“It is an admirable dilemma. I have rarely seen one with so many horns and all of them so sharp.”
- The fictional detective Nero Wolfe; Rex Stout; Fer-de-Lance
As all who care are aware, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on Friday in Alaska – without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – to discuss a resolution to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict precipitated by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Mr. Trump went in declaring that his primary goal was to obtain a ceasefire; such was not obtained. It was clear from the video of Mr. Trump’s fawning greeting to Putin that nothing positive would be achieved. When the meeting ended – with an uncharacteristic acknowledgement by Mr. Trump that he and Putin had failed to reach any agreement – I actually felt relief. Since I had expected nothing good to come from the meeting, I initially considered it a victory that Mr. Trump seemingly hadn’t done anything to worsen the Ukrainian cause.
Silly me. I understand that Mr. Trump has now, contrary to his position before the Alaska meeting and that of Ukraine and other NATO nations, abandoned his calls for a ceasefire – so Ukrainian civilians will continue to be killed by Russian missiles – and is instead seeking to persuade Mr. Zelensky to agree to Putin’s demands for Ukraine to cede certain Ukrainian territory to Russia — including some territory Russia doesn’t now even militarily control – in return for Putin’s written promise not to attack Ukraine or any European country again. Such is absurd. Not even the most gullible MAGA – save the President himself – would believe Putin’s promises.
Although I may be grasping at straws, the only heartening report I have heard about recent developments is that at least NATO and European leaders, who obviously understand the precariousness of the situation not only for Ukraine but for their own nations if Mr. Trump capitulates to Putin, are going to join Mr. Zelensky in Washington today as he meets with Mr. Trump. It will be psychologically much more difficult for Mr. Trump – who, like any bully, shrinks from conflict when he does not have overwhelming advantage – to abandon Mr. Zelensky and Ukraine in the face of united European opposition.
We all know what should happen to resolve the conflict. (Well, what should happen from a pragmatic standpoint. What should happen from a moral standpoint is that Putin and his cohort spend the rest of their lives in an international prison for war crimes, with Russia paying reparations to the families of those killed or injured through Russian aggression and for the restoration of Ukrainian infrastructure.) You are familiar enough with the map of conflict that a depiction need not be displayed here (even if I had the technological acumen to do so 😉 ). I would suggest that from a practical perspective, the following components might form the basis for a settlement (I’m undoubtedly missing a number; feel free to comment):
- Russia keeps the Ukrainian territory it currently controls, and Ukraine recognizes these lands, Crimea and the other Ukrainian territory taken by Russia in 2014, as Russian territory.
- Russia recognizes Ukrainian sovereignty and renounces all claim to Ukrainian territory not within the territories ceded to the Russians.
- All Ukrainians (particularly including children) and all prisoners of war on both sides are immediately exchanged.
- Establishment of a border zone similar that maintained by Finland and the Baltic States on their Russian borders, to be initially policed by a United Nations peacekeepers.
- For a period of one year following the date of the settlement, any residents of the conceded-Russian territories who wish to move to Ukraine can freely do so; any residents living in the Ukrainian territory recognized by Russia that wish to move to Russia can freely do so. The ability for such residents to freely elect such a choice is also to be monitored by the UN.
- Ukraine is granted immediate admission to NATO and to the European Union, with it thereby assuming all the responsibilities and receiving all the security guarantees of every other NATO member. It is specifically declared that any attempt by Russia to hinder Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea will be considered an offensive action against NATO.
- The U.S. and the E.U. agree to lift their sanctions against Russia.
- Russia and Ukraine release all claims for reparations against the other.
The above can be achieved – and can only be achieved – through American as well as European dedication of the military and financial support to Ukraine sufficient to convince Putin that his brutal invasion has no greater hope of success than that he has already achieved. Obviously, such American dedication will not occur while Mr. Trump is President of the United States. I understand why the European leaders feel they have no choice but to coddle and placate this man in order to protect Western democracies and their own people, but it turns my stomach to watch, and suspect that it makes some of them privately want to vomit.
[An aside: I don’t know why leading Democrats aren’t denouncing any capitulation by Mr. Trump to Putin with a simple message: “If Ukraine falls, it will be Trump who lost Ukraine.” Repeating endlessly: “It will be Trump who lost Ukraine.” That is the kind of message that “breaks through” in the public consciousness that MAGAs are great at, and that Democrats (there is no kinder way to put it) suck at. (I’d normally like to see former President Barack Obama make the case, but since he took no meaningful action when Putin took Crimea in 2014, Mr. Obama is, let’s say, a wee bit out of position.)]
From the time Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 until the present – from the day Mr. Zelensky responded to an offer of safe passage for him and his family out of his country with the reply – apocryphal or not — “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride” – the defense of Ukraine has rested on his shoulders, on his steadfastness. Anyone with any sense has realized that given his people’s sacrifices, while the struggle continues Mr. Zelensky cannot signal any willingness to give any concessions to the Russians unless Ukraine – what remains of it – is admitted to NATO; if he did, his people’s morale would collapse. Any lesser security guarantee is worthless. (I’m aware that U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said over the weekend, “The United States is potentially prepared to be able to give Article 5 security guarantees, but not from NATO — directly from the United States and other European countries.” Mr. Witkoff’s representation sounds good; but recall that in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia agreed that if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons – which it did – they would respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders, and refrain from the use of force against Ukraine. With that history, is it reasonable for Mr. Zelensky to trust any security assurances he receives that leave Ukraine outside the parameters of the NATO alliance? Would you?)
I see an approaching dilemma for Mr. Zelensky: Mr. Trump will seize upon any concession made by Putin as a way to claim a public relations triumph. Mr. Zelensky will recognize that Putin’s empty gesture affords no safeguards for his nation, and that any agreement to it by Ukraine will inevitably result in Russia’s annexation of Ukraine. At the same time, Mr. Zelensky will also recognize that offending Mr. Trump – for example, expressing doubt that Mr. Trump, no matter what he says now, will commit American forces to defend Ukraine if Russia reinstitutes hostilities — will almost certainly cause Mr. Trump to blame Ukraine for the continuation of hostilities and angrily withdraw American aid from Ukraine. Most military observers opine that any such withdrawal — no matter how robust the assistance of the European NATO nations – will ultimately enable Russia, through its continued inexorable brutal slaughter of Ukraine’s civilians and soldiers, to annex Ukraine.
I suspect that Mr. Zelensky’s and his aides’ response to any empty offer by Putin will be similar to that expressed by Winston Churchill in May, 1940, as Britain faced the Nazi Wehrmacht alone: “[L]et it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.” That said, on that occasion Mr. Churchill wasn’t addressing the British people, but other government officials. Does one knowingly sentence thousands more of one’s own people, including thousands of children, to die in what will appear a hopeless battle?
I can think of no dilemma with horns as sharp as that which Mr. Zelensky and his advisors could soon be confronting.
We’ll see what happens. Let us pray for the best.
McCoy's Noise 