Tag: Ukraine
America needs to right itself
Unlike her compatriots on MSNBC, Rachel does real digging and finds things others haven’t reported on. This segment on the realignment with Russia was a fine example.
Why Russia?
Still, why is Trump abandoning Europe in favor of a country with an economy smaller than Canada’s? Russia has a few things going for it. It is the largest country on earth. Its giant land mass has good odds of containing lots of minerals as well as oil and gas. It borders both Europe and China, making it strategically vital to both.
Russia has also proven capable of upending order in Europe and in the US. In Europe it has used cyber attacks, disinformation, covert action against infrastructure, corruption, and military aggression. In the US it uses all but the last of these. The purpose is to show democracy as dysfunctional. It works, as we saw in the UK withdrawal from Brexit and in the rise of the neo-Nazis in Germany.
Why Trump?
Trump has been laundering Russian assets through real estate deals for decades. One of his buyers was present for the US/Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia last month. He has also sought to invest in Moscow. Trump boasts about his close relationship with Russian President Putin. He is not hiding it. He openly sought Russian assistance during his first presidential campaign.
Friday’s meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky went well until minute 40. Then it went awry because Vance realized Moscow would not be pleased. Trump piled on. His alignment with Russia might not have survived a successful signing of the minerals agreement. Even though that is nothing more than an agreement to negotiate.
US interests
Americans are not with Trump on Russia. They don’t trust Putin. Opinion on support for Ukraine is more divided. But most Trump supporters back Ukraine. There really is no question about who started the war. The question is whether Russia or Ukraine will emerge the winner either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table.
The alliance with Europe kept the peace during the Cold War and thereafter. The Alliance triggered its mutual defense obligation only once, in response to the 9/11 attack on the US. Anyone who endangers NATO is not acting in the interest of the United States. Trump has endangered it repeatedly. He has also neglected to recognize that Europe is doing more for its own defense, as he himself has urged.
We’ve elected a president who serves Russia’s interests better than he serves American interests. He is also dismantling the US government Those are serious problems. Fixing them will be hard. We need what used to be termed an “intervention.” Here is one idea: get the ex-presidents to intervene.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Americans deserve better but may not get it
Trump and Zelensky were doing fine yesterday:
Zelensky had several times challenged Trump. Europeans, Zelensky said, had provided more aid than the US and it did not have to be paid back. He noted Putin’s record of violating agreements, as well as his torture of prisoners and theft of Ukrainian children. Trump was taking it, even though it made him visiblyu uncomfortable.
The culprit was Vance
Things went south about 39:50, when JD Vance chimed in about the virtues of diplomacy rather than force. Zelensky responded “what kind of diplomacy?” But things only went off the rails when Vance then called Zelensky disrespectful. He had not been disrespectful, though he was clearly annoyed that the VP was chiming in. It was Vance who was being disrespectful.
Quarreling at that point was unwise. Zelensky should have said “we’ll have to disagree about the prospects for successful diplomacy.” Or “I agree about diplomacy, but it has to be backed by strength.” Or “diplomacy with security guarantees makes sense to me.” But give the man a break: he was exhausted and tired of these Russian dupes.
Why did Vance do it?
There are several possible explanations for why Vance made the false claim that Zelensky was disrespectful:
- They had met privately in advance of this public session. I had the sense there was already bad blood between them. Maybe it just flowed out.
- Trump and Vance may have agreed that the President would play good cop while the VP played bad cop.
- Vance may have decided the meeting was going too well and that his minders in Moscow would not be pleased.
- Trump and Vance may have (rightly) decided the agreement Zelensky was about to sign was a nothing burger.
Whatever the cause, it was, as Tom Nichols put it in The Atlantic, an ambush. Zelensky was not at fault.
Humpty dumpty
The question now is whether Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again. I doubt it. It was not just this meeting that went badly. Trump’s entire initiative for peace in Ukraine is cockeyed. He is trying to wean Russia from China and make Moscow a friend of the US. That isn’t going to happen. Putin knows his country is nothing without Chinese backing. He certainly won’t trade it for the uncertainties of US support.
But there is no telling with Trump. He is a bad negotiator. He concedes things up front that he needn’t concede. Trump holds back on things that need to be clear up front. He reverses himself even on issues he has said are vital. The European backing for Zelensky should make an honest US president wonder if he has got this right. But of course Trump despises the Euros. And he isn’t honest
America will shrink
That leaves us with a giant split in the NATO Alliance. Trump is aligned with Russia. The Europeans align with Ukraine. But will the Euros get their act together to fill in for the US aid Trump will cancel? If they don’t Putin will win this war. Then after a few years of rearmament he will start a new one in Moldova, then Poland or the Baltics.
America will have shrunk to a Western Hemisphere power pining after Panama and Greenland. And complaining to Mexico and Canada about the drugs Americans are abusing. Washington will be unable and unwilling to defend its allies in either Europe or Asia. Our economy will be noncompetitive due to tariff protection. The society will return to its tradition of white robber baron supremacy. Americans deserve better but may not get it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The agreement they didn’t sign
I wrote most of this piece before today’s meeting. The analysis of the agreement is I think correct, even if OBE.
The US-Ukraine minerals deal were supposed to sign today has one great virtue. There are no obvious no-no’s, like limits on its territorial extent or obligations Ukraine will find onerous. It really doesn’t constitute what President Trump said he wanted, which was payback for US assistance. It does make Ukraine devote half its future natural resource revenue to the joint fund the agreement promises. But that is no loss since the fund is devoted exclusively to investments in Ukraine.
But if there are no glaring errors, it still doesn’t constitute a “devastating blow” to Putin. The devil is in the details, which haven’t been negotiated yet. Does this agreement apply to all of Ukraine’s sovereign territory as of 2014, before the first Russian intervention? Can the US turn around and negotiate a similar agreement with Russia that applies to territory Moscow now controls? It just isn’t clear.
This is essentially an agreement to negotiate an agreement. No harm yet in that.
No security guarantees
The big omission from Ukraine’s perspective is the lack of security guarantees. The agreement says this:
The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.
That is a backhanded way of saying the US won’t give guarantees but will support Ukraine’s effort to get them. The implied source is Europe, including the United Kingdom and Turkey as well as the European Union. No one else is available. The Europeans should bear this burden. Russian guarantees aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
The problem is that the US saying that the US will not guarantee the guarantors. That is, if NATO European member states guarantee Ukraine’s security, NATO’s Article 5 will not apply to their forces. If the Europeans get into trouble, for example with the Russians, the US will not help them out.
That is important. The obligation to protect European forces in Bosnia led to the Dayton peace agreement. Dick Holbrooke convinced President Clinton it would be better to deploy Americans to end the war rather than conduct an evacuation of the Europeans.
Production isn’t going to be easy or quick
Ukraine is a big country and may have lots of resources of interest to the US.
Here are the more “critical” deposits, rare earths and others (the pinkish area in the southeast is Russian-occupied territory):
But none of this is going to be easy or quick to exploit. Yesterday’s NPR interview on the subject suggested it will 18 years from the required up-to-date mapping to mineral production from a mine:
That would be 18 years in peacetime, or in a peaceful area of the country. I’m not holding my breath.
So why did it blow up?
Signing this agreement, which is no more than an agreement to negotiate, would have been much better than a pissing match. But Vance and Trump seem to me determined to sandbag Zelensky, who wasn’t humble enough for their tastes:
Zelensky should not have taken the bait. Who knows what comes next!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Deal, no deal, ceasefire, peace agreement?
Ukrainian President Zelensky will meet Friday with President Trump to sign a minerals agreement the Americans have been insisting on. The Financial Times reports:
The final version of the agreement, dated February 25 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would also be able to invest in projects in Ukraine.
The $500 billion demand has disappeared. No security guarantees are included. The US stake in the fund is unspecified.
Deal, or no deal?
It is hard to know what to think about this, as it all depends on the details and on implementation. It is certainly not common practice for countries providing support to insist on repayment. But Trump is Trump. Personally, I wouldn’t sign anything he offers, but Zelensky is in a difficult spot. I hope he knows what he is doing.
The bigger question is whether this will bring Trump around to supporting Ukraine rather than Russia. I doubt it. Moscow will offer to match any terms Zelensky signs for minerals at least in Russian-occupied Ukraine. Trump won’t resist. Two deals of this sort will solidify partition.
What now?
Trump will continue to insist on peace talks. He desperately wants credit for ending the war. He has already given President Putin most of what Moscow wants. Trump is ready to accept Russian occupation of the territory it controls inside Ukraine. He has blamed Ukraine for the war. And he no doubt wants to end the shipment of arms to what he regards as the losing side.
Ukraine can do without the arms, at least for the next year or so. President Biden shipped ample supplies. The more important question is whether the US is prepared to continue providing intelligence. That is vital to Ukraine’s targeting. Also important to Ukraine is the use of Elon Musk’s StarLink satellite network, which it uses for military communications.
Trump’s reluctance to continue supporting Ukraine makes the Europeans more important than ever. If they step up their military supplies, Ukraine has a chance to outlast Russia in the current war of attrition. If they don’t, Kyiv’s manpower shortage will become ever more visible and relevant. Ukraine needs both Europe’s arms and its economic and financial support.
What about peace?
If Trump continues to insist, a ceasefire is a real possibility. Both Ukraine and Russia need a respite, during which they will resupply and reorganize for renewed fighting. The Europeans are saying they are prepared to observe a ceasefire. But the confrontation line is 600 miles long, with forces on both sides stronger than any the Europeans will deploy. The experience of monitoring a much shorter confrontation line in southern Lebanon does not bode well.
Neither Kyiv nor Moscow seems to me prepared to compromise on their basic war aims. Russia wants to limit Ukraine’s sovereign choices, like joining NATO. Ukraine wants Russia out of all of its territory, including Crimea. There may be a mutually hurting stalemate, but there is no mutually enticing way out. A ceasefire will give both sides time to contemplate whether one exists, but they certainly haven’t defined one yet.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The hour of Europe really has arrived
The three-year anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has come and gone, with lots of fanfare. But nothing more discordant than the US vote in the General Assembly. Washington voted with Moscow and its friends against a resolution condemning the invasion. For the Trump Administration, calling an invasion aggression was just too much.
The real estate mogul views war
Trump has upended US policy on Ukraine. He has blamed Kyiv for the Russian invasion and asked for repayment of US aid. The Americans are talking with Russia about an end to the war without Ukrainians or Europeans in the room.
But none of that is the worst. The core problem is not procedural or rhetorical. It is the solution Trump will favor. He sees the war as a fight over territory, which he will propose to divide. Russia will keep whatever it has conquered and Ukraine will get the rest. This is a real estate mogul’s view of war. He takes a similar view of Gaza. It’s about territory for him. Get rid of the people and rebuild to Israel’s specifications, which means no Palestinians.
I need hardly mention that he is treating Panama, Canada, and Greenland with the same territorial eye.
It’s about sovereignty, not territory
But Ukraine is not about territory. Nor are Panama, Canada, and Greenland. Or even Gaza. In all these places the real issue is sovereignty, not territory. The Canada proposition is an obvious bad joke. It has already caused Canadians to look more to the UK and Europe for their future security. They are correct to do so.
But Panama and Greenland have good reason to fear Trump’s intentions. Neither is strong enough on its own to resist. The 1989 American invasion of Panama is forgotten in America, but it is living memory in Panama. Greenland has no military, and Denmark has a tiny one (16,000 total). Pituffik Space Base, until recently Thule Air Base, has fewer than 1000 Americans and contractors. If the US wanted to expand it, Denmark would no doubt have tried to cooperate. The Danes would also welcome US investment in mineral exploration and exploitation in Greenland. But Trump’s insistence on buying the island, and threatening that otherwise he’ll take it by force, will generate resistance. Denmark is small, but sovereign.
Sovereignty isn’t divisible, but it is shareable
The problem with sovereignty is that it isn’t divisible. But it is shareable. The European Union is a case of shared sovereignty. Its currency, the euro, belongs to no single member state. Likewise its common market and its rules for the circulation of people, capital, and services.
The Minsk I and II agreements that Moscow and Kyiv negotiated, but never implemented, entailed shared sovereignty. Let’s leave aside who would have benefited most and who was responsible for their non-implementation. They would have required Kyiv to devolve authority. That would have given Moscow a good deal of say in the governance of Russian speakers in Donbas. But it would have left the rest of Ukraine unconstrained.
Putin wants it all
For Putin, Ukraine is not about territory. He will accept a ceasefire. But he will not respect a serious solution that leaves even part of Ukraine as a sovereign state. That would mean Kyiv can make its own choices, like joining NATO, or developing nuclear weapons. Russia wouldn’t like that.
I still have some hope that Europe will step into the gap the US is leaving. The Europeans have more at risk. They have also paid more to date:
If Europe comes up with the $700 billion rumored, that would give Ukraine the means to outlast Putin. It would also give Europe the clout to counterbalance the US. Those are two desirable outcomes, under current circumstances.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Part II: what can be done?
J. F. Carter, US Army (ret LTC) 1968-1992, United Nations (ret D-1) 1992-2009, and European Union (ret D-1) 2009-2011, continues his analysis of the problems from last week with this proposal for solutions:
Donald Trump did not put his hand on the Bible during the swearing-in. He doesn’t feel constrained to protect the United States against all enemies domestic and foreign.
What can be done?
Be part of the Resistance:
- Bury your Congressmen and Senators with emails and letters!
- Organize and protest!
- Support politicians who understand that our democracy and Constitution are under threat!
- Join a political party that supports and follows the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution!
- Donate time and money!
- Vote!
- Elect Democrats, Independents and Republicans in 2026 who oppose Trumpism and MAGA!
- Support the courts to fight the battle against blatant violations of civil and legal rights!
- Educate and devote yourselves to the best of our government’s ideals!
Absent voters handed Trump his office, but we still have vestiges of three equal branches of government. J. D. Vance wants to ignore the principle of judicial review, established in Marbury vs Madison in the 18th century. But he hasn’t won that battle yet. Ours is still a government that rules by law, not by the whims of one man. We got rid of King George III. We do not need King Donald.
Ukraine
On the international front, Trump is creating chaos with Allies and aligning the US with Russia. There is a lot to be done:
- Support European efforts in favor of Ukrainian sovereignty and against Russian aggression!
- Insist that Europe and Ukraine be part of any peace negotiations!
- Do not abandon a free nation, with a democratically, popular leader like Zelensky, under attack!
- Ukraine’s defense is ours in the long run!
At home
Domestically, we need to create a stronger, more representative, and transparent democracy. It should not divide Americans but unite them, e pluribus unum. We need a Government of National Reconciliation as well as
- A Council of Sages consisting of former Presidents/VPs/advocates for the Constitution and democracy to speak directly to the American public on a regular basis;
- Term limits of 12 years for all Congress persons, Senators and judges;
- An end to Citizens United and return to one-person/one-vote, instead of allowing oligarchs to buy elections;
- Public financing of elections with equal funding for Independents, Democrats and Republican candidates that pass a certain threshold of voter support;
- Re-districting panels to ensure that there is competition in state and local elections;
- Voter registration/certification/verification panels;
- Strict laws prohibiting foreign interference (political or financial) in US elections ;
- Greater accountability and transparency of public spending;
- Admission of Puerto Rico and DC as states;
- Consultative counsels to meet monthly with local officials to discuss concerns and provide recommendations on how to improve local governance.
None to speak for me
Remember what German pastor Martin Niemöller said regarding the silence of the German public following the Nazi rise to power?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
RSS - Posts
