by Greg Mayer
As someone interested in history, I am both interested and wary when analogies are drawn among different periods and events in history, especially applying the past to the present day. And, as another prelude, I should note that I have said here before at WEIT that Bret Stephens is wrong about most things. But when he’s right, he’s right, and he’s right about yesterday’s cringe-inducing display of depravity by the erstwhile leaders of the free world, the President and Vice President of the United States. [JAC: You can find Stephens’s piece archived here.] I found Stephens’ historical analogy to the pre-Pearl Harbor meeting between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which led to the Atlantic Charter, whose principles include that there should be “no aggrandizement, territorial or other” and that “sovereign rights and self-government [shall be] restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them”, very clarifying. Money quote:
If Roosevelt had told Churchill to sue for peace on any terms with Adolf Hitler and to fork over Britain’s coal reserves to the United States in exchange for no American security guarantees, it might have approximated what Trump did to Zelensky.
In response to this outrage, the Democrats have released a bullet-pointed statement about eggs, along with a fundraising text letting you know that they are working in a bipartisan manner for all Americans.
Your deadpan is appreciated.
Trump’s offer to Zelensky amounted to “surrender to Russia and let them keep what they’ve already taken, and maybe they’ll stop invading, although we won’t offer a security guarantee of that. Also, give us half your minerals.”
Trump was acting as Putin’s spokesman, offering a deal they couldn’t refuse. Yet Zelensky had the temerity to refuse, a level of courage that Trump simply can’t comprehend.
Unless the EU wants to commit to war with Russia, what exactly is the alternative to Russia keeping what they have, other than Russia possibly taking more?
You see, Dr. B, one needn’t have an effective military plan to take back the lost land when one is not in the military. You simply stomp your feet like a little child and scream “It’s not fair” or “He’s a meany” and then you send other people and their kids to die for your idealism.
I would love to know what Christopher Cavoli, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is advising Trump right now on the prospects of Ukrainian military advances—both with and without US assistance.
Some people prefer to die fighting than to be slaughtered like sheep.
And they should–when it is their homes and their loved ones. Everyone else needs both a reason and the means to succeed. And in war, success is never guaranteed. Sometimes the better part of valor is in swallowing pride and hatred to save oneself to fight another day.
But speaking of preferring to die, why is it that Ukraine must conscript men into its army? (I understand why Russia must do so.) Shouldn’t all the men of fighting age be racing to the front line? Shouldn’t all the mothers be pushing them to go? And if they are not, then why should anyone else defend their homes for them? Perhaps the men in Ukraine have always known the situation better than do their cheerleaders who dangled NATO membership and other false promises under their noses and now stand away safely from a distance and yell “Fight!”
The alternative is bleeding Russia dry until they find an excuse to withdraw, as the mujahideen did in Afghanistan from 1980 – 88.
Ukraine is bleeding faster than Russia (relative to its size). Also they do not have the terrain of Afghanistan, they are not capable of sustaining the kind of asymmetric guerilla warfare that worked there.
And the economic sanctions would force Russia to back down fast enough only if they were truly global and applied by everybody who matters.
And that is a theoretical scenario where the US does not betray its allies. This is a highly ironic situation, because in 2022 the US pushed some reluctant European countries (most notably Germany) into the conflict and then the vast majority of the combined (direct and indirect) cost of the support was shouldered by Europe, and now they are left with the mess and called “looooooosers!”. But they are right about an important thing: Europe is weak, in multiple ways.
Russia is teetering. Just a few days ago in Kupiansk, they were reduced to sending already-wounded soldiers on crutches back into battle. And since then Ukraine has struck essential infrastructure first neutralizing defense systems via drones in Crimea and then into Russia itself, to petrol refineries, now taking out about 10% of Russian capabilities. This is not the first time they’ve struck deep into Russia.
Simply destroy Russia’s economy; coincidently, Ukraine is working on that very thing.
As you say, one should be wary of historical analogies, but I am currently strongly reminded of the Yalta agreement, which in my youth was widely regarded, especially by Poles and other central Europeans, as a betrayal by Washington and Moscow in a deal made over their heads.
It is still regarded this way here in Eastern Europe. But I understand the unwillingness of Americans to send more of their soldiers. However, Ukraine didn’t ask for a single US soldier, just for support – and it is refused.
Masterful dialectical synthesis produces one hell of a sublation.
A whole lot o’ master sublation goin’ on, eh?
[ stunned ]
All American should feel ashamed at the way Trump and Vance mistreated and bullied Zelensky, I fear that many will feel nothing after seeing this disgraceful behavior. We seem to be well along a path to authoritarian rule.
The neocons have switched to team blue. It is no accident that Liz Cheney was embraced by Kamala Harris. Even Dick Cheney endorsed Harris. And Bret Stephens is a proud neocon.
I think if you find yourself agreeing with the neocons, you might want to check your priors.
“Neocon” is a slur that needs to be retired. Please use standard English.
It is not a slur. Bret Stephens himself uses the word “neocons” here:
Will Democrats Become Born-Again Neocons?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/opinion/democrats-neocons.html
It was an appropriate term decades ago, Frau K.
I agree it should be retired now. It risks applying 25 year old left/right frames on current more nuanced circumstances.
best,
D.A.
NYC
It isn’t about the word.
The point is that the same people who cheered on the war in Iraq are now banging the drums for war in Ukraine. They have just switched parties.
https://www.newsweek.com/neocons-woke-left-are-joining-hands-leading-us-woke-war-iii-opinion-1748947
Some of the people I’ve seen using it were using it as a word for Jews. The implication being that Jews were getting America involved in foreign wars for some self-serving nefarious purpose. This group were serious anti-Semites.
No, I do not subscribe to guilt by association.
Lysander, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
How can anyone not feel ashamed of what America has recently become after watching that press session? Trump and Vance trying to extort half the minerals in Ukraine with no security guarantees, insulting a beleaguered ally leader for the way he dressed (even though Elon Musk dressed even more informally in the Oval Office a few days earlier), wrongly saying he had not thanked the US enough, telling him he will have to be on the losing end of any agreement, and basically leaving him out of any decision-making about the terms of peace…this was an affront to human decency. This is one catastrophe we could all see coming, and I do not think our allies will ever trust us again. And they shouldn’t trust us; we’ve just given the green light to the Russians to do whatever they want (and this isn’t a fluke; Trump has previously said exactly that), and on top of that, we are trying to strong-arm a sovereign country to give us their resources, one of the most brazen moves in recent history. I was astonished to watch it even though I knew Trump was going to screw it up.
Right now the U.S. has no vital interest in Ukraine. The point of the minerals deal is to give the U.S. a vital interest. That is the security guarantee.
Countries have interests, not friends. It wasn’t long ago the the U.S. and Russia were allies against Germany and Japan. Now Germany and Japan are our allies.
Germany and Japan would not be our allies now if they were invading sovereign countries friendly to us.
The vital interest we have is to protect Europe from wars led by expansive powers, especially one whose ultimate target is us. This is even more important now, in an age of ballistic missiles and strategic bombers, than in WWII.
The US does have a vital interest in Ukraine, along with the NATO countries, in containing Putin’s aggressions and in weakening Russia’s global standing. As destructive as the Ukraine invasion has been, it has significantly weakened Russia’s military and economy to the West’s advantage, and at only the cost of military supplies. Most of what the US has provided was spent on weapons from US manufacturers, aiding its economy.
The war is tragic in the lives lost and property destroyed, but it is more to Russia’s advantage to end it than it is to the West, because it has cost Russia far more than it has to the West. This is why Putin is using Trump to try to end it. If he were winning, he wouldn’t be pursuing it.
Huh, I did not know that vital interests and extortion are basically the same thing.
Ends v Means
Speaking as a foreigner with scrupulous efforts to be non-partisan I think you have it right here, Lysander.
Not only do countries not have friends, they don’t have morals, either, not in their intercourse with foreign states. Diplomacy is usually carried out by the executive, behind closed doors without input from elected legislators, because many of the decisions are truly shameful and based on the Nation’s deepest secrets. But necessary. The only test that history will apply is Did it work?
As to the claim below that Germany and Japan would not be your allies were they invading sovereign countries…..they were doing that only a couple of years before they become your allies, and during those two years we were all doing our level best to annihilate them. That’s about as amoral a shift as can be imagined.
“As to the claim below that Germany and Japan would not be your allies were they invading sovereign countries…..they were doing that only a couple of years before they become your allies, and during those two years we were all doing our level best to annihilate them. That’s about as amoral a shift as can be imagined.”
Of course we did our utmost to stop them when they were a danger to the rest of the world, but we did not annihalate them, we rebuilt them, they became relatively moral actors on the world stage, and our allies. What is “amoral” about that shift?
End of my comments as per Da Roolz.
Countries do not have morals. I wonder, then, do individuals have morals? Do those extend only to fellow citizens? Or is it just the people one likes or cares about? Do countries have morals with respect to internal affairs, so to speak, i.e., regarding treatment of their populations?
Regarding U.S. “interests” and the actions the U.S. takes to secure them, I contemplate what strategic or vital interest the U.S. had for invading Grenada (10/83), not a country sharing a border with the U.S. but off the coast of Venezuela.
Notwithstanding the ambit of the Monroe Doctrine (declared from Mount Olympus by one human primate), what reasonably constitutes a proper “sphere of influence” physical distance of Venezuela from the U.S. (the distance to the U.S. Virgin Islands?) justifying U.S. intervention? (I take it that Tierra del Fuego is not too far away.) For the last half century or so the Monroe Doctrine has effectively been extended worldwide.
Had some foreign military alliance – via the premier of the preeminent nation controlling the alliance – declared at the conclusion of one of its summits that Grenada WOULD join that alliance, and the U.S. accordingly and predictably invaded to prevent that? (One reason the Reagan administration gave was that U.S. medical students were at risk. Perhaps some nominal but sufficient number of USers should be in every country on the globe so that, to that extent, the U.S. can justify any invasion.)
I thought Trump’s and Vance’s treatment of Zelenskyy quite vile. How primate (if not Christian?) of them and not a few of their fellow Amuricuns who applaud that behavior? (As Darwin said, we bear the stamp of our lowly origin.)
I heard on a podcast last night that there was a private meeting prior to the Oval Office fiasco. Is that correct? What did the participants discuss in that private meeting? One reasonably thinks that participants would feel freer to voice their concerns in a private meeting as compared to a manipulated, nationally-broadcast Oval Office dog-and-pony show. While the MSM tut-tutted the White House for the Oval Office spectacle, don’t you know the media generally would like to be flies on the private meeting wall and duly and righteously report it? Were the private meeting conversations even more “robust” and “bracing” then those at the Oval Office convocation?
To purely speculate, did Zelenskyy dutifully and obediently acquiesce during the private meeting but, enroute to the Oval Office and contemplating the likely permanent affects of the Oval Office “optics,” decide that he was determined that he was not going to broadcast to the world that he was wilting like a salted snail before The Great And Powerful Oz? (Re: that golden statue of Trump in the AI video Trump posted)?
A NY Times reporter alleged in an article that Vance mocked Zelenskyy’s military recruitment efforts when he confronted Zelenskyy about Ukrainian authorities physical forcing Ukrainians into the military. Was what Vance said not true? I gather that it’s true from what I’ve heard and read. I assume that U.S. citizens would not tolerate that from U.S. authorities, yet the MSM can’t bring itself to condemn it in Ukraine. I remember hearing Blinken comment on it. The best he could say was to the effect that Ukraine had military recruitment challenges. In any event, how many more Ukrainians ought die in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy goals (as articulated by Lloyd Austin and the foreign policy establishment during the several past decades) of containing, minimizing, breaking up, and effecting regime change in Russia? Maybe Boris Johnson will once again ride to the rescue and convince Zelenskyy to keep fighting (and sacrificing Ukrainians).
FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAITH NOT (for the time being, as I do not wish to violate Da Roolz.)
It is no security guarantee. Trump had a minerals deal with Afghanistan, and nevertheless decided to give the country to the Taliban two years later.
We should call it what it is, blackmail. Although if Ukraine pays up, there is still no guarantee of security from the blackmailer. As expected, Trump is using the presidency as a personal money-making machine. He doesn’t care about the people of Ukraine OR the people of the USA.
Re: Neocons
Defending Ukraine is not the same as toppling Saddam Hussein. It was widely known that with Saddam gone the different ethnic and religeous groups would cause chaos. When Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022 the country came together, including Russian speakers.
If you find Trump consistently agreeing with Putin, you might want to think twice about consistently supporting Trump.
I think if you find yourself agreeing with Putin, you might want to check your priors.
Yesterday this story attracted a huge number of commenters at the conservative leaning WSJ. However I noticed a lot of the regular commenters were missing—they sensed there was simply no defense. A few tried the “Trump just wants peace” line but it’s inadequate.
Trump is clearly siding with Putin here—that’s what’s so appalling, not that he wants peace (a reasonable goal).
Not only that but told lies: he increased the amount the US has provided; he claimed that Russia did not start the war; neglected to mention that the E.U. had provided more than the US.
When Zelenskyy objected to the lies, Trump lost his cool. JD Vance joined in.
Never in American history has a President sided with an autocratic aggressor in this fashion.
I agree, though we do have a long history of siding with autocrats (Batista, Somoza, Duvalier, Trujillo, Pinochet, F. Marcos, MSB, Shah of Iran, Diem, amongst others). Curiously most of the dictators on this list were tolerated because they were anti-Russian. We are in uncharted territory now that we are siding with Russia.
Noble thoughts … anyone got a viable plan for implementing this, in the instance of Putin vs Ukraine?
Here’s a thought. I don’t know how viable it might be, and it certainly is not noble. There are many Ukrainian families who have been physically and morally devastated by the war. Ukraine could recruit a volunteer Suicide Grandma Squad, including some fluent Russian speakers. They could be trained to infiltrate Russia and simultaneously attack a few high-value targets, via assassinations, sabotage (e.g. the Moscow metro), etc., bringing the war home.
I’ve thought that it shouldn’t be hard to recruit some Russian grandmothers, mothers and wives of Russian soldiers who are dead thanks to P*tin, and who could find a way for him to go out like Rasputin.
Weapons, ammo, sanctions, lowering oil price, volunteers.
Helping Ukraine really, not in tea spoons like Biden did and Europeans still do.
Do you know that when Biden finally gave Ukraine Patriots (after swearing he would never do it), his people were so sure that Ukraine would never get F-16 that they removed the parts needed for recognition? So when Biden finally gave Ukraine F-16 (after swearing he would never do it), one of them was shot by their own Patriot because they could not recognize it, and a brilliant young pilot named Oleksiy Mes died.
Thank you for writing and posting that. The behavior by T. (I refuse to write his name) and Vance was so despicable that one can hardly comprehend it. Yes, it was a set-up so the idiot could behave in his typical way to demonstrate how powerful he is. I hope Starner and his cohort rescind the second invitation to meet with the king. As Jennifer Rubin said in a podcast, “Just when one thinks one has hit rock bottom, one realizes there is no rock bottom.”
Read how the Putin mouthpiece Moscow Times is spinning it:
Trump showed restraint against “scumbag” Zelenskyy
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/02/28/trump-showed-restraint-against-scumbag-zelensky-russian-mfa-spokeswoman-says-a88211
I hope very much that there is negative political fallout for the president, where voice pieces of the moderate right grow a spine and publicly rebukes this selling out to a brutal dictator. I don’t see much hope for the farther right in doing so, but it would be great if I’ve miss-read that.
Well, here’s to hoping!
The Free Press published an article on this and chastised Zelensky for not keeping his mouth shut, while also chastising Trump and Vance for their behavior. And yet the comments section is overwhelmingly supportive of what Trump did, calling Zelensky arrogant and entitled. Many also think that it’s not in the US interest to defend the Ukraine against Putin anymore. I’m surprised how many people seem to side with Trump on how he behaved, and at the extent to which the MAGA types will go to excuse Trump’s behavior.
We’ll have to wait for some polls, but I’m betting that the majority in the US will side with Zelensky. The comments sections in the Washington Post overwhelmingly do so and consistently condemn Trump, I imagine to Bezos’ frustration.
The comment section at TFP is full of MAGA cultists. It’s considerably worse than the Wall Street Journal.
It’s discouraging.
When it comes to the musical merit of the national anthems, Ukraine beats Russia hands down. If you have a taste, as I do, for ponderous Slavic harmony, this music is quite fine.
I’m reminded that there is a verse in “America the Beautiful” by Katherine Lee Bates that Americans (as I perceive it) are quite averse to singing (I’ve never heard it sung publicly):
“America, America,
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.”
Perhaps this aversion is because the verse is not particularly refulgent with “American Exceptionalism.”
I grudgingly defer to the USSR/Russian anthem as top notch (I’m no Russophile) but songs they got em.
Listen to Hatikva from Israel or Kimigayo of Japan – both sublime.
D.A.
NYC
Very nice. Thanks.
There is no doubt in my mind that this cringe worthy display of arrogance and ugly grandstanding only increased the world’s admiration for Zelensky. He handled these bombastic outbursts with grace and an almost super human restraint. His stature rose on the world stage, while trump and his side kick revealed how really awful they are and an embarrassment to basic decency and post world war two values.
+1
Not every politician who defies an attacker is Churchill, nor is every dictator Hitler. It is a tiresome idiom on the part of the Left that everything that they find objection is, without nuance, the Worst Thing Ever, and that assertion brooks no contradiction.
Here is a synopsis of events leading up to the Ukraine war, and highlighting Russia’s desire, across regimes, of a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia.
It’s worth pointing out, too, the Zelensky had said two time prior to this meeting that he was ready to sign the minerals agreement, and, yet again, reneged. The point of the agreement is, among other things, to give Ukraine status as a strategic, economic partner, whose independence would be a US national interest.
OK I am not privy to the agreement details to which he agreed, nor I am privy to the agreement he declined.
Are you?
Why do the ex-Soviet countries want to join NATO? Because of special operations like Ukraine, perhaps. USA may not want Russian bases on its borders, but one certainly does not want Russia on your European border.
If the point was to give the US a national interest, why not a trade agreement instead of just give us half of your minerals. This was plain and simple extortion.
Russia has no business having desires in other countries. It is free to work on its defences within its own borders. Other countries are free to do as they please and join any alliances they please. If Russia wants other countries to join its club, it should be a country worth joining with and on that grounds it is failing.
Hear hear.
(I’m probably violating Da Roolz, but I succumb to the temptation, and – unlike Trump and Musk – apologize.)
Nor does the U.S. have business having desires (regime change?) in other countries. That the U.S. “works on its own defenses within its own borders” is evidenced by its minimum 700 bases and other facilities worldwide.
Where has Russia independently or in cahoots with some foreign military alliance during the three decades prior to 2022 sought to expand westward? (I acknowledge the southeastward Russian invasion of Georgia, in response to George W. Bush’s announcement after the 2008 NATO Bucharest summit that Ukraine and Georgia WOULD join NATO, and of course, in the spirit of “American Exceptionalism,” Bush declining to give Russia any consideration in the matter.)
I purely speculate that you have heard Boris Johnson’s comments of the last few days. He employed the “club” trope, declaring to the effect that any country’s sovereignty allows it to join any alliance, and to harbor other countries’ troops on its soil. A couple of years ago Anthony Blinken averred that the U.S. believed that any country should join any alliance it chooses. As I have beat to death in another posting on this thread (to the no doubt great irritation and fatigue of readers), that declaration was belied by, e.g., the U.S. invasion of Grenada, among not a few other invasions and regime changes in Latin America and elsewhere. Was the U.S. invasion prompted by Grenada’s imminent intention to join a foreign military alliance? Per George H.W. Bush, “What we say goes.”
I haven’t heard BoJo recently, but it just may be a common way how this is phrased. I am from one of those European countries where Russia has its interests but (besides a group of pro-Russian people) the country is leaning westwards. Here I disagree that it’s NATO or EU expanding east, it’s eastern countries joining a team that will give them more benefits and in all cases this has been done by undisputed referendums or democratically elected governments.
But I would agree that the US did many similar things, for example in South America, and it is absolutely justified criticizing them for it.
He would sign an agreement that contained assurances that the US would defend the Ukraine against further attacks by Russia. The agreement presented by Trump left those out.
Ukraine already had a defense agreement with the US when it gave up its nukes.
And if you think Trump plans to honor that agreement, I have nice oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Russia always has a desire to be surrounded by neutral buffer countries, which it then gobbles, and of course needs a new belt of neutral buffer countries, and so on ad infinitum or until someone stops it.
When my country was a satellite of the Soviet Union, we had jokes that Russians feel safe about their borders only if the borders keep expanding, and only if there are Russia troops at both sides of the border. Some 50-yr-old jokes are still actual.
They’ve only been an expansionist power for, a trifling several centuries by now.
Tsarist Russia didn’t get that size by invitation of Siberians, the USSR didn’t swell like a cancer by tea-cakes and consentual happy agreements.
Current Russia is the same as historical Russia – colonialist and expansionist. By violence. This is the magic of “Russki Mir” (Russian World). You too can have your cities destroyed and you people enslaved for Slavic Supremacy.
Who’d turn down that deal?
F—ers.
D.A .
NYC
I particularly liked the Cold War one about a nation surrounded by hostile Communist dictatorships, that nation being Russia.
Sachs’ talk (to impressionable students) starts off by parroting the now popular conspiracy theory that when “the Soviet Union ended in 1991 an agreement was made that NATO will not move one inch eastward.”
Now the Soviet Union ended in December 1991 and this supposed agreement occurred on February 9, 1990 between Baker and Gorbachev. So an agreement pertaining to what would happen in Eastern Europe after the dissolution of the USSR was supposedly made almost two years before the dissolution? How did this supposed agreement occur?
Did Gorbachev, who was fully committed to keeping the USSR together, go to Baker and say: ‘Hey there. So despite being known as a very strong negotiator who never lets on any weakness. I am going to let you in on a little secret – the USSR is in far more trouble than you know. So instead of working on those problems with party members at home, I am going to sit down with you, my biggest enemy, and tell you that we are cooked – and this discussion will also let those unhappy Eastern European members know that they should start agitating hard for separation, and will also let all my enemies in the party know that they should try to immediately overthrow me (probably before I can return to Moscow). And this should all help out with my current negotiations over the reunification of Germany. Why am I doing this? Is it because I am dumbest and most insane leader ever to exist? Apparently. But 35 years from now. Boy will they be talking about this discussion.’
Seriously, this is exactly the basis of this extremely popular conspiracy theory. It is barking mad. But it shows the power of Putin’s propaganda in the world today.
This so-called agreement (which never made it into any signed agreement) was about, and only about, NATO in East Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany. Gorbachev has said himself that the status of NATO in Eastern Europe was never discussed with the USSR (then or afterward). Gorbachev pulled Warsaw troops out of Eastern Germany over the next 4 years or so. In exchange he received significant badly needed financial aid which he felt would stabilize the USSR financially and keep it going in perpetuity. NATO never permanently placed any troops in East Germany until Russia took over Crimea in 2014, and did not place offensive or nuclear weapons there.
David Sachs. HAHAHHA. Next you’ll be quoting me Merschimer.
Gimme a break.
D.A.
NYC
It looks more like what Roosevelt and Churchill ( more reluctantly) did to Poland. Or when Polish resistance fighter Jan Karski reported to Roosevelt about the extermination of Jews, and Roosevelt asked, with concern about the fate of horses in Poland.
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they have tried everything else.”
Apocraphylly Churchill
Leaving aside the uncivil treatment of President Zelensky, the most neutral summary of the Trump/Vance policy could be: extending respect to Putin as a “partner in peace-making”; trying to restore good US relations with Russia; not quite quitting NATO, but still breaking dramatically with nearly all the nations of NATO. It has been little noticed that this policy largely follows that of Jill Stein, ANSWER, Code Pink, US groupuscules with the words “Peace” and “Action” in their titles, and Jeremy Corbyn and his Stop The War Coalition in Britain— all conventionally labelled as on the “far Left”. The horseshoe conception of politics seems to apply better every day. When can we expect President Trump to nominate Jill Stein for an official post, perhaps in the National Intelligence agency?
I would like it very much if this post is reposted exactly as it is, together with the comments, in exactly 12m time, especially if those commenting now comment again. I am not taking a position, and I love coming to this website. I am interested in this as an exercise in social science.
It will still be here in 12 months. Bookmark it and check it next year. The comment section becomes read only after a few days.
The first thing one needs to recognize when in an abusive relationship is that they’re in an abusive relationship. Ukraine is in an abusive relationship with the USA. The next thing to do is leave the abusive relationship. Leaving the relationship will be challenging, but better than remaining in it. I hope Ukraine and Europe find the wherewithal to do what needs to be done and make the world a better place by doing so.
The British had to pay the USA a lot for their help after the war.
the Germans, on the other hand, paid nothing.
Yep, the last payment was in 2006. And the US gained a lot land for bases all over the world in exchange for a few dodgy destroyers.
Oh I don’t know Andrea. Germany and Japan are some of our closest allies. Some of our best markets and best friends. I’ll cut them a break for seventy years of that on a few bad debts.
And they REALLY hated us at one point. If we save the Ukrainians they’ll be putting up statues of our leaders like the Clinton one in Kosovo.
I’m not so sure our enemies in the Islamosphere can be brought around. They’re playing a larger, cosmic existential game about where they’ll spend eternity which is a tougher nut to crack than Germany or Japan.
THAT… my friends at WEIT… is the big picture and it is civilizational.
D.A.
NYC
I am hardly a MAGA type. I loathe Trump.
But, to be honest, I think Zelensky acted in a pretty stupid way. The minerals deal is pretty silly – it gives the US a 50% stake on a fund which will aim to use this mineral wealth to aid in reconstructing the country. But, there is no actual mining going on in Ukraine right now and it will take many years for the capability to actually exist. If the mines are actually developed, it is highly likely that Trump will not be in office when they actually become profitable. Very reasonably, Ukraine could get out of the deal at that time, especially if the next President is a Democrat. All this deal is doing is providing a stupid PR victory for the megalomaniac who is the current President who can claim to have put “America First”.
If you watch the full video of the blow up, you notice that the PR show was wrapping up when Zelensky needlessly felt the need to remind everyone that Putin is a terrible person (of course the media kept bringing this up repeatedly prior to Zelensky’s lecture), leading to the dust up. As Trump himself pointed out earlier in the Q&A, what is the actual point in calling Putin various names? Yes, he is a terrible person. But, so are the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In a raw scale of evil (including the terrorism that they sponsor around the world), I am unconvinced that Putin is considerably worse than these people. But, there is no large scale clamoring in the media (or academia) to label these leaders as “killers” or whatnot. Indeed, many of our universities happily accept large sums from these people. This is also true for the Europeans who are happy to host the oily sheikhs in their fine capitals. Similarly, while my sympathies lie with Israel in the Israel/Palestine conflict, Netanyahu is not exactly an honorable man – he has been indicted for corruption and he has used every possible corrupt trick to stay in power and push Israel towards a theocracy.
So if our society can do business with these guys without calling them names, why not do the same with Putin?
Zelensky could have signed this rather empty deal, walked away with a vague US promise and given The Greatest President Ever a Super Big PR Victory. Sadly, the only real way to end this conflict is for Ukraine to nominally give up control over the conquered areas (they could still fund guerrilla war there if they had local support) and have European peacekeepers patrol the border. Throw in a nice big Trump hotel on the beautiful border with a nice big wall and you will have Trump wanting to keep the peace there while he is in office.
Instead of this realpolitik, he decide to engage in an emotional moralistic argument with a psychopath who cannot be moved by such sentiments.
Really? Give up the rights to half his minerals in exchange for a handshake?
This was staged. Trump and Vance deliberately bullied Zelensky so that they would either force him to admit their right and capitulate, or do what he did so that they would blame their anti-Ukrainian position on him.
If he did anything wrong, it was coming to the USA and walking into the trap.
Walking into a trap or not (and he may have predicted it), Zelensky did show Europe Trump’s hand, and I think that’s a win. Trump et al. are for Putin. It’s clear Europe can no longer rely on America as an ally or friend: America is no longer a democratic partner in this increasingly autocratic/plutocratic/theocratic world we find ourselves in. So I appreciate Zelensky’s courage standing up to America’s newfound and shameless abasement.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned that Trump’s esteemed Secretary of State, Mr. Rubio, was sitting there, silent and castrated in the midst of all this treachery. The Trump effect.
For years after WW2 the UK was repaying the US despite the Marshel Plan
Ukraine will be super happy to repay if the USA fights for it.
Yeah, I recall that Zelensky intended as a means of paying off and starting a great trade deal.
Instead, they went full Robber Baron on him.
My evolving thesis:
Who is Donald Trump in the Ukraine/Russian war?
1. According to Bill O’Reilly, Trump is a man who wants win every contest he enters. And he can win without other people losing. He is also a man who appears to believe that it is better to temporarily lose if it allows you to live to fight another day than it is to risk your life fighting for any cause of any sort.
2. Trump thinks wars are an unintelligent way to get what you want and dying in wars is for losers.
3. Trump appears to be convinced that Ukraine is the weakest contestant in the war with Russia so should be willing to let the strongest contestants and interested parties decide its fate to save more Ukrainians from death in a contest they can’t win on their own.
4. Trump uses psychological tactics like charm, bullying, ridicule and fantasy truths to get a win over other contestants.
5. Trump wants to win a Nobel Peace Prize. His hands on involvement in the Ukraine war is orchestrated to help him in that quest. And, his public temper tantrum in the meeting with Zelenskyy was probably, in no small part, performative and tactical, seeking to discover his visitor’s weaknesses so he could exploit them. And to convince Americans watching the exchange that Zelenskyy was disrespectful to him and by extension, to all Americans.
6. Trump’s definition of winning in international affairs will upend other international relationships as well and turn America’s understanding of its role in the world on its head in the process.
At least we know now how JD Vance’s home was like when he was a kid. Hard to believe he’s such a role model family man now.
I find it hard to make sense of what happened. Thanks for the article.
Ever had to deal with a determined bully? That tells you most of what you need to know here.
Thank you for this post, Prof. Coyne. And thanks to all commenters who support Ukraine.
I suspect you will get your wish and the war will continue. I sincerely hope that Ukraine doesn’t become another Grozny.
Greg Mayer: “As someone interested in history, I am both interested and wary when analogies are drawn among different periods and events in history . . .”
If you haven’t already read it, then you might really enjoy Yuen Foong Khong’s book “Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965.” A more general treatment is found in Neustadt and May, “Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers.”
Here in Britain, Prime Minister Keir Starmer greeted President Zelenskyy with a warm hug outside Downing Street on Saturday, and pledged the British government’s continued support for Ukraine. On Sunday, President Zelenskyy will meet King Charles. That’s bound to annoy the Orange Felon.
Meanwhile, even the right-wing media such as the Mail are now calling for Tr*mp’s state visit invitation to be rescinded.
Someone posted earlier that countries don’t have friends, they have interests. Which is true, but applies to countries other than the US too.
The lesson from this for Europe is that America is no longer a reliable ally, NATO is dead, and they are on their own. The first step is rearmament, which we’re beginning to see. The second is going to be hedging their bets. Europe would be wise to keep relations cordial with China. Neither America nor China are reliable, but perhaps one can be played off against the other when necessary.
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are in an awkward position too. Does anyone really think America will help Taiwan if China attacks it? Do they seek some sort of accommodation with China? Or try to get India on board?
The final lesson may prove to be that nuclear weapons are the only meaningful security guarantee in this new multipolar, transactional world order. (Ukraine gave theirs up in the 1990s in return for worthless guarantees from America and Russia). So perhaps we’ll see a wave of nuclear proliferation, too.
I’ll take that bet, as another foreigner, so no jingoistic partisan feelings involved.
I bet 1000 US dollars or British pounds, your choice, against the proposition that President Trump will stay in office beyond noon on Inauguration Day 2029 through unconstitutional methods. Because that would require a military coup to prevent the transfer of power, I think that’s a sucker bet if you take the other side of it, but it’s your money.
I agree Leslie – take some of my action on that bet – were I a betting man. I’m not, I have more delectable, less mathematically ignorant hobbies. 🙂
But Trump staying or trying to stay in office past 2028 is not in play as a probable possibility. Not gonna happen for many reasons.
I think people suggesting this end-of-world drama are exhibiting their own TDS on a system that is larger than even Trump. (I suffer from a mild form of TDS – not bc I’m crazy – just bc he’s wildly unpredictable and I dislike that).
Leslie we should go to a casino with our respective $50 bucks to have fun with.
You got a lot of casinos up there I heard…..
heheeh
best,
D.A.
NYC
Sorry. This got attached to you by mistake. It was intended for Peter Fisher down at 32.
It is pretty obvious to me what happened in the Oval Office. Before he was elected, Trump promised he would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. Of course, he was just bluffing. Since he couldn’t admit this, he had to find a scapegoat. That scapegoat is Zelenskyy.
Next up: Trump will make inflation go away in no time. No, he won’t, but his supporters will find excuses for him. The MAGA crowd are really like a primitive tribe who have endless faith in their witch doctor. It’s never the witch doctor’s fault when his cures don’t work, there is always some hidden factor that spoils everything. In reality, the attempted cures (trade wars) only make things worse.
https://images.genius.com/ad96aae4405beecb3f96d496d7971b87.863x863x1.jpg
Gossipy inside scuttlebutt of the excellent Joy Reid firing. Good riddance to a wildly racist and antisemitic shouty low IQ jerk! Made my day.
That noxious chap Maddow is next I hope. 🙂
Why do we left-of-centers tolerate the festering boils on our side as we huck rocks at idiot rightists like any-way-the-wind-blows Lindsay Graeme or that turd-tool Ted Cruz?
Daily Mail UK
https://archive.ph/DGCmD
D.A.
NYC
From here in the UK, almost everyone seems to be utterly appalled and shocked by what happened on Friday. I’m sorry to say this but it looks as if America has lost all credibility. From here it looks unstable and unreliable as an ally.
I would hesitate to say that NATO is dead, Trump’s term will only last four years (Unless he violates his oath of office and overturns the constitution – and who’d bet against that) but you guys elect people on the basis of their fame in bit-part movies, or reality television or on the basis of who their father is, without necessarily, anything to do with their intelligence, political acumen, or diplomatic abilities.
Trump is by far the worst choice of president yet, he is unbelievably stupid, not only does he completely misunderstand the world’s history, the principles on which the western civilisation is built, or how the world order works. He is so consumed with his hubris – and his country’s, imagined, supreme status – he thinks that Putin will be deterred from invading Ukraine because of his respect for Trump and because there are a few thousand US nationals in Ukraine, when in fact I suspect Putin despises Trump, and would dearly love to put one over on him, and the hated US, and it is entirely possible that he is playing Trump for the fool he is.
On the other hand, and it pains me to say this, without Trump’s intervention the war could have continued for years. So we do have him to thank for that.
The only possible hope here is, despite what Trump thinks, Putin knows his game is up. The Russian economy has tanked, inflation is rising and his people are feeling it, the Russians know about the massive human losses on their side and, as I understand it, his advances into Ukraine are slowing. Victory, if achievable at all, is a very, very long way away. Russia is a nation with a history of revolutions and destabilisation. Putin knows he can only push his people so far. Maybe – just maybe – he knows he has to make a deal. Let’s hope this latter scenario is the right one.
The war is unfortunately not over. But Europe has pledged more support.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03/02/us/trump-news-zelensky-europe
Hegseth Orders Pentagon to Stop Offensive Cyberoperations Against Russia
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/02/us/politics/hegseth-cyber-russia-trump-putin.html
I’ll take that bet. See under Tim at 29. (My oops.)
The comment was more rhetorical than an actual bet. You may well be right that it will never come to that, but Trump did say he would stay on if the American people wanted him, and his history suggests he doesn’t otherwise seem to value rules or laws. If the outcome depends on what the military wants, then that has echoes of tin-pot dictatorships and a recipe for civil war. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
I’m amazed that people are “utterly appalled and shocked” by seeing some alpha males get aggressive.
I’m curious — when Biden said that he and Netanyahu would need to have a “come to Jesus moment” — what did people think that meant? I don’t remember people being “appalled and shocked” that Biden might exchange some sharp words with Bibi.