one second that Russia is ready for a cease fire. They want the five oblasts in their entirety which is not the case. Ukraine wants a cease fire but does not trust Russia, neither do I.

[JudgeDredd]

It's down to Europe to support Ukraine. If they look around, they might find their spine lying around somewhere.

As for the recent European meeting in the UK - how the actual **** did Starmer (and/or whomever was tasked with organising it) leave out Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

Starmer to aide "I know - let's have a meeting between the European leaders to unite Europe - but leave Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania off the list...we'll have them begging at the door to be part of the group. Oh - and let's not forget, whatever the fuck we come up with, make sure you put a footnote in there that we need the US"   

[JudgeDredd]

Again, i don't believe one second that Russia is ready for a cease fire. They want the five oblasts in their entirety which is not the case. Ukraine wants a cease fire but does not trust Russia, neither do I.

Absolutely not. Though I imagine a very favourable one allowing them to cede nothing AND build up their forces whilst releasing all that capital they have and unfreezing held money and removing sanctions...that wouldn't be too bad for them.

As for a ceasefire being just as good for Ukraine as for Russia...unlikely. It's highly unlikely Ukraine could keep up with military output with Russia and so when whatever ceasefire ended, Russia would be back more powerful and far stringer than Ukraine could ever be given the same timeline.

{deleted}
I deleted some text because...though it was relevant,  I think it may have crossed the line into politics - and was conjecture anyway.

[FarAway Sooner]

We can argue the optics of the live TV broadcast until we're blue in the face.  Since nobody knows Trump's motives, and his actions and comments are consistently all over the place, we'd never find much clarity. 

When I step back and look at how the US seems to be handling the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the moment, the only accurate description of our policy that comes to mind is "appeasement".

 

[Con]

We can argue the optics of the live TV broadcast until we're blue in the face.  Since nobody knows Trump's motives, and his actions and comments are consistently all over the place, we'd never find much clarity. 

When I step back and look at how the US seems to be handling the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the moment, the only accurate description of our policy that comes to mind is "appeasement".

 

Id use inept and out of depth
Putin is going to run rings around them since they have a boss that does not have a cohesive message, a strategy that he shares (I'll concede we dont know what he does behind closed doors but he has a long history of just winging it) and little grasp or interest in anything longterm.  Peace now because it was a campaign promise and the next admin can deal with a new embolden and rebuilt Russia.
As for Russia we all know that they will not honor the ceasefire but continue to push asymmetric warfare and threats at all levels to Ukrainian society.  There will still be a lot of fighting and dying it will all be done with maybe a veneer of deniable plausibility and this administration has more to lose by acknowledging it so they will ignoring it instead.

[Pete Dero]

the only accurate description of our policy that comes to mind is "appeasement".

[planetbrain]

I would dearly love to see Russia brought to it's knees & face consequences for their actions but that is apparently not going to happen (& maybe, reasonably, cannot).
It appears instead now that Russia will only end up in a much stronger position.
Nearly all the top players in Trump's admin. are openly slagging Zelenskyy. I believe that the conditions for a Russian ceasefire are known & getting rid of Z is right up there.
So much for the UN, NATO, the EU and the USA. I hate the way things are going! And it's going to get much worse.
What is the matter with humanity?

ps

What are Superman's current thoughts on "Truth, Justice and the American way"?
Could someone ask him?

[Father Ted]

Americans aren't as stupid as you think. The majority of Americans supported Trump because for too long leaders put the interests of outsiders ahead of the interests of the American people and it began to be felt at home through inflation, rising crime, decaying infrastructure, etc. The average American supports Ukraine in its war against Russia, but for better or for worse, they believe that it is Ukraine's war, not our own. And with so many domestic problems that really impact their daily lives, continuing to engage in billion dollar philanthropy is a bridge too far. This may or may not be a shortsighted view, but most people cannot logically justify putting out foreign house fires, while our own home is in flames. This is what i believe the "average" person in the heartland of the country feels.

TBF I'm not trying to paint Americans as stupid.  What I'm saying is that Trump has identified the sentiments you have posted above and understood that espousing them will be popular to the electorate - that's all.
What I do find bizarre is the apparently sudden acceptance of Putin as an "alright guy".  I mean there was a really anti-Russia vibe in 2022 (to bring it home, there were discussions about whether we (Grogs) should continue to buy games made in Russia post their invasion), but now they're not the baddies?

[JasonPratt]

In case anyone cares, here's Ben Shapiro's analysis of the meeting, which (aside from commercials) he goes over for about 45 minutes and then spends most of the rest of his show covering fallout from the meeting.

He's pretty balanced I think, but does come down on the side of Z wanting to sabotage the meeting on camera and succeeding at it, probably to get what he hoped would be a better deal from the EU.

Ben has a lot of context behind that argument, including the context of the first 40 minutes of the meeting where Z often says provocative things and T&V patiently sit there like adults and let Z vent -- which at least partially undermines the theory that they meant to sabotage him (since they could have dropped the hammer on him multiple times before they finally did).

That said, Ben is also sympathetic for Z's situation and critical of T&V (and their entourage) at key points, and takes the (I think relatively uncommon?) position that Vance behaved the worst overall!

Since I'm not one of those people who think Ben speaks fast, I listen to this at x2:

After going through it, I don't know that I agree with Ben that Pres Z was trying to sabotage the deal: I think he believed he had to say things that fit what he understands the reality to be on the ground. But there seems to be a report that Z had met with a strong anti-Trump Democrat (Ben says who, I forget his name) who passed along advice to scuttle the talks for whatever reason, so -- if that's true -- I can understand Ben's suspicion that Z scuttled the talks using Vance's comments as a basis. Though even then Ben has doubts, and definitely blames Vance for "throwing two grenades" to set things off.

Anyway, I just saw a report that upon hearing Z's comments about the war definitely going to last a very, very long time at the European summit yesterday, T warned that was the worst possible thing Z could have said as that would only lead to more killing of Ukrainians by the Russians -- and today Trump paused Ukrainian aid for review.  (It also allowed Trump to point again that he thinks Z has no interest in stopping the fight as long as Z has sufficient military support especially from America if he can get it but even from Europe.)

So y'know. Another day ending in why.