The Spat

The curious thing about the recent public spat between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy is that the confrontation gave a very different impression depending on how much of the video a person watched. Those who have only seen the last ten minutes are certain that Trump and J. D. Vance are bullying jerks. Those who have seen the entire forty-five-minute video conclude that Zelenskyy is an insolent and demanding jerk.

I cannot tell who is correct. Perhaps both Trump and Zelenskyy were being jerks. Certainly, Trump and Vance did not help matters by apparently losing their tempers. Vance seemed to spark the confrontation by contrasting the Biden administration’s public though ineffectual condemnation of Putin with Trump’s more neutral but perhaps more effective approach. This angered Zelenskyy who pointed out that Putin had not honored previous agreements. Then the shouting began.

It became clear that Zelenskyy did not truly want a cease-fire with Russia. Zelenskyy clearly thought that by making his disagreements with the Trump administration public, he could pressure Trump into changing the details of the deal he was attempting to work out. That was a mistake. Biden was easily swayed by such pressure but Trump is not Biden and the attempt only angered him.

I think Trump is more right than wrong. Zelenskyy does not have the leverage he thinks he has. As President Trump pointed out, without the aid the United States has been providing Ukraine, Ukraine cannot fight Russia. Even with the aid being given by both America and Europe, Ukraine cannot defeat Russia, unless American or European troops become directly involved in fighting against Russia. America will not send soldiers to fight in Ukraine because we do not want to fight a world war with Russia. It is doubtful the Europeans will send any soldiers despite their assurances of standing with Ukraine. Since Ukraine cannot defeat Russia, Zelenskyy’s best option is to take whatever deal he is given.

President Trump correctly pointed out that he gave more concrete military aid to Ukraine than either Obama or Biden had done before the Russian invasion. While Obama sent sheets, as Trump noted, he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles. During the altercationTrump didn’t mention that he had also warned the Europeans against dependence on Russian oil and natural gas. The Europeans ignored him.

Just before the shouting erupted, President Zelenskyy grew increasingly frustrated because President Trump would not condemn Putin. As Trump pointed out, however, you cannot call someone Hitler and then expect to be able to negotiate with him. Putin is indeed a dictator, a murderer, and an aggressor. Calling Putin a dictator, a murderer, and an aggressor is not going to get him to the bargaining table. In an ideal world, the Russians would be driven out of Ukrainian territory and Putin would be overthrown, to be replaced by a free and democratic Russia. We don’t live in that ideal world. In the real world, we must deal with the dictator, murderer, and aggressor to end the killing.

Naturally, Trump’s even-handed approach renewed claims that he is on Putin’s side- or even a Russian agent. This is nonsense. There are two views on the Russian-Ukrainian War. One view, held by the Democrats, many Republicans, most of Europe, and what might be called the foreign policy establishment, is that Russia is the foremost threat to peace. Putin is the twenty-first version of Hitler who must be stopped at all costs.

Trump and the America First Republicans have a different view. For them, it is China that is the main threat to the United States. China is far more powerful economically and militarily than Russia. In this view, Russia is not an adversary but a potential ally against China. At the least, we must prevent Russia from forming an alliance with China against the United States.

In this view the war in Ukraine is a distraction, keeping too many people from seeing the larger picture. The longer the war continues, the longer we will be distracted from our true opponent, China. Sanctioning and ostracizing Russia only serves to push Russia into an alliance with China. While rewarding Russian aggression is distasteful, ultimately we need Russia to help contain China more than we need Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the Europeans believe they are defying the United States by threatening to go it alone in Ukraine. They are threatening to increase their own defense spending and perhaps send forces into Ukraine. Somehow, they fail to grasp that the United States has been asking them to shoulder more of their own defense burden for decades.

They seem to think that threatening to leave the “American Empire” will shame us into acceding to their wishes. But we never wanted an empire in Europe. We were quite content with our own hemisphere until the Europeans dragged us into their affairs by endangering global security with their incessant conflicts. We have kept the peace in Europe for eighty years with very little in the way of gratitude. If they wish to control their own affairs, they are welcome to it.

Of course, Europe cannot really go it alone, whatever its pretensions. There are only three countries that matter in today’s world: America, China, and Russia. In the end, Europe will have to align with one of the Big Three. If Europe continues to rely on Russian energy, rejecting American leadership will only place them under the influence of Russia. Perhaps they will have cause to regret their decision.

In the meantime, the killing will go on in Ukraine. Maybe Trump will get Zelenskyy to come back and negotiate. Most likely after he discovers the Europeans can only offer empty promises. Maybe Trump can get both sides in the conflict to see reason. If so, he will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize more than most recent recipients.

 

Ukraine

I have been reading the discussions on X about the war between Russia and Ukraine with a mixture of bemusement and exasperation. The bemusement is because I genuinely do not care who wins the war or how it turns out. If I had to pick a side, I would side with Ukraine. I have no love for Vladimir Putin and Russia did invade Ukraine. Ultimately, however, I do not see how the outcome matters that much to American interests. I care about American interests, not Ukrainian or Russian. The only flag I am going to have in my X account is the American flag.

I am exasperated because the champions of Ukraine seem to be doing their best to turn me in favor of Russia. I do not appreciate being called a Putin stooge because I am concerned that my tax dollars are disappearing, without any accountability into a sinkhole of graft. I am not a Russophile because I do not wish to fund a stalemate that is only costing lives. I particularly do not care to have my president accused of being a Russian asset because he wants to end the killing.

Contrary to what the fans of Zelenskyy believe, the Russo-Ukraine War is not a repeat of World War 2. Putin is a dictator and a thug, but he is not Hitler. Germany under Adolf Hitler was a threat to all of Europe and ultimately the world. Russia under Putin is not. Putin’s Russia is not the superpower the Soviet Union was. Russia under Putin is a third-rate power with a bloodied military and a dysfunctional economy. Its population is in a demographic death spiral. Even if Russia managed to conquer all of Ukraine, it would not be in a position to invade anyone else. The idea that we must stop Putin in Ukraine before he threatens to conquer Europe is nonsense.

Allusions to World War 2 confuse more than they clarify. Not every war is World War 2. Actually, few, if any wars are like World War 2. Few conflicts represent the clear fight of good against evil as the fight against Nazi Germany did. In fact, not even World War 2 was a clear fight of good against evil. Stalin’s Soviet Union was just as evil, by any standard, as Hitler’s Germany. The allies were not always unambiguously the good guys.

The fact that Russia invaded Ukraine makes the Russians the aggressors in this war. However, the matter may be more complicated than it appears. This is usually the case. Few acts of aggression are entirely unprovoked. The ethnic history of the region is complex. The territory has been ruled by many nations.

The current borders of Ukraine were drawn at the beginning of the Soviet Union. The Communists ostensibly intended the Soviet Union to be a federation of free and equal ethnicities. Large ethnic groups like the Ukrainians got their own “independent” Republics. Smaller groups got “autonomous” districts. In practice, the Communists were careful to include minority groups within these Republics and districts. If anyone tried to become truly independent, instant civil war was the intended result. This is one reason why the break-up of the Soviet Union was so contentious.

Ukraine is no exception to these circumstances. The borders of Ukraine include significant populations of Russians, particularly in the east. The Russians might well feel they have a historical claim to those reasons. To be sure, the current borders were affirmed by both countries in 1991, but Putin may now feel Russia was badly served by that agreement. It also seems that Russians faced discrimination in Ukraine.

None of this justifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it may serve to explain it. We believe Putin is in the wrong, but Putin doesn’t. it may be unpalatable, but any peace agreement is going to have to address Russia’s grievances, real or imagined, in some form.

Some have placed the blame for the war on NATO’s eastward expansion. There is some truth to this assertion. Again, this does not justify Russian aggression, but it does explain it. The heartland of Russia does not have defensible borders. This is one of the reasons Russia is the largest country in the world.

Historically Russian leaders have expanded their realm in every direction to find defensible borders and to conquer adversaries before being conquered. Russia has largely succeeded in the South and East. In the West, where Russia has faced more sophisticated opponents, it remains vulnerable. After the collapse of the Mongols, Russia’s greatest challenges have come from the West. Russia has been invaded from the West many times. The Teutonic Knights, Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, France under Napoleon, Germany under the Kaiser, and Hitler all threatened Russia. Even a peaceable ruler might feel unease at NATO expanding toward Russian borders. A paranoid ex-KGB man might feel positively imperiled by such expansion. Yet the United States has promoted NATO expansion eastward with little consideration for Russian concerns.

By itself, this is not, in fact, a good argument against NATO’s eastward expansion. The countries bordering Russia have good reason to fear Russian aggression, considering Russia’s response to potential threats has often been to absorb them. It may well be in America’s interests to prevent Russia from expanding westward. My concern with NATO’s eastern expansion has been rather that the further east NATO expands, the less credible its deterrence against war.

NATO was founded to deter war with the Soviet Union. The Soviets knew the United States was willing to send men to die for France and West Germany, which is why they never attacked Western Europe. Putin has good reason to believe America would fight to defend Poland or Hungary. But would we really send our soldiers to die for Lithuania or Georgia? Putin has reason to doubt it. If he believes NATO’s security guarantees are hollow, he may decide to call our bluff. Expanding NATO into Russia’s backyard could increase the likelihood of a war we do not want. This is why Ukraine cannot be allowed to join NATO.

If this were a movie, the Russian-Ukraine War would end with the plucky Ukrainians driving the Russians out of their country and Putin being overthrown. This would be the ideal ending. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world. In the real world, Ukraine does not appear to be capable of defeating the Russians. It is in a war of attrition that it will likely lose because Russia has more men and a larger economy. Only the direct intervention of the United States would end the war in Ukraine’s favor and we are not willing to risk a war with Russia.

The best achievable outcome may be Ukraine ceding some territory to Russia in exchange for peace. This seems to be what President Trump is trying to accomplish, though it is hard to tell what Trump is doing. This is not an ideal solution. It is not even a good solution. It is never a good idea to reward aggression and there is a chance that a future Russian leader with a revived military will try to grab more land. It is the best we can do at the moment.