First, for the most part its my impression that Presidential candidates only know as much as they are allowed to know and when you take over the Oval Office that's when you are told things you never knew. This is why it's very rare for there to be major radical 180 on foreign policy – it takes time to exit out of something the previous administration did. Hence why Biden kept most of Trump's foreign policy changes intact with minor attempts at changing them. In this case we have a former President who knew as much as he did until January of 2021, and a VP who knows as much as a VP is allowed to know regarding foreign policy.
In this case, we already have a report that Zelensky already called and talked with Trump and that it went excellently. There is rumor now in that article that what Trump proposes is a 20 year delay in joining NATO, a freeze to the war, and US continuing to pour weapons into Ukraine. Whether Putin agrees to this I do not know, as this would be a bigger win for Ukraine than it is for Putin.
I was thinking back on the last 2 nearly 3 years since the war in Ukraine began. I would often state that the gradual drop of support for Ukraine began to drop when it was viewed as a potential major geopolitical win for the Biden administration. As such they began to become hostile to the Ukrainians because the Democrats and the Left was largely so supportive. They never really cared too deeply about the conflict or it's ramifications – it served a near term political end. But then Israel/Palestine happened which began to draw away attention to Ukraine. And then Biden drops out, and it's Kamala Harris, and the conflict isn't nearly as tied down to her as it was for Biden. So I was doing some thinking and now I have to ask, during the last 3 months how often did either candidate, Trump or Harris, even talk about Ukraine? I just think the issue is no longer as strongly felt for the Republicans as it once did. In the end, it is always about economic anxiety (immigration and war tends to intersect nicely with this). This is just to say that the right will go along with whatever Trump proposes – or supports, even if it is Ukraine. Yes. It's hypocrisy.
At the end of the day Trump has more in common with Zelensky than he does with Putin.
If what is written down is true: continued arms supplies to Ukraine (probably sold), a 20 year delay in joining NATO, and a conflict freeze on the front lines, it would be an incredible win for Zelensky, barely something Putin can bring home.
Here's the truth. The war now looks like WW1 trench warfare. Battle lines are slowly changing (which is boring af for news media and American attention spans). Yes, the Ukranians are taking massive pummeling, and are dying by the truck loads. Yes, Russia clearly has the demographic advantage on paper. But the reality is that Ukranians are dying to defend something, Russians are throwing non-ethnic Russian into a meat grinder to such disastrous levels they had to rely on prisoners to fill the ranks…and when they ran out of that, they are now actively employing North Korean soldiers to fight for them. Ukraine cannot keep this war going on it's own, and if the US pulls out it would mean the Europeans need to push in harder…yet I am keenly aware that the support for Ukraine isn't as universal as we'd think in Europe especially as the economic toll hits them too (cheap Ukranian grain undermines local farmers, refugees, wasted resources on foreign conflicts during times of economic anxiety). Russia cannot keep the war going as well and it's become attricious. A total loss would be existential not just for Putin but for Russia as a whole. More and more of the war's impact is going to hit Moscow which is going to start a terrible cycle in Russian history. Nobody wants that, especially the US. Each person wants to get out of this war while maintaining power and a sense of victory.
For Ukraine, recognizing that the borders officially have not changed, but frozen, is a win. Because that can be negotiated later, by blade or by pen. A 20 year delay in joining NATO, that's fine, it was in no position in doing so anyway, and it would take at least 5 years to meet the requirements. Besides, Finland and Sweden joined NATO and that was already massive loss for Putin's rhetoric regarding NATO expansion. They can use these 20 years to integrate more with the EU, arm themselves, rebuild their nuclear program (already started, by the way), while giving the Europeans a chance to also start taking charge of their backyard more. For Putin it means that he can guarantee the survival of Crimea as part of Russia, and claim to have liberated the Russian parts of Ukraine, the war would end, many sanctions lifted, and he can come back with some semblance of a victory. Yes, millions of casualties, cementing Ukranian nationalism and identity, setting Russia back 50 years demographically, and embarrassing itself in front of the rest of the Asian powers like China, yes NATO expanded and now the Baltic is a NATO lake. But hey we kept Crimea, and even liberated Russians bring oppressed in Ukraine.
Zelensky and Putin need an honorable exit ramp that they can sell to their people. Trump needs legitimacy. A lot of motivations for making something happen. We'll see. I remain cautiously optimistic, as always.
.jpeg "What Is A 'Pink Tote Lid Moment'? How A TikTok About A Girl's Fight With Her Mom Created A New Slang Term"){kind=icon}
Featured