Friday, July 11, 2025

Wall of shame

Hard to believe but there is a US government page praising Trump for bullying Zelensky in the Oval Office:

"Support Pours in for President Trump, VP Vance’s America First Strength

The White House, 


Today, President Donald J. Trump and Vice President JD Vance made clear to the world that the United States will not be taken advantage of — a sentiment echoed by the cabinet and members of Congress from across the country.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “Thank you @POTUS for standing up for America in a way that no President has ever had the courage to do before. Thank you for putting America First. America is with you!”

Sen. Lindsey Graham: “I’ve never been more proud of President Trump for showing the American people — and the world — you don’t trifle with this man … He wanted to get a ceasefire. He wants to end the war and Zelenskyy felt like he needed to bait Trump in the Oval Office.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem: “I am so proud of our Commander-in-Chief. Thank you President @RealDonaldTrump and @VP for standing up for America. We will not tolerate the political games and disrespect of America. America is back.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Amen, Mr. President.”

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent: “Thank you, President Trump, for standing up for the American people and our nation on the global stage.”

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum: “Thank you @POTUS for standing strong for America while working to end the killing abroad.”

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins: “American leadership is back — in the Oval Office — and on the world stage. FEARLESS. BOLD. RELENTLESS. We will save America.”

Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy: “Thank you @POTUS for standing up for the United States. The American people will not stand for disrespect of our President, Oval Office, or our generous taxpayers. Peace is only accomplished through strength and our allies need to understand that.”

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner: “President Trump is standing up for forgotten Americans, not endless foreign wars. Biden’s legacy — increased homelessness, record high interest rates, all-time highs to buy a house, and Americans footing the bill. That ended January 20th. The American people are behind @POTUS.”

Sen. Jim Banks: “Thank you President Trump for standing up for America!”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn: “Thank you President Trump and VP Vance or standing up for America.”

Sen. Bill Hagerty: “The United States of America will no longer be taken for granted. The contrast between the last four years and now could not be more clear. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Sen. Josh Hawley: “Remember: the U.S. Senate has repeatedly and for years voted BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to Ukraine with no strings attached and with no true oversight. It’s time for some ACCOUNTABILITY.”

Sen. Jim Justice: “Glad to have a @POTUS and @VP in charge that absolutely put America FIRST.”

Sen. Mike Lee: “Thank you for standing up for OUR COUNTRY and putting America first, President Trump and Vice President Vance!”

Sen. Bernie Moreno: “Finally we have a President who will speak the TRUTH and stand up against Washington’s endless wars. American taxpayers have been funding this war, it’s time to stop the killing and stop risking World War 3!”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin: “Under this President— the greatest, freest, and most generous nation on Earth is putting America First. I’d encourage anyone who has a problem with that to reevaluate their priorities.”

Sen. Rick Scott: “Thank you President Trump for standing up for America.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt: “It’s about time we have leaders who say what the American people are really thinking and prioritize the core national interests of America. The American taxpayer is tapped out, and President Trump and VP Vance are spot on.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville: “Thank you Mr. President and Vice President Vance for putting America first”

Majority Leader Steve Scalise: “President Trump is fighting for PEACE around the world and is putting America First as our best negotiator—he’s the only one to get Russia to the table to consider a serious and lasting peace agreement with Ukraine.”

Chairwoman Lisa McClain: “President Trump inherited this war. He has said from the beginning he wants to bring peace. @POTUS is a strong leader, and I know his negotiations will bring a deal together.”

Rep. Andy Biggs: “Gone are the days of foreign leaders walking all over us and snubbing their noses at America’s generosity. There’s a new President and Vice President in town. World leaders would be wise to humble themselves.”

Rep. Tim Burchett: “Job well done by @realDonaldTrump and our VP @JDVance. Give respect to get respect.”

Rep. Mike Collins: “Thank God we finally have a @POTUS who is willing to put America FIRST. Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Rep. Eli Crane: “America First. Thank you, President Trump and Vice President Vance.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw: “If you are the leader of a country in a dire situation with no path to peace without American support, do not come into the Oval Office and argue with the President of the United States in public. Just a word of advice.”

Rep. Andrew Clyde: “President Trump and Vice President Vance are standing up for the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Our great country will NOT be taken advantage of or disrespected.”

Rep. Byron Donalds: “This is what putting the AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST looks like. Thank you @realdonaldtrump and @JDVance for standing up for our nation.”

Rep. Brandon Gill: “America First in action. Thank you, @realdonaldtrump and @JDVance, for prioritizing our people and for promoting peace!”

Rep. Lance Gooden: “President @realdonaldtrump and Vice President @JDVance will never allow the United States to be disrespected or taken advantage of. America First, always!”

Rep. Paul Gosar: “Thank you, Mr. President and Vice President. The days of the USA getting pushed around are clearly over.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene: “President Trump and Vice President Vance will put America First every single time. Putting Zelensky in his place while he disrespects the U.S. in the Oval Office is exactly what American leadership should look like. This is what We The People want to see!”

Rep. Pat Harrigan: “America’s priorities come first. @POTUS and @VP made it clear—Ukraine’s interests are not America’s interests. We’ve spent hundreds of billions with no accountability, no clear objectives, and no plan for peace. It’s time to put America first and end this war.”

Rep. Mark Harris: “Thank you, President Trump and Vice President Vance, for boldly defending America’s interests. This is PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH”

Rep. Diana Harshbarger: “The act displayed by Zelenskyy in the Oval Office was nothing short of a massive show of disrespect for the Trump Administration and the American people. Despite this, President Trump and Vice President Vance are holding the line and trying to end this conflict peacefully. God bless them both.”

Rep. Wesley Hunt: “You do NOT blame the people fighting to save your country! America leads—no more excuses!”

Rep. Nancy Mace: “Peace through strength live from the Oval”

Rep. Thomas Massie: “Is this the end of Zelensky’s presidency? He hitched his wagon to Biden and the deep state. They lost and now he doesn’t seem to be playing his cards well.”

Rep. Brian Mast: “American won’t be taken advantage of and America won’t be taken for granted. Thank you, President Trump and Vice President Vance for standing up for America.”

Rep. Addison McDowell: “AMERICA AND THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER ALWAYS COME FIRST”

Rep. Mary Miller: “What has happened in Ukraine is a travesty. Joe Biden threw “gas on the fire.” Ukraine lost an entire generation, and Americans hundreds of billions in tax dollars. We thank God for giving us strong leadership. Thank you @POTUS and @VP for putting America’s interests first, and working to end this terrible war.”

Rep. Riley Moore: “It is amazing to have a President and VP who put America First! Thank you President Trump and VP Vance for fighting for our country and our people!”

Rep. Troy Nehls: “President Trump and Vice President Vance are standing up for the American people. This is America First leadership on display. Thank you POTUS and VP!”

Rep. Ralph Norman: “THIS is strong leadership that is ensuring we put the American people FIRST. Thank you @realDonaldTrump and @JDVance for standing up for our nation.”

Rep. Andy Ogles: “This is what it looks like to stand up for America.”

Rep. Mike Rulli: “You don’t have the cards!”

Rep. Keith Self: “TOUGH and FAIR. The world is witnessing American leadership back in the White House. Thank you President Trump and Vice President Vance.”

Rep. Victoria Spartz: “Zelensky is doing a serious disservice to the Ukrainian people insulting the American President and the American people – just to appease Europeans and increase his low polling in Ukraine after he failed miserably to defend his country. This is not a theater act but a real war!”

Rep. Greg Steube: “Ridiculous grandstanding by Zelensky in the Oval Office. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to defend Ukraine. And this is the thanks the American people get?  It’s time to end this war.”

Rep. Marlin Stutzman: “TRUMP IS THE GREATEST NEGOTIATOR AMERICA HAS EVER HAD! AMERICA IS BEING MADE GREAT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES!”

Rep. Andy Weber: “America FIRST. Strong, unapologetic leadership on the world stage is BACK!”

Rep. Joe Wilson: “I agree with President Trump that Ukrainian soldiers have been unbelievably brave! Critical Minerals Deal a major step forward toward ending the war responsibly. More sanctions on Russia & arms for Ukraine create maximum leverage for FULL land swap Art of the Deal!”"

The last quote is an honorable exception.

 

Posted by at No comments:

Snyder about Vance in Greenland

From the Guardian:

"Vance’s posturing in Greenland was not just morally wrong. It was strategically disastrous

, 31 Mar 2025

Elon Musk and Donald Trump inherited a state with unprecedented power and functionality, and are taking it apart. They also inherited a set of alliances and relationships that underpinned the largest economy in world history. This too they are breaking.

The American vice-president, JD Vance, visited a US base in Greenland for three hours on Friday, along with his wife. National security adviser Mike Waltz and his wife also went along. Fresh from using an unsafe social media platform to carry out an entirely unnecessary group chat in which they leaked sensitive data about an ongoing military attack to a reporter, and thereby allegedly breaking the law, Waltz and Vance perhaps hoped to change the subject by tagging along on a trip that was initially billed as Vance’s wife watching a dogsled race.

The overall context was Trump’s persistent claim that America must take Greenland, which is an autonomous region of Denmark. The original plan had been that Usha Vance would visit Greenlanders, apparently on the logic that the second lady would be an effective animatrice of colonial subjection; but none of them wanted to see her, and Greenland’s businesses refused to serve as a backdrop to photo ops or even to serve the uninvited Americans. So, instead, the US couples made a very quick visit to Pituffik space base. (Pete Hegseth, another group chatter, stayed home; but his wife was in the news as well, as an unorthodox participant in sensitive military discussions.)

At the base, in the far north of the island, the US visitors had pictures taken of themselves and ate lunch with servicemen and women. They treated the base as the backdrop to a press conference where they could say things they already thought; nothing was experienced, nothing was learned, nothing sensible was said. Vance, who never left the base, and has never before visited Greenland, was quite sure how Greenlanders should live. He made a political appeal to Greenlanders, none of whom was present, or anywhere near him. He claimed that Denmark was not protecting the security of Greenlanders in the Arctic, and that the US would. Greenland should therefore join the US.

It takes some patience to unwind all of the nonsense here.

The base at Pituffik (formerly Thule) only exists because Denmark permitted the US to build it at a sensitive time. It has served for decades as a central part of the US’s nuclear armoury and then as an early-warning system against Soviet and then Russian nuclear attack.

When Vance says that Denmark is not protecting Greenland and the base, he is wishing away generations of cooperation, as well as the NATO alliance itself. Denmark was a founding member of Nato, and it is already the US’s job to defend Denmark and Greenland, just as it is Denmark’s job (as with other members) to defend them in return.

Americans might chuckle at that idea, but such arrogance is unwarranted. We are the only ones ever to have invoked article 5, the mutual defence obligation of the NATO treaty, after 9/11; and our European allies did respond. Per capita, almost as many Danish soldiers were killed in the Afghan war as were American soldiers. Do we remember them? Thank them?

The threat in the Arctic invoked by Vance is Russia; and of course defending against a Russian attack is the NATO mission. But right now the US is supporting Russia in its war against Ukraine. No one is doing more to contain the Russian threat than Ukraine. Indeed, Ukraine is in effect fulfilling the entire NATO mission, right now, by absorbing a huge Russian attack. But Vance opposes helping Ukraine, spreads Russian propaganda about Ukraine, and is best known for yelling at Ukraine’s president in the Oval Office. On the base, Vance blamed the killing in Ukraine on Joe Biden rather than on Vladimir Putin, which is grotesque. Vance claimed that there is now an energy ceasefire in place between Russia and Ukraine; in fact, Russia violated it immediately. Russia is now preparing a massive spring offensive against Ukraine; the response of Musk-Trump has been to ignore this larger reality completely while allowing Biden-era aid to Ukraine to come to an end. Denmark, meanwhile, has given four times as much aid to Ukraine, per capita, as the US...

We really do have a problem taking responsibility. The US has fallen well behind its allies and its rivals in the Arctic... The US only has two functional Arctic icebreakers; the Biden administration was intending to cooperate with Canada, which has some, and with Finland, which builds lots, in order to compete with Russia, which has the most. That common plan would have allowed the US to surpass Russia in icebreaking capacity. This is one of countless examples of how cooperation with NATO allies benefits the US. It is not clear what will happen with that arrangement now that Trump and Vance define Canada, like Denmark, as a rival or even as an enemy. Presumably it will break down, leaving Russia dominant.

As with everything Musk-Trump does, however, the cui bono question about imperialism in Greenland is easy to answer: Russia benefits. Putin cannot contain his delight with US imperialism over Greenland. In generating artificial crises in relations with both Denmark and Canada, America’s two closest allies these last 80 years, the Trump people cut America loose from security gains and create a chaos in which Russia benefits.

The American imperialism directed towards Denmark and Canada is not just morally wrong. It is strategically disastrous. The US has nothing to gain from it, and much to lose. There is nothing that Americans cannot get from Denmark or Canada through alliance. The very existence of the base at Pituffik shows that. Within the atmosphere of friendship that has prevailed the last 80 years, all of the mineral resources of Canada and Greenland can be traded for on good terms, or for that matter explored by American companies. The only way to put all of this easy access in doubt was to follow the course that Musk-Trump have chosen: trade wars with Canada and Europe, and the threat of actual wars and annexations. Musk and Trump are creating the bloodily moronic situation in which the US will have to fight wars to get the things that, just a few weeks ago, were there for the asking. And, of course, wars rarely turn out the way one expects.

Much effort is spent trying to extract a doctrine from all this. But there is none. It is just senselessness that benefits America’s enemies.

Much effort is spent trying to extract a doctrine from all this. But there is none. It is just senselessness that benefits America’s enemies. Hans Christian Andersen told the unforgettable tale of the naked emperor. In Greenland, what we saw was American imperialism with no clothes. Naked and vain.

As a parting shot, Vance told Greenlanders that life with the US would be better than with Denmark. Danish officials have been too diplomatic to answer directly the insults directed at them from their own territory during an uninvited visit by imperialist hotheads. Let me though just note a few possible replies, off the top of my head. The comparison between life in the US and life in Denmark is not just polemical. Musk-Trump treat Europe as though it were some decadent abyss, and propose that alliances with dictatorships would somehow be better. But Europe is not only home to our traditional allies; it is an enviable zone of democracy, wealth and prosperity with which it benefits us to have good relations, and from which we can sometimes learn...

An American is about 10 times more likely to be incarcerated than a Dane. Danes have access to universal and essentially free healthcare; Americans spend a huge amount of money to be sick more often and to be treated worse when they are. Danes on average live four years longer than Americans. In Denmark, university education is free; the average balance owed by the tens of millions of Americans who hold student debt in the US is about $40,000. Danish parents share a year of paid parental leave. In the US, one parent might get 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Denmark has children’s story writer Hans Christian Andersen. The US has children’s story writer JD Vance. American children are about twice as likely as Danish children to die before the age of five."

 


Posted by at No comments:

Should Russia stop attacking, or Ukraine stop resisting?

From the KyivPost:

"OPINION: Stop Attacking or Stop Resisting: Which Comes First?

Jonathan Sweet, Mark Toth, May 3, 2025

Ceasefire negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have reached a critical impasse. Russia continues its offensive operations, while Ukraine persists in its defensive efforts. It resembles the proverbial question of which came first – the chicken or the egg?

For President Donald Trump and his Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, the “possibility to reshape the Russian-US relationship through some very compelling commercial opportunities” will never come to fruition as long as the two sides continue to shoot at one another.

Trump has tried to strongarm Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into accepting unfavorable terms while enticing Russian President Vladimir Putin with everything he has demanded short of the keys to Kyiv – but to no avail.

And the war goes on. Russia has sustained 951,960 casualties; 35,190 since April 1, for an average of 1,173 casualties a day. At that pace, Russia will surpass the one million casualty mark by June 9.

The Kremlin’s response to their atrocious battlefield losses has been to deliberately target Ukrainian civilians in their homes, schools, churches, and markets. After the Palm Sunday strikes on Sumy, Putin acknowledged that “strikes on civilian objects are carried out if they are used by the Kyiv military.” Without providing any proof, he added, “These are the people we consider criminals who should receive a well-deserved retribution for what they have done… They got this retribution. This was done precisely to punish them.”

Tragically, 164 Ukrainian civilians were killed and another 910 wounded in Russian attacks in the month of March. According to the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner: “Most casualties were caused by long-range missiles and loitering munitions.” Many of those missiles and loitering munitions came from North Korea and Iran.

The White House’s frustration mounts. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the President wants “the shooting to stop, he wants the warfare to stop, he wants the dying and the suffering to stop, and he believes – and rightfully so – that the only way to end this war is to negotiate an end to it.”

But the President only seems to want to negotiate with Putin, dictate to Zelensky, and pressure European countries that continue to provide military support to Ukraine. He is concerned about Russian casualties but seldom mentions Ukrainian civilians getting killed and wounded – even pulling the US out from the International Center for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.

The seven-point plan his negotiation team gave to Zelensky in London only addressed Russian demands and reinforced Putin’s conditions for the capitulation of Ukraine. While both Zelensky and EU High Representative Kaja Kallas said neither Ukraine nor Europe would ever recognize the Russian-occupied Crimea peninsula as legally Russian – the other points in the Trump plan were non-negotiable as well.

Two days after Zelensky and Trump met prior to the funeral service of Pope Francis in Rome, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insisted “Russia will accept nothing less than total victory over Ukraine.” He then demanded the US lift all sanctions against Russia and for international recognition of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions as part of Russia.

As George Barros of the Institute for the Study of War stated, “The Kremlin is rejecting Trump’s proposals… The only thing it [Russia] is willing to negotiate are the terms of US capitulation and Ukrainian surrender.”

That is not winning, it is more akin to humiliation.

Putin does not respect Team Trump; rather, he mocks them, as do his propagandists.

Russia has no intention to stop attacking Ukraine. Trump gave Putin an inch, and over the past 100 days, the Kremlin has taken a yard. The Russian President believes he is winning, and that Trump will not stand in his way. He has been correct up till now. In Sun Tzu terms, he knew the enemy and himself...

It is not too late for the Trump Administration to reverse course; however, it will necessitate a new approach, a new team, and decisive action to persuade Putin that victory is unattainable. Persisting with ineffective negotiations constitutes a futile exercise, or as Albert Einstein called it: insanity." 

Posted by at No comments:

Biden's administration gave Ukraine "enough weapons to bleed, not to win"

Back-translating from UNIAN:

"Former CIA chief: The USA deliberately gave Ukraine enough weapons to bleed, not to win

 Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine could have been stopped early if the U.S. and its allies had provided Ukraine with the weapons it needed from the start. Instead, a deliberate strategy was used to give Ukraine the weapons it needed to fight — but not enough to defeat Putin’s army, former CIA chief Ralph Goff told The Times. 

“If we had given the Ukrainians the proper weapons at the time, they could have driven the Russians out of the country. That didn’t happen. It set the stage for this longer, drawn-out, attritional war that we’re seeing today,” Goff said. 

He said President Biden and his allies allowed Putin to dictate the terms of the conflict and were nervous about sending Ukraine the equipment it needed at the right time because they feared the Russian leader would use nuclear weapons if he was close to defeat.

"[They] let Vladimir Putin and his nuclear sabre-rattling fool them. So they gave the Ukrainians these weapons, but they never gave them enough to win. They only gave them enough to bleed," he said. Goff noted that Putin had a "real mortal fear of Covid" during the pandemic, and "in my opinion, people who are that concerned about their health are not going to play high-stakes nuclear poker.""

Posted by at No comments:

Opinion: The sooner Americans leave Ukraine talks, the better

 Ukrainian Dialog citing Russian opposition journalist Michael Nacke:

"The only way to achieve peace is to increase support for Ukraine and sanctions pressure until Putin understands that he cannot achieve his goals militarily or is beaten down by his own entourage or soldiers. Perhaps the Trump administration has realized this, but does not want to deal with it, since it is more difficult than wagging their tongues in the Kremlin and Riyadh, so they decided to withdraw from the negotiations," said Michael Nacke. He wrote about this on his YouTube channel.

"Overall, not the worst scenario. Honestly, all these pseudo-negotiations are rocking everyone on emotional swings and preventing Ukraine from fighting. Fearing to earn Trump's wrath, Kyiv, as I see it, is holding back a lot in both strikes and operations. Russia does whatever it wants, so I have long been in favor of Trump's withdrawal from the negotiation process.

At the same time, Naki noted: "I know that there are people who think that everything can still change, that the US can start allocating new aid packages to Ukraine or imposing sanctions against the Russian Federation, but this is not the case. Under Trump, there will be no support for Kyiv, nor pressure on Putin, so the sooner the US leaves the negotiations, the better. They are distracting too much attention to themselves."

Posted by at No comments:

To stop the war, Trump had to make just one decision

From the Atlantic / Yahoo!News:

"Why Trump Is Giving Putin Everything He Wants

Robert Kagan

“Vladimir, STOP!” That Truth Social post by President Donald Trump put a fitting capstone on one of the least successful negotiations in recent memory.

For the past year or more, the conventional wisdom was that Vladimir Putin needed a deal on Ukraine. Russia’s economy was struggling under the weight of international sanctions, and its military had suffered staggering losses on the battlefield. Putin was supposed to be desperate for at least a pause in the fighting. That was one reason Trump claimed it would be a “very easy negotiation,” and that he could get the war “settled very fast.”

All that had to be done was to get Ukraine to back off its unrealistic demands for a return of all its territory, at which point Putin would seize the chance to buy time to repair his economy and replenish his troops and materiel. This was the assumption, not just of Trump and his advisers, but of a growing chorus of observers, including New York Times reporters and foreign-policy hands: A negotiated end of the war was the “only real viable option.” And in a negotiated settlement, as opposed to terms of surrender, both sides give up something. Ukraine would have to give up much, if not all, of the territory it had lost to Russian conquest, and in return, it would get some form of security guarantee against a future Russian attack. Surely Russia, desperate for a deal, would give up its opposition to such assurances. As The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen put it just a month ago, “Russia is incredibly weak, both economically and militarily, which means that in these negotiations, Trump holds all the cards.”

How then to explain why Trump, after three months of negotiations, has failed to win a single concession from Putin and now threatens to “walk away” from the whole problem? If Putin is weak and desperate, and Trump holds all the cards, why is Putin getting everything he wants and giving up nothing in return? The answer tells us something about Trump, but more important, it gives us an insight into the nature of the new era we have entered in international affairs.

Trump’s advisers and supporters have been clear for more than a year about the shape of the deal they anticipated. No one denied the risk that Putin might accept a deal and then restart the war as soon as the world looked away. During the 2024 campaign, then-Senator J. D. Vance acknowledged that, even if Ukraine was not admitted to NATO, it had to have some kind of security guarantee so that “the Russians don’t invade again.” He called for a “heavily fortified” “demilitarized zone” between Russian and Ukrainian forces. Trump supporters also envisioned significant provisions of economic and military aid to a postwar Ukraine. Trump’s former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, proposed $100 billion from a special NATO fund and $500 billion worth of “lend-lease” loans to purchase weaponry.

Trump’s supporters, some of whom now work in the administration, explained how Trump was going to be able to get the deal done. Getting Ukraine to the table would be easy. “I think we have plenty of leverage” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mike Waltz, at the time a Republican representative from Florida, said in November. But the United States, he argued, also had plenty of sources of leverage with Putin. One was Russia’s dependence on energy exports. If Putin was intransigent, the United States could crack down on “Russia’s illicit oil sales.” And if Putin still refused to bend, Washington could “provide more weapons to Ukraine with fewer restrictions on their use.” Or as Trump himself put it, “I would tell Putin, ‘If you don’t make a deal, we’re going to give them a lot,’” referring to Ukraine. “We’re going to give them more than they ever got if we have to.”

So what happened? The present deal is so one-sided in favor of Putin that the president and his team have had to manufacture Russian “concessions.” Thus Vice President Vance called it a concession that the Russians might have to “give up” some territory that “they currently own,” meaning Ukrainian territory that Russia has conquered, while President Trump called it a concession that Putin has (theoretically) agreed not to take the whole country, something he is currently unable to do. On the matter that even Vance once agreed was essential—security for Ukraine against another Russian invasion—Putin has conceded nothing.

That is important to keep in mind as Trump savages Ukraine for rejecting his proposal.  The Russians have not accepted the proposal. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says Russia is “ready to reach a deal” but that some aspects of the plan need to be “fine-tuned.” What that “fine-tuning” is about is no mystery. The American peace proposal contains no suggestion of U.S. aid to Ukraine after a settlement and no discussion of the size of Ukrainian armed forces. Putin and his negotiators have made clear throughout the talks that they want Ukraine demilitarized and all weapons supplies and economic aid from the West cut off...

Further “fine-tuning” for Putin means ensuring that Ukraine is isolated, unarmed, and unprotected. He has not budged on those points even when the war was going horribly for him. Just in this past week, Putin’s spokespeople have made clear that Russia will not accept a cease-fire unless the West agrees to stop arming Ukraine, so that Ukraine cannot use the cease-fire to “reset and regroup.”...

So Trump is asking the Ukrainians to agree to give up territory and accept official recognition of Russian control of Crimea, even though Putin has made abundantly clear that he will not agree to any of the things Ukraine needs in return. Acknowledging Russian control of their territory is the Ukrainians’ ultimate concession. They can make it only once, and only as part of a final, comprehensive plan that guarantees their security. Trump is demanding that they give it up now, before Putin has agreed to anything.

What does all this tell us? One thing it tells us is that Trump is not quite the negotiator he thinks he is. Let’s stipulate that Trump was never interested in helping Ukraine. He wanted to get the issue off his plate as quickly as possible and couldn’t care less what happens to Ukraine—or to Europe as a whole, for that matter. He might have walked away immediately and probably now wishes he had. He could have said on day one what he is saying now: that Ukraine is Joe Biden’s war, just as Barack Obama regarded Iraq as George W. Bush’s war and Biden regarded Afghanistan as his predecessors’ war. But Trump boasted repeatedly throughout his campaign about making a deal and bringing the war to an end, so he may have felt in some way bound to give it a try. His likely  intention was not to secure the permanent protection of Ukraine but to gain a “decent interval” before its surrender. After all, Henry Kissinger won a Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating a settlement of the Vietnam War that he knew would not long delay the fall of Saigon. As he told Richard Nixon, the goal was only to hold things together “a year or two,” after which Vietnam would be “a backwater” and no one would “give a damn.”  Trump may have had similar hopes, and indeed many seasoned analysts assumed that Putin would do Trump the favor of accepting a deal and waiting, perhaps until Trump was out of office, to complete the conquest of Ukraine.

Putin may never have been interested in pausing the war for that long, or perhaps at all. But Trump passed up any chance of finding out whether he was or not. As National Security Adviser Waltz, Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg, Thiessen, and even Trump himself understood, Trump had leverage. In the long run, Putin is weak. But in the short term, Ukraine is weaker, and Putin is counting on Ukraine collapsing before his own forces do. He has all along believed that the war’s timelines favor him. To change that assessment, Putin would have to believe that Trump was committed to Ukraine for the long term and would provide it aid for as long as necessary, so that Putin would have to wonder how many more years he could keep this war going without fracturing his military or his society... 

To get such a deal, Trump would have had to bluff convincingly that he was willing to help Ukraine if Putin balked. That was the biggest card Trump had to play, but he never played it. On the contrary, he made it perfectly obvious from the beginning not only that he had no intention of aiding Ukraine, but that he detested Zelensky and was willing to humiliate him publicly and even to deny Ukraine crucial intelligence in the midst of a war for its very existence. “I’ve had a hard time with Zelensky,” Trump told The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, in an Oval Office interview just last week. “You saw that over here when he was sitting right in that chair, when he just couldn’t get it.” Of course, the reason Trump has a “hard” time with Zelensky is that he is asking the Ukrainian leader to give away huge swaths of his country to a conquering army for nothing...

To say that Putin is unimpressed may be the geopolitical understatement of the century. I have wondered in the past which course Putin would choose with Trump: Would he appease him, in the interest of strengthening an American president who shares his desire to destroy the liberal world order, or would he be more interested in humiliating the American president as a way of demonstrating conclusively that the U.S. can’t protect anyone and the era of American global leadership is over?

Although Putin has done it with a smile and an outstretched hand, the humiliations have been consistent and plentiful... The most blatant insult came last month, when the two leaders scheduled their first acknowledged phone call. At the time designated for the call, Putin was at a public event, and when one of his aides leaned over to remind him, he showed such dismissive unconcern that the whole audience laughed. He then kept Trump waiting for another hour.

But the greatest humiliation came last week. On the very day that Trump lashed out at Zelensky for not accepting the American proposal that Putin had also not accepted, Putin launched a devastating missile attack on a civilian target in Kyiv—the worst of the war. Trump’s response on Truth Social—“Vladimir, STOP!”—was not, we may be sure, a heartfelt appeal to spare Ukrainian civilian casualties, from the man who all but guaranteed civilian casualties when he cut off intelligence sharing with Ukraine. It was a plea to Putin to stop humiliating him in front of the whole world. One does not have to have a very vivid imagination to picture the amusement on Putin’s face when he read Trump’s plaintive post.

Trump seems to want to get the Ukraine issue out of the way so that he can move on with the normalization of relations with Russia, but how normal can those relations be?  Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who generally seems to channel Trump’s thinking, says he sees “a possibility of reshaping the Russian–United States relationship through some very compelling commercial opportunities,” some “enormous economic deals,” which will also bring “real stability to the region.” Putin will take the money, but if he wanted a cooperative relationship with the United States, he would have thrown Trump a bone, just as everyone expected him to, instead of answering his capitulation with a missile attack on a civilian target.

Maybe he figures Trump is so desperate for a relationship that he will tolerate any amount of bullying. But that’s not good news for Trump, and it is just a hint of the discord and conflict that will prevail in the multipolar world that Trump has inaugurated."

Posted by at No comments:

Trump squandered opportunities for peace in Ukraine

From the Time, Apr 30, 2025:

"How Trump is Making Peace in Ukraine Even Harder

by Eric Green

When President Trump took office 100 days ago, he correctly understood the moment was ripe to change the course of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Russian casualties were up to 1,500 every day, while Ukraine was slowly losing territory and facing increasing challenges mobilizing soldiers. While his claims to be able to produce results in 24 hours were hyperbolic, smart diplomacy using carrots and sticks had a chance. Many observers of the war welcomed any suggestion that Trump was ready to use America’s outsized economic, military and diplomatic leverage to push towards a ceasefire or even lasting peace. Even many Ukrainians skeptical of Trump’s pro-Russian reputation drew hope that his unpredictability and deal making could end their country’s suffering.

Unfortunately, Trump’s actions over the last three months have squandered the opportunities the United States had to de-escalate the violence and end the war in a way that advances American interests...

First, alliance leverage. One of Ukraine’s chief assets in the war is the backing of democratic partners in Europe, Asia and North America. With these forces united, Ukraine had a better chance of negotiating an outcome that protects its own interests as well as those of Europe and democracies elsewhere in the world. Now, rather than leading a coalition to counter Russia and get a fair deal for Ukraine, the U.S. is frequently at odds with its European partners. Excluding Europe from most negotiations on Ukraine and threatening crippling tariffs on our closest European allies have only compounded the sense of unease. As a result, the phrase “de-risking”, which was originally coined to describe how countries could lessen dependence on China, is now being used as Western allies try to insulate themselves from erratic U.S. policy.

Second, sanctions leverage. The new administration has prioritized bilateral relations with Moscow, suggesting the U.S. could reap economic and geopolitical benefits by establishing “trusting, friendly” ties with Russia. The Trump team seems to believe Russia, with a GNP the size of Italy’s and a notoriously risky investment climate, can yield business opportunities and that warm relations will persuade Russia to help us deal with Iran or even turn Moscow from its “no limits” partnership with China. In reality, the prospect of normalized ties has benefited Putin...

Third, time leverage. Secretary of State Rubio and others have made no secret of the administration’s eagerness to complete a deal and, privately, officials acknowledge that the 100-day milestone looms large in White House thinking. Imposing deadlines can be a useful tool in diplomatic negotiations, but parties to a war that both sides regard as existential are unlikely to treat a date on the American political calendar as sufficient motivation unless there are material costs for non-compliance. Because Ukraine fears the consequences of a reduction in U.S. support, Kyiv has been flexible in readily agreeing to Trump’s ceasefire proposals. Moscow, however, sees Trump’s self-imposed deadline as a no-lose chance to escalate its demands. And since Trump has not indicated he will seek funding for additional military support, they consider time as their ally. Either the Americans stay involved and advocate for Putin’s objectives or Trump walks away, allowing Russia to continue the war while continuing to normalize relations with Washington...

Finally, moral leverage. Since WWII, the U.S. has been a staunch defender of peace and stability in Europe on the basis of territorial integrity. Administration officials perform verbal gymnastics to avoid saying that Russia attacked Ukraine. Trump himself has suggested moral equivalence between the two sides, claiming Ukraine was at fault for provoking the war, that President Zelensky was illegitimate and that the U.S. should recognize Russia’s annexations of Ukrainian territory. Compounding matters, Trump has openly questioned the territorial integrity of our own neighbors, pointedly refusing to rule out the use of force to “obtain” Greenland... The Soviets respected Ronald Reagan for calling things by their name, including when he labeled their country an evil empire. Putin sees an America without a moral compass as an opportunity to steer us—and the world—to a system where might equals right.

Having surrendered so much leverage unilaterally, it is not surprising that the negotiations have not reduced the violence, let alone narrowed the fundamental differences between the parties. Nor is it surprising that the stronger party, Russia, has been the chief beneficiary: when the U.S. weakened itself it also weakened Ukraine. From Moscow’s vantage point, the past three months have been miraculous: Putin can now envision a path to win the war in Ukraine, a possibility that did not exist three months ago because the United States was blocking its way. As a bonus for Moscow, the resulting tensions in the trans-Atlantic relationship may metastasize into an irreparable split between the United States and Europe.

Our allies are famously patient in waiting for America to do the right thing after, as Churchill once observed, “exhausting all the alternatives.” In this case, there is no doubt that the United States will sooner or later rediscover the importance of containing rather than indulging the disruptive ambitions of Putin’s Russia. Until then, Ukraine and Europe will largely need to fight this struggle on their own." 

Posted by at No comments:

Western leaders keep making the same mistake with Russia

From the Telegraph / Yahoo!News:

"Putin is a liar and a murderer. It is impossible to accommodate him

Liam Fox
Posted by at No comments:

Ukrainian serviceman: No hope for Western peacekeepers in Ukraine

Translating from UNIAN:

"The discussion of sending foreign troops to Ukraine should be excluded from the agenda. This opinion was expressed by Lieutenant Colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Deputy Commander of the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade Maksym Zhorin in his Telegram channel. 

According to him, the West will not send a military contingent to Ukraine, since it simply will not be able to gather fighters. Zhorin notes that "Europe does not have real armies today." 

"They are already writing that even 25 thousand is an unattainable figure. And 25 thousand for the scale of our war is nothing. Secondly, the tasks that such a contingent, which has no combat experience, will be able to handle are very limited. That is, they will not be able to play the role of deterrence, as planned," the lieutenant colonel added. 

At the same time, Zhorin recalled that North Korea sent 15 thousand soldiers to help Russia in the Kursk region. The DPRK contingent suffered serious losses, but Pyongyang will continue to strengthen cooperation with Moscow, the military man believes. "Because the "evil corporation" is gathering forces and actively preparing, and the cozy civilized world seems to be planning some kind of mass suicide," he stated."

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, July 09, 2025

The West must fear only fear

From KyivPost:

 "OPINION: Putin’s Nuclear Blackmail

By George Woloshyn, July 6, 2025

Although not as prominent as Davos, Bilderberg or the UN General Assembly, the three-day annual GLOBSEC (Global Security) Conference is the world’s leading platform for strategic dialogue on global security and transatlantic cooperation. On its 20th anniversary, 1,500 leaders, policymakers, and experts from more than 70 countries met in June to discuss, among other topics, the ongoing war in Ukraine. 

...What emerged is the elephant that had always been there but obscured by circular language – victory or something else?... Ukrainians and their supporters insisted on a “victory”; i.e., withdrawal of occupying forces, reparations, return of POWs, civilians, and children, and prosecution of war crimes. Others, including US participants, thought that a “ceasefire and frozen conflict” was the “best scenario” because “all the others were worse.” The consensus on frozen conflict proposals was notably damning, as it would not bring lasting peace.

Ukrainians responded that if they received the weapons, air defenses, and frozen Russian assets they needed, and if the West were to impose tougher sanctions to starve Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military and economy, “victory” would be entirely achievable.

The “frozen conflict” supporters countered with tiresome admonitions of “escalation” and “nuclear war,” to which Ukrainians responded that the West may have fallen victim to an information trap known as “reflexive control.”  A Soviet mathematician developed “reflexive control” in the 1960s to trick opponents into making self-defeating decisions in response to fictitious threats by Soviet leaders, who were aware of the threats’ implausibility because they risked not only their own survival but certain defeat. 

At every one of the dozen red lines that Ukrainians and the West crossed, Putin or his proxies (such as Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev) threw out nuclear threats that landed like deflated balloons. The very fact that Ukraine survived 42 months of war and Russia sustained catastrophic losses, contrary to the expectations of most GLOBSEC participants, should have provided some immunity to “reflexive control.” Instead, it appears that many have internalized Russia’s nuclear blackmail despite all evidence to the contrary.

How is this done? Consider the frequency and variety of references to World War III, nuclear war, Russian claims of technological advances, Red Square parades of monstrous ICBMs, nuclear “training exercises” near NATO borders, cryptic communications via “doomsday” channels, satellite “killers,” maps depicting obliterated UK cities, and artists’ rendition of futuristic Russian weapons.

Among Putin’s heavily touted cruise and ballistic “house of horrors” – the Sarmat ICBM, “Skyfall” cruise missile, Poseidon underwater drone, Kinzhal hypersonic missile, and Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle – all have been hyped by Moscow. But behind the bravado, all face technical hurdles, budget constraints, and exaggerated, unverified, capabilities. Nevertheless, they serve their purpose of dissuading the West from “provocations” and “escalations.”

The mere emotive and unjustified terror of nuclear war is the only reason for denials, delays, and restrictions of critical weapons Ukraine needs for a “victory.” Former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous statement – “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” – was never more true.

This point, the internalization of Moscow’s manipulated nuclear blackmail, was brought home in a published interview with Ambassador Kurt Volker, a senior and highly respected conference participant. His belief that a “frozen conflict” is the “best case scenario” caught my attention. He explained that a direct confrontation between Russia and the West would “become a nuclear war… and annihilate everybody.” Although he did not doubt that a frozen conflict would enable Russia to rearm and attack again, that could be made “so painful” as to deter Russia, perhaps indefinitely...

Another conference participant, Kacper Rekawek, from the International Centre of Counter Terrorism, was more direct: “We chose not to win. We, the West. Maybe we’re unable to because we have grown too lazy, too fat, too comfortable.” He noted that the outcome of that decision is paradoxical in that Europe’s leaders speak of “preparing for war by 2030 while refusing to use existing resources to prevent it.”

According to Olena Halushka, Ukraine’s conference participant, “the elephant in the room is that the best way to deter Russian aggression from expanding… is to help Ukraine win.” She then warned of the danger for Europe and the world if the West fails to support Ukraine’s winning option.

Russia, she said, “can add into its constitution (by annexation) whatever territory they claim as ‘theirs’” – Suwalki, Narva, Svalbard, Dresden, Transnistria, and even Alaska.  This “constitutional annexation strategy” represents the ultimate weaponization of nuclear blackmail – allowing Russia to claim any territory simply by adding it to their domestic law, then threatening global war if the world does not comply. 

Ukrainian officials at the conference left the question open: Does it make sense, in exchange for a year or two of peace, to reward Putin with 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory, thereby abandoning a country that has contributed the most to the safety of the West and remains Europe’s largest, most effective, and experienced military power. Or would it better serve the interest of all Western parties (in the words of Ambassador Volker) to make the war so costly and painful for Putin that he is unlikely to try again?"

Posted by at No comments:

Russian strikes against Ukraine keep increasing

From the Institute for the Study of War:

"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 9, 2025

Russian forces conducted the largest combined drone and missile strike of the war so far on the night of July 8 to 9 with 741 total drones and missiles — an about 34 percent increase from the previous record high of 550 Russian drones and missiles launched on the night of July 3 to 4.[1]... The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian strikes primarily targeted Lutsk, Volyn Oblast, and Ukrainian officials reported that the strikes damaged a warehouse, private enterprise, and civilian areas in Lutsk.[3] Ukrainian officials reported that the strikes also hit residential areas, an enterprise, and civilian infrastructure in Kharkiv, Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Sumy, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy, Chernihiv, and Zhytomyr oblasts.[4]... 

The continued increase in the size of strike packages is likely intended to support Russian efforts to degrade Ukrainian morale in the face of constant Russian aggression. Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Colonel Yuriy Ihnat reported that Russian forces used over 400 decoy drones in this strike package in order to overwhelm Ukrainian air defense.[10] Russian forces have equipped their decoy long-range drones with warheads and have also modified their strike drones with warheads designed to inflict a wide spread of damage, indicating that Russian forces aim to maximize damage against areas in Ukraine writ large — which disproportionately affects civilian areas.[11]  Ukrainian Ground Forces Spokesperson Colonel Vitaly Sarantsev stated in an interview with the Washington Post on July 9 that recent Russian strikes against Ukrainian military registration and enlistment offices seek to disrupt Ukrainian force generation efforts.[12] Sarantsev stated that Russia aims to sow fear among Ukrainians and create the perception that it is dangerous to go to recruitment and enlistment offices. ISW assessed in previous years that Russia has used strike packages targeting civilian areas to generate a morale effect in Ukraine, as seems to be the case with the most recent strikes.[13]"


 Looking at the graph, Trump's peace efforts do not look very productive, do they?

Posted by at No comments:

Trump echoes Russian talking points

From Bloomberg:

"Trump Tells Americans What Putin Wants Them to Hear

By Bloomberg News

Donald Trump’s Russia policy has been sounding very familiar to the Kremlin.

Since Trump’s phone call with Vladimir Putin on Feb. 12, their first direct contact since Trump’s return to office, there’s been a shift in US rhetoric that has seen the president begin to echo specific Russian talking points on the war in Ukraine, according to a Bloomberg analysis of his public comments.

Bloomberg used a Large Language Model to scan more than 300 of Trump’s public comments between August 2024 and mid-March as well as more than 3,000 social media posts from the president and members of his administration since the start of 2025. The technique allows for comparing meaning across large volumes of text, even if the specific wording differs.

The results, which were reviewed by reporters, showed a correlation between Trump administration contacts with Putin and subsequent comments that echoed the Russian leader’s own positions on subjects including the occupation, Kyiv’s goal of joining NATO and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s political legitimacy...

“Trump parrots Putin,” said Fiona Hill, who served as the top Russia adviser on the US National Security Council in the president’s first term. “He wants to get close to Putin.”

Trump is seeking to unlock tens of billions of dollars in potential business deals by remaking the economic relationship between the US and Russia. And to do that he needs to resolve the war in Ukraine.

As a consequence, the US has made concession after concession to Putin, even offering to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, a Kremlin demand since it occupied the Black Sea peninsula in 2014 that successive administrations — including in Trump’s first term — have rejected...

Feb. 12, 2025 The First Phone Call

...A few days after Trump was sworn into office in January, Putin told a Russian state TV interviewer: “I cannot but agree with him that if he had been president, if his victory had not been stolen from him in 2020, then maybe there would not have been the Ukraine crisis that broke out in 2022.”...

“The media seemingly is advocating more death and more destruction in this unnecessary war that wouldn’t have started if President Trump was in office,” Hughes, the NSC spokesman, said. “Russia didn’t dare invade a neighbor during President Trump’s first term yet did so under Biden and Obama. President Trump is taking action to clean up their mistakes.”...

Trump and Putin spoke by phone for about 90 minutes on Feb. 12. The following day, Trump ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and said that Kyiv’s aspirations to join the alliance had caused the war.

Feb. 13, 2025 Trump on NATO and Ukraine

Remarks After Meeting with Narendra Modi

“They’ve said they cannot have Ukraine be in NATO. They said that very strongly. I actually think that that was the thing that caused the start of the war.”

...Putin’s demand that Ukraine never join NATO has been a central aim of his February 2022 invasion...

Feb. 18, 2025 Saudi Arabia Meeting

Witkoff, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio meet Russian officials to discuss how to end the war.

Feb. 18, 2025 Trump on Martial Law

Remarks After Executive Order Signing

“We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine. Well, we have martial law, essentially martial law in Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine, I mean, I hate to say it, but he’s down at four percent approval rating.”

Putin’s Position

“The Kiev regime does not allow the very idea of cessation of hostilities because in this case the pretext for extending martial law disappears. And if the martial law has to be cancelled, it means that the elections, which were not held on time, will have to be held.”

...While Putin has repeatedly denied Zelenskiy’s legitimacy since the Ukrainian president’s term formally expired in May 2024, the analysis shows that Trump only began raising the issue after he’d spoken to the Russian leader.


 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)