Trump certainly doesn't deserve a trophy for his "all flash no substance" efforts in Alaska. European leaders do, however, deserve a medal for jumping on a plane to Washington to avert another trainwreck in the Oval Office.
Trump’s sycophantic behaviour in Alaska was nauseating and embarrassing in the extreme. If Trump is able to move the needle in the direction of peace and security for Ukraine it will require diplomatic professionals (like Michael McFaul) which currently seem in short supply. I commend you for your dignified analysis because it would be easy to simply rip Trump apart. Clearly he is in over his head.
As you know, diplomacy is best left out of the public eye. Notwithstanding Trump's bombast and big mouth, I suspect that much more is being lefy out of public knowledge. The European leaders didn't just come to Washington to hold Zelensky's hand and protect him from 'meany' Trump. They are key players in security guarantees to Ukraine, and the fact that Trump did not rule out American troops in Ukraine says a lot. Let's see how things develop.
To some extent, it’s challenging to write coherently about events and meetings that yield no "deliverables." Yet, the author skillfully uses the fruitless meetings of yesterday and last week to sharply critique the inappropriateness of the lavish reception for Putin, particularly highlighting the fact of "nothing to spin". His writing is incisive and pointed. I have seen the red carpet as a thoughtful gesture from President Trump, but Putin has neither appreciated it nor felt flattered or moved at all. People often say God is watching; with this war, actually, the entire world is practically watching. Thus, judging by the arms sales agreement yesterday, double the previous amount, which is a very positive signal. Ultimately, the outcome hinges on the strength of NATO's narrative. Gratitude to the author for his thorough and sustained coverage of these events.
I think all this focus on “legitimizing” or “delegitimizing” the dictator Putin is misplaced. It reminds me of European leaders confusing moral grandstanding and moral outrage with action – kind of the Greta Thunberg school of diplomacy. I am no fan of our current president, and due to his short attention span and limited capabilities, I am not optimistic that the current process will bring peace to Ukraine in the end, but if we are to have any chance at all, I think it’s essential to engage with Putin, as distasteful as that may be, and flattering him and offering him at least a hint of the possibility of normalization of relations is very likely a necessary step towards peace. Very likely a necessary step to even get Putin to the table. I think Michael underestimates the importance and the value of this.
Since we have demonstrated that we are unwilling to stop Putin by force, and that we are unwilling to make sacrifices needed to bring war production up to the level which would give the Ukrainians even a chance on the battlefield, we have very little leverage, and that leverage is diminishing by the day. In short, Putin has demonstrated a full, bloody, relentless commitment to the war, accepting even large-scale slaughter of his own people, and we have not. And neither have the Europeans. Therefore, we are not going to win this war, as we didn’t win in Afghanistan or in Iraq or in any of the other ill-conceived conflicts we’ve been involved with this century. So it needs to be stopped while it’s still possible without full capitulation, and time is running out. Getting Putin to the table is the necessary and important first step. I would give the devil (Trump, I mean) his due for that.
Whether it ultimately leads to any result is a different question. But I did find Alexander Stubb’s comments the other day to Zelensky about the 1944 peace between the USSR and Finland to be encouraging. It might still be possible to hammer out something like that, which worked out so well for the Finns. If only we had more capable people on our side managing the process. But maybe there is some chance.
"The only good news from Alaska is that it did not become a Yalta 2.0. Trump and Putin did not carve up chunks of Ukraine without Ukrainians in the room."
Sorry, but that is not what I heard and you later said in this article. Putin gets Crimea no question and any part of Ukraine that Putin wants. They were carving up Ukraine since the US is now not supporting the Budhapest Memorandum signed by Russia and the USA. The USA is not defending Ukraine with its military power as guaranteed by the USA in that Memorandum. Sounds like carving up was at both Alaska and confirmed again by the secret talks with Putin even during the White House meeting. We should not forget that both Putin and Trump are criminals and dictators. They even agreed to carve democracy out of the USA with their decision to promote a ban on mail-in ballots. Let alone, by observable facts, their prior carvings in their work with Epstein on sharing little girls in Moscow and the USA. These deals go back over twenty years. Why did Trump not stop Putin's invasion when he was first in the Presidency if he had not already approved carving up Ukraine? The past is present as in Yalta. The Trump Putin GOP Oligarchical alliance holds firm and the carving was served at both meetings. Read "Bloodlands" by Snyder. That was another time when the Ukrainians were not in the room when Ukraine was carved up by the same two nations plus Germany. Other than this little deviation from reality, your article is great and highly appreciated. I suspect you meant that Trump and Putin did not "sign a formal memorandum carving up Ukraine without Ukranians in the room" even though they did serve up their carvings of Ukraine with Ukrianians in the room in the White House.
Here’s the thing; you’re arguing for good sense and reality. Sadly, this means you don’t understand the situation. Trump is almost never realistic and certainly not sensible. His modus operandi is to ‘win’. He does this by never losing. That is, if he loses he declares victory, marks it as a win and moves on. It appears insane (it is) but it works for him (and almost no one else).
Those who have come to understand him know he needs endless stroking and deference, but all the while they need to be maneuvering to slip past their own ‘wins’ without him realizing it.
He a tricky character to deal with since we’ve never experienced such a careless, cheating, lawbreaker. But we will!
Trump certainly doesn't deserve a trophy for his "all flash no substance" efforts in Alaska. European leaders do, however, deserve a medal for jumping on a plane to Washington to avert another trainwreck in the Oval Office.
Still a frightening messy prospect with these guys in the Trump administration. Not trustworthy diplomats.
Trump’s sycophantic behaviour in Alaska was nauseating and embarrassing in the extreme. If Trump is able to move the needle in the direction of peace and security for Ukraine it will require diplomatic professionals (like Michael McFaul) which currently seem in short supply. I commend you for your dignified analysis because it would be easy to simply rip Trump apart. Clearly he is in over his head.
As you know, diplomacy is best left out of the public eye. Notwithstanding Trump's bombast and big mouth, I suspect that much more is being lefy out of public knowledge. The European leaders didn't just come to Washington to hold Zelensky's hand and protect him from 'meany' Trump. They are key players in security guarantees to Ukraine, and the fact that Trump did not rule out American troops in Ukraine says a lot. Let's see how things develop.
To some extent, it’s challenging to write coherently about events and meetings that yield no "deliverables." Yet, the author skillfully uses the fruitless meetings of yesterday and last week to sharply critique the inappropriateness of the lavish reception for Putin, particularly highlighting the fact of "nothing to spin". His writing is incisive and pointed. I have seen the red carpet as a thoughtful gesture from President Trump, but Putin has neither appreciated it nor felt flattered or moved at all. People often say God is watching; with this war, actually, the entire world is practically watching. Thus, judging by the arms sales agreement yesterday, double the previous amount, which is a very positive signal. Ultimately, the outcome hinges on the strength of NATO's narrative. Gratitude to the author for his thorough and sustained coverage of these events.
I think all this focus on “legitimizing” or “delegitimizing” the dictator Putin is misplaced. It reminds me of European leaders confusing moral grandstanding and moral outrage with action – kind of the Greta Thunberg school of diplomacy. I am no fan of our current president, and due to his short attention span and limited capabilities, I am not optimistic that the current process will bring peace to Ukraine in the end, but if we are to have any chance at all, I think it’s essential to engage with Putin, as distasteful as that may be, and flattering him and offering him at least a hint of the possibility of normalization of relations is very likely a necessary step towards peace. Very likely a necessary step to even get Putin to the table. I think Michael underestimates the importance and the value of this.
Since we have demonstrated that we are unwilling to stop Putin by force, and that we are unwilling to make sacrifices needed to bring war production up to the level which would give the Ukrainians even a chance on the battlefield, we have very little leverage, and that leverage is diminishing by the day. In short, Putin has demonstrated a full, bloody, relentless commitment to the war, accepting even large-scale slaughter of his own people, and we have not. And neither have the Europeans. Therefore, we are not going to win this war, as we didn’t win in Afghanistan or in Iraq or in any of the other ill-conceived conflicts we’ve been involved with this century. So it needs to be stopped while it’s still possible without full capitulation, and time is running out. Getting Putin to the table is the necessary and important first step. I would give the devil (Trump, I mean) his due for that.
Whether it ultimately leads to any result is a different question. But I did find Alexander Stubb’s comments the other day to Zelensky about the 1944 peace between the USSR and Finland to be encouraging. It might still be possible to hammer out something like that, which worked out so well for the Finns. If only we had more capable people on our side managing the process. But maybe there is some chance.
interesting points
"The only good news from Alaska is that it did not become a Yalta 2.0. Trump and Putin did not carve up chunks of Ukraine without Ukrainians in the room."
Sorry, but that is not what I heard and you later said in this article. Putin gets Crimea no question and any part of Ukraine that Putin wants. They were carving up Ukraine since the US is now not supporting the Budhapest Memorandum signed by Russia and the USA. The USA is not defending Ukraine with its military power as guaranteed by the USA in that Memorandum. Sounds like carving up was at both Alaska and confirmed again by the secret talks with Putin even during the White House meeting. We should not forget that both Putin and Trump are criminals and dictators. They even agreed to carve democracy out of the USA with their decision to promote a ban on mail-in ballots. Let alone, by observable facts, their prior carvings in their work with Epstein on sharing little girls in Moscow and the USA. These deals go back over twenty years. Why did Trump not stop Putin's invasion when he was first in the Presidency if he had not already approved carving up Ukraine? The past is present as in Yalta. The Trump Putin GOP Oligarchical alliance holds firm and the carving was served at both meetings. Read "Bloodlands" by Snyder. That was another time when the Ukrainians were not in the room when Ukraine was carved up by the same two nations plus Germany. Other than this little deviation from reality, your article is great and highly appreciated. I suspect you meant that Trump and Putin did not "sign a formal memorandum carving up Ukraine without Ukranians in the room" even though they did serve up their carvings of Ukraine with Ukrianians in the room in the White House.
good points. And I have read Bloodlands.
Here’s the thing; you’re arguing for good sense and reality. Sadly, this means you don’t understand the situation. Trump is almost never realistic and certainly not sensible. His modus operandi is to ‘win’. He does this by never losing. That is, if he loses he declares victory, marks it as a win and moves on. It appears insane (it is) but it works for him (and almost no one else).
Those who have come to understand him know he needs endless stroking and deference, but all the while they need to be maneuvering to slip past their own ‘wins’ without him realizing it.
He a tricky character to deal with since we’ve never experienced such a careless, cheating, lawbreaker. But we will!
Noted