By Michael West
[This epic post originally appeared as a comment on my post about the now legendary Oval Office confrontation that gave Ukraine president Zelenskyy brownie points with the Trump Deranged while sabotaging his nation’s prospects of getting the U.S. support he desperately needs. Good job! But long-time Ethics Alarms critic, commenter and ethics analyst Michael West’s commentary goes far beyond the margins of that essay, and I decided that rather than a Comment of the Day, it is better suited to be a guest post. And so it is…Oh! I apologize to Michael for the facetious introduction above, but when something gets me thinking about a song, especially and earworm like THAT song, I either get it out of my system or the thing drives me nuts all day. JM]
Before we talk about this topic, I have a problem I’m working through.
I live across the street from a guy who immediately behind his house is a large stock pond that is even higher than his house – the retaining berm is pretty high compared to the foundation of the house, if you can imagine. Well, across the street where we live, is lower.
He’s always been a little concerned about the water pressure against the berm possibly breaching and flooding his house – which, if bad enough could cross the street and affect my house. One day many years ago, when the weather threatened to have a very rainy season, he asked me, since we both have this mutual concern if I could come over and help clear out the relief spill way of the pond. So I brought my shovel, which I’d kept nice and clean, sharp and the wooden handle well oiled. He had his also – a little worse for wear, but whatever, it’s a shovel right?
Well, we cleared the spill way of debris – any serious rain raising the water level would then be free to pour clear of his yard and relieve pressure on the berm. We walked home exhausted from the work, he tossed his shovel in the shed. He’s always been a little brusque and arrogant (I think he thinks a little more of his lifestyle than mine), so I didn’t really think much of it when he only said “Thanks for that”.
When I got home, I spent about an hour cleaning my shovel, hammering out some dings from rocks and running the grinder on it to re-sharpen it. I then applied teak oil (a not inexpensive preservative and moisturizer) on the handle. I put my shovel away.
Later in the season my neighbor saw me doing some landscape work with my shovel to improve the neighborhood. He scoffed saying he didn’t agree with what I was doing and what business of mine was it.
The next year, the as the rainy season approached my neighbor, again concerned about the pond, asked me over again to make sure the spillway was clear for flow, reminding me the pond could just as easily affect me, downhill across the street. My kids enjoyed playing in his backyard with his kids plus it would be neighborly. I brought my shovel and he kind of took some time rummaging through his mess of shed to find his shovel. Looked like it still had the mud from last year.
We went to work. At the end of the day, he tossed his shovel in the shed. I went home and sharpened, cleaned, reshaped and oiled mine – I had work to do over the coming months in other locations. My neighbor always had comments about the work I did and always thought I wasted time keeping my shovel in working condition. He laughed that with my work I didn’t have time for the fun things he could do.
One time, I asked my neighbor if he would be prepared to help my on the other side of my house cut a firebreak because I was concerned about the danger of a wildfire over there. His response was “I’ll see what I can do, but I’m pretty busy over here, so I wouldn’t expect to be able to soon.”
Another season went by, this time rain came on us with little warning and he called me up demanding I get over there and clean out the spillway before disaster befell both of us. On my way with the shovel, he asked me to try to get most of the work done as his shovel was too rusty and dinged up – the wooden handle was dry rotted a likely to snap. He said he’d always intended on taking care of his shovel but that he just didn’t have time for it with all the fun things he was doing.
As the rain poured down, I went to the top of the berm only to discover the pond was dry – bone dry – as in, it probably didn’t have any water in it for a year or two. There was zero chance this pond was going to breach and threaten our yards unless a true deluge happened.
I walked home with my shovel to the great anger of my neighbor who said he might lose all respect for me if I didn’t pitch in. He told me I would have no standing in the community if I didn’t help him and that all the respect I’d earned as a hard worker around the neighborhood would be for nothing. He told me we had an understanding and that I owed him and that if something happened to my yard, he would certainly be there for me.
Anyway – I’m not sure what I owe my neighbor.
Can y’all help me out with this situation?
Now, let’s talk about the problem of Europe.
From the start of the modern era, that is the late 1500s on Europeans engaged in continent-wide savage bloodlettings on multiple occasions.
1618-1648: The Thirty Years’ War consumed possibly 4.5 to 8 million people out of an estimated population of 75 million people (6-10% – though slightly less because it doesn’t count full amount of new births in that era).
The Franco-Spanish War occurred roughly contemporaneously, adding to the death count. These sucked in various German states, the Dutch, Spain, France, Sweden, the Hapsburg realms (Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, etc)
1672-1678: Franco-Dutch War; France, England, Sweden, the Dutch, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, several German states, etc, slogged it out to the tune of some 340,000 soldier deaths alone.
1688-1697: the Nine Years’ War; the Dutch, England, Scotland, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, etc duked it out chalking up another 680,000 soldiers KIA.
1683-1699: the Great Turkish War; (somehow along side the 9 years war); the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Venice, and the Spanish Empire against the Ottoman Empire. Europe sent another 384,000 soldiers to their doom.
1701-1714: the War of the Spanish Succession; consumed 700,000 to 1.3 million soldiers alone and saw Europeans stretch their legs to include combat abroad as their colonial empires grew. This sucked in France, various German states, England, the Dutch, Prussia, Portugal, and others.
1700-1721: the Great Northern War; Sweden, Poland, Ottoman Empire, a large variety of Slavic nationalities, Russia, various German states, Lithunia, England, Scotland, Ireland, the Dutch, Denmark, Norway, Prussia, Moldavia, et al, managed to run this war on the side of the War of the Spanish Succession at the cost of about 500,000 soldiers dead.
1740-1748: the War of Austrian Succession; France, Prussia, Spain, various German states, various Italian states, Sweden, some of Scotland, the Hapsburgs, Great Britain, and Russia laid each other out with 750,000 casualties. This war also saw widespread combat across the globe.
1756-1763: the Seven Years’ War; in another conflagration fought between Europeans across world wide locations; Great Britain, Prussia, Portugal, France, the Hapsburgs, Russia, Spain, Sweden, et al, slogged it out with some
630 to 850 thousand dead soldiers. This one saw widespread use of local colonial forces in the combat with Americans, Native Americans, Mughal Indians, Bengalese involvement.
1793-1802: the French Revolutionary reaction; France and some allies, Holy Roman Empire, Great Britain, Spain, the Dutch, Switzerland, some German and Italian States, the Ottomans, Portugal, Russia, the United States and various colonies – another 280,000 (at a minimum).
1802-1815: the French expansion and collapse – The Napoleonic Wars; here we get to see a prelude of what was really to come. The United Kingdom, the Hapsburgs, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Italian States, Iran, the Ottomans, Montenegro, German States, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, and the French get to learn what unhealthy nationalism can allow a dictator to lead to – an unlearned lesson to the tune of at least 6 million dead.
1853-1856: the Crimean War; the Ottomans, France, the United Kingdom, go after Russia, with a loss of anywhere from 600,000 to 1 million dead.
1870-1871: The Franco-Prussian War; finally, a remarkably “isolated” war, pits France against Germany, but just the two nations racked up some 200,000 dead soldiers and 250,000 dead civilians.
Alongside all of that 250 year war-fest there were dozens of sideshows on the European Continent that were spats involving more than just neighboring powers in addition to the fights between unhappy neighbors. This summary history begins with the modern age primarily because Europe’s wars prior to this – the drama of the middle ages, mostly resembled what we would see familiarly in modern era in places like Africa or the Middle East – that is, man’s perennial condition – limited local wars of varying intensity waged primarily between prima donna young men and their loyal constituencies trying to make a name for themselves or two ethnos that just flat out refuse to live together.
From the end of the Franco-Prussian War on, Europe seemed to content itself in various scraps cleaning up things around their respective colonies while apparently gaining an incredible level of openness in commerce and travel between the home countries on the continent. Apparently only to really be containing an increasing pressure of energy waiting to burst:
The cataclysm of 1914-1945 absolutely ruined European nations in a way the previous wars had not. The most unscathed of the Europeans were the British – and even they lost the entirety of their Empire and were reduced to the most dire of living conditions on the home Islands. The rest of Europe, lived in the hollowed-out rubble of vast combat zones with a bare thread of industry and a large percentage of their working population flat out gone.
The culminating point of old-world European culture was a suicide pact that saw something like more than 3% of the population killed. The first half the war brought all of Europe’s colonial energy to the continent while the second half brought all of Europe’s internal hatred to rest of the world. Europe broke itself, broke its self-confidence, and resulted in the only way Europe could be at peace: with stronger powers from outside Europe managing the peace. All of modern history was a competition for 1 single European power to dominate Europe and so ensure a peace in Europe under their own authority – but no single European nation could ever pull it off, and no coalition that attempted to do so could remain unified.
Enter the Americans. While the Russians for a time were also part of the European “Peace”, they engaged in a losing 40 year “balance of power” arrangement in Europe with the US dominated western coalition. But each passing decade saw Russia’s part in the peace diminish as country after country flipped towards the US arrangement. Make no mistake: Russia has only itself to blame for why any country administered by it under the post-war peace ran as fast as it could towards NATO.
Even while Russian power was perennially diminishing, since Socialism is an abject failure in sustainability, it’s primary appearance was that of an equal counterbalance to the US lead western coalition. And as long as that appearance held to be reality, then the drama of 1945 to 1990 was that of a world that had to pick between the United States or Russia.
That changed in 1991. Suddenly we had a Russia that might not be so tough, but we weren’t so sure – so it was best to keep our posture towards it and keep allowing into the western fold all takers. Here the West failed in not necessarily vetting and creating “tiers” based on republican similarity – we were just happy to accept anyone who opposed Russia.
But the US-Russia dynamic continued from 1990 until the present day, as we operated under the belief that while the USSR collapsed, Russia was still the world’s 2nd power and should be taken seriously – and why not? They were still strong players of many areas of conflict in the world.
But the Russians knew something we didn’t. They weren’t so great after all. They saw something in their future that they had better shore up before the reality manifest. They didn’t just lose Warsaw Pact – they didn’t just lose the USSR – they were going to lose all of Russia before long. Sure, they could rustle up trouble for Western powers here and there across the globe, because they knew they didn’t have to invest in cleaning up those messes. But they were (and still are) headed towards a demographic collapse.
Enter Vladimir Putin – a guy who promised the Russians a return to greatness and the possibility of reversing their not-too-far-in-the-future-decline-beyond-recovery. But he also knew what we didn’t know, he wasn’t going to successfully pick a fight with a NATO country, but he needed to do something to energize his people and expand the buffer zones around the Russian ethnic core. He only had 1 option: Ukraine.
Now we get to the actual end of the Cold War. The Cold War was premised on the idea that we believed Russia and it’s hegemony was too strong to defeat conventionally without completely wrecking our civilization and we made our civilization too strong for the Russian hegemony to defeat without completely wrecking themselves. This specter of something worse than World War 2 made sure nothing serious ever happened between the West and Russia. The Cold War was predicated on neither side knowing the real strength of the other and therefore being too scared to do anything about it.
But now we know. The cat is out of the bag on Russian ability. They could not even secure more than 20% of a 4th rate country on their own border. Putin’s gamble in Ukraine not only failed, it failed spectacularly. A minimum investment in Ukrainian resilience by Western Powers before Putin expanded the invasion in 2022 led to Russia crapping its pants on the offensive. Now, 3 years later and some 700,000 Russian casualties later, Russia is still sitting only maybe halfway towards what could be called minimal objectives.
We know Russia’s maximal objectives were 100% out of reach by day 3 of the war. By the end of the first month, it was already giving up on “next best thing” level objectives.
This is an interesting development in terms of European balance of power dynamics.
The European Union, an economy some $20 trillion strong and a population of 450 million people are looking at Russia’s $2 trillion economy and 140 million people, and they still don’t understand that Russia is not the 1945 Soviet Empire. That’s just the EU. If we expand this to all of Europe (minus the CIS countries) then Europe becomes a $24 trillion dollar economy with 590 million people.
The Europeans, since 1945, have counted on the presence of two massive entities refusing to go to war with each other to ensure European unity and peace. But now, one of those powers has turned out to not really be what we thought it was. And now, the other power is kind of wondering why it is being asked to come over to dig relief ditches with their well maintained and expensive shovel in their pond spillway since the pond is dry and the neighbor’s shovel is rusty and un-taken care of.
So we have a dynamic here. The US ant has been supplementing the EU grasshopper’s lifestyle for quite awhile. And some of the ants are beginning to not like that, especially when the grasshoppers mostly complain about the ant and hold the ant’s lifestyle in contempt.
But there is another dynamic here as well. The United States, largely as a result of Europe’s self-destruction, has inherited sole control over the world’s oceans. The US navy alone, if I remember correctly, outclasses something like the next 9 navies combined and of those 9, 7 of them are aligned with the United States. There is currently no ability for any miscreant nation or even team of miscreant nations to interrupt global commerce on the waves.
That is entirely why the current global situation is one of increasing lifespans, increasing widespread access to more than just essential goods, but iphones, luxuries, internet, exotic foods, vacations, etc, increasing cultural exchange – all of your modern happiness is thanks due to one thing: the United States Navy supplemented by our periodic military interventions.
But that doesn’t mean miscreant nations can’t disrupt global commerce in their way: the world’s cheapest labor force, China, could stop making things (it won’t of course because it would collapse). Various piratical or terrorist acts could make life expensive for trade at the world’s harder to police choke points.
But there’s another way miscreants can gum up the Pax Americana currently guaranteed by American Force: convince local warlords that the threat of American force is meaningless in places that matter to countries that matter. That is to say, do we believe that the arbitrary redrawing of maps by stronger countries undermine the essential trust we have in the US Global Order?
So, given this dynamic: does ignoring Ukraine threaten this trust?
The Europeans insist that it does. And here we wrap back around to the first dynamic we discussed: The Europeans cannot do one thing of their own accord. Every time they’ve tried in the past 300 years, they’ve killed of large swathes of their own people. They have the population and economy to balance Russia if they wanted to – but they can’t – they are cursed to perennial infighting and slaughter.
And they know this about themselves.
So they are panicking. The United States asked them politely to foot more of the bill and to a degree they ignored the request, though the powers closer to the danger ante’d up. Now, the United States is telling them in less uncertain terms that if they don’t start ponying up we may not be there.
(We will of course be there because we don’t want to have to repeat the last big one, but damn if the grasshopper doesn’t need a hard wake up call by the ant, because persuasion isn’t working.)
To top it all off, our European friends who insist we must be all in on solving their problems (because they know only we can do it), also love nothing more than the hobby of dragging their feet and hemming and hawing when we ask them to solve problems we’re interested in.
The only time Article V of NATO charter has been invoked was in response to 9/11. This was after the United States said they were not invoking it, but our most loyal friends, the British, led this effort. Belgium, Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands hesitantly joined, leading to article V’s invocation.
However, despite claims, this never led to any NATO action against the perpetrators of the attack. NATO’s collective action was largely symbolic – beefing up air patrols over the continental United States for about 8 months and some “anti WMD trafficking” patrols in the Mediterranean Sea.
Individual nations independent of the non-existent NATO mission contributed some personnel to the invasion of and continued occupation of Afghanistan to some degree or another. Excepting our loyal friends, the British, who have contributed greatly to our various efforts, most other countries that should ostensibly “have our back” because we have theirs, generally spent the 17 year Afghan mission sending a pittance of support or just criticizing American “adventurism”.
But, and let me be clear, this actually isn’t inherently a problem. But it does estop any criticism of times we may be hesitant in supporting them. Sorry, thems the realities. This isn’t a problem, because while we foot the bill of defending world stability – we have, for the most part, reaped the rewards as the world’s richest and most advanced country.
But, here enters yet one more dynamic, that ties back to the destruction of WW2. The United States, uniquely, exited WW2 pretty much unscathed. This had a two-fold benefit: our industry was booming making our lives comfortable – the rest of the world’s industry, was either not there in the case of the 3rd world or completely wrecked in the case of Europe, making our industry, their industry, so we also became wildly wealthy.
But times are a changin’. The 3rd world is industrializing. Europe, about midway between 2000 and 2010 could be said to have “caught back up” to where they probably would have been had WW2 not happened. While we are still the richest and most advanced country – the gap behind us is closing. And for the most part it is closing entirely because of US magnanimity and provided security.
So, let’s review the dynamics and decide how they measure up to our values:
1) Europe cannot be trusted to govern itself – every time it has tried it has killed of large swathes of it’s people AND managed to get the rest of the world involved killing large swathes of their people. It needs a heavy hand (even a benevolent heavy hand) to keep it from killing itself.
2) Europe has wildly benefited from the current benevolent heavy hand – so much so that it could be paying a lot more for what is being done on it’s behalf. But it doesn’t want to.
3) The primary threat to Europe is collapsing, dramatically so.
4) The United States secures the world’s oceans, and where it can it punishes miscreants on land who try to disrupt world commerce.
5) The United States, for the most part, foots the vast majority of the bill for this mission and has, for the most part, reaped the vast majority of the rewards for the effort.
6) But that’s diminishing.
We view ourselves as sort of Captain America – a man of pure altruistic virtue, willing to step into the gap and fight the bad man, even if there is no reward. We pride ourselves in the dignity and respect nations give us when we do step into the gap. We envision walking around with a prestige that we don’t want tarnished by “failing” to be the heroes.
But I wonder. Do they respect us? I think the soldiers of our allied nations respect us, because of all people they are level headed enough to know what defending a country means. But the average member of these allied societies? I’m skeptical about the respect and adoration they dole out when it isn’t related to us beating the snot out of their enemy for them.
I for one am not for abandoning our Western allies generally centered on the NATO alliance. But this is not motivated by “losing their love of us.” I’m motivated by the notion that I don’t want another generation of Americans having to slog across the European continent to save them from themselves and save others from being pulled in.
I don’t think we’re wrong to want a little more of our allies than just supposed “good feelings”.
What about Ukraine then? And what about the future?
Let’s talk about the future first: relevant to the dynamic discussed that the whole world is finally catching up to the United States (still distant however) – this means on average, non-Russian Europe is actually less important than it has even been. Even though it is still very important, that importance diminishes by the decade. Like, what if in 2050 they had another war, and nobody showed up because they didn’t need to?
China desperately wants to flex it’s muscles in the world, and to do so it has to dominate the western pacific. But China is bad. China should be contained. Is Europe going to help us do this? Doubtful. They hemmed and hawed the last time we brought up the topic. We might find allies in India. We will have allies in Australia and Japan and most of the Island Nations that would come under Chinese threat. The Chinese menace was enough to convert our erstwhile enemy Vietnam into close friends with us, not long after we had it out with them. But will Europe help us?
Probably not. But what would be nice to have confronting a war with China on it’s coast? Maybe a big fat military power sitting right behind China. Even a power in decline, behind China, would be extremely helpful in undermining their sense of security in any comping conflict. Unfortunately, that entity happens to be… Russia.
Enter another dynamic – in the coming conflict with China (if it cannot be avoided), it will be a US led war uniting Southeast Asian and Pacific Island nations. Very likely Europe will do very little to assist (though our British allies will probably pitch in). But if we somehow got Russia to align in an anti-China stance, would we alienate Europe enough for it to try to align with China?
I don’t know. That’s a great unknown. We can live without a lot of countries, but I don’t think we should try to live without those countries because it’s easier to live with them friendlier, even if they scoff at our culture.
In the future – if conflict with China cannot be avoided, what friendships do we risk in balancing useful powers against China and are those friendships too valuable to risk or quite possibly not that important after all? I don’t know and I hate having to be forced to think about it.
What about Ukraine and how does it play into this global dynamic?
To start, let’s gripe about the past.
If was President of the United States, I wouldn’t be a feckless wimp that encouraged Russia’s initial adventure into Ukraine: taking Crimea and leading an insurrection in the southeast of Ukraine. But if it happened, I would park a carrier group in the Black Sea ostensibly to “observe” and to conduct bilateral training with an allied nation: Turkey. After a time, when things settled, I’d “lead” my NATO friends (who insist they are serious), to send a half dozen or so battalions of “trainers” to the Ukrainian military. Look, Vlad, I know it concerns you, but we don’t want violence to spill over into the rest of Ukraine, while the “breakaway republics” figure themselves out. The realpolitik reason they’d be there to let Russia know it absolutely would have to kill NATO soldiers if it wanted to make a move on the rest of Ukraine. But we didn’t do anything strong. We are too sensitive to our “serious” NATO allies calling us “wild cowboys” or accusing us of “reckless escalation”. So now, we sit with Ukraine invaded in a full war as we’ve been piecemealing in support in what I like to characterize as a “die on the vine” level of assistance to the Ukrainian military.
So we’re stuck with 4 general options (two of which are unethical and the two sort of ethical options both have their incredible risks)
1) Keep doing what we’re doing. Which essentially is giving Ukraine enough to not lose quickly. But it is losing. Every day, the Russians are grinding horribly forward. There’s a hope that somehow Russians will get tired of dying – but we’re underestimating Russian nationalism and Russian ability to suffer here. The hope is that they give up before Ukraine has to give up. I doubt that will happen short of Putin’s death.
This course ensures that absolutely NO decisive action will occur that could see a Ukrainian victory.
This course, the “Democrat course” is unethical. 200k Russians have died and 500k have been wounded – and you can assume 1/3 to 1/2 that number in Ukrainian casualties. So, something like over a million people in 3 years have been killed or wounded. Keep this grind going with absolutely NO decisive end in sight?
2a) We go wildly into material support for Ukraine. We really just pump equipment and ammo and materiel into their army while simultaneously pressuring the Ukrainian government into almost full conscription. (FULL DISCLOSURE, I’m a hawk on this, and this is my preferred course of action before anyone who has managed to read this far, and continues to the Trump part of this thinks I’m a Trumpian)
2b) We actually show up with our military and slog it out with the Russians once and for all, finalizing the 80 year long fist shaking we’ve engaged with them.
This course, the “traditional hawk Republican course” is ethical in principle. We do what we’ve always done: give the good guys a chance to humiliate the bad guys. Done properly, it restores Ukrainian territorial integrity.
Massively risky on the “escalation” threat of Russia (but I’m increasingly less concerned with Russian saber rattling).
However, this course will NEVER garner the political will in our country necessary to see it a reality. Democrats already showed their hand with barely supporting Ukraine. Europe, who ostensibly claims to be the most serious about this effort, also will not give much more than it currently is giving. And Republicans would be mostly split on this course of action.
3) Cut and Run. Cut all aid. Many non-serious European nations will do the same – certainly the ones dependent on Russian oil ——- SIDEBAR HERE ——– how are we supposed to take any European claim about their seriousness towards the Russians when they are still flat out doing business with them getting around the sanctions they claim to have wanted in place or openly drinking Russian gas to keep their economies going? SIDEBAR COMPLETE.
If we cut and run, only the remaining interested nations will continue to help Ukraine and likely would boil down into Eastern European nations plus Great Britain fueling a war that eventually grinds into a guerilla campaign. We will take a “prestige” hit in the eyes of our European friends (who, again, I strongly suspect, don’t really care much about us anyway beyond our ability to keep them safe from tyrants and themselves).
This I think is unethical also. Bless Europe’s panicking heart because they fundamentally believe this is the direction the United States is going. Even France put on a show to unite Europe on Ukraine’s behalf and the rest of them hemmed and hawed about commitment. Now the UK is saying “it is prepared to send troops to Ukraine” (I’d love to know what “prepared to send” means and what it’s mission in Ukraine would be)
4) Since we (the USA) can’t just quit Ukraine and we (the USA and Europe) won’t actually help Ukraine win we have one option left. A negotiated settlement. It sucks because Ukraine surrenders some territorial integrity. It sucks because we can’t chastise the Russians the way they deserve. But, sorry, if we aren’t going to help Ukraine actually win…thems the realities.
Before talking about the negotiations, I recognize there are some objections to the characterization of the options above:
Many will believe the current “trickle in” course of action (option 1) is actually fine and war winning. The Ukrainians don’t mind losing many hundred thousand of their people in a slow grind that eventually sees Russia give up and eventually be forced to leave. But I don’t think that’s how war works. Ukraine must eventually go on the offensive and that will require much more support.
Cynically speaking, option 1 is fine because it speeds up Russia’s inevitable demographic collapse. But that’s not good for our “prestige” for those who harp on that it literally feeds the meme narrative that we’ll “fight this war to the last Ukrainian.”
Many will believe the “cut and run” course of action (option 3) is actually fine. This attitude is associated with a certain isolationist strain in Americans. But I don’t want to go on a longer explanation, but isolationism went out the window in the 1600s. We’re either involved in the world or the world is involved in us.
So, if a negotiated settlement is what we’re left with (and that’s the only realistic option at this point unless the collective West manages to grow some chutzpah), then even the most Trump deranged, if behaving ethically, will recognize that Trump’s sense of direction here is correct. The Trump deranged believe that Trump will throw Ukraine under the bus and allow Russia to steam roll in. The Trump deranged believe there is no room in Trump’s initial negotiations for security guarantees.
And of course there is no point making a deal with Russia without security guarantees. Which I will now ask anyone who says they are “serious” about Ukrainian security guarantees.
Define them.
If you’re serious, then those guarantees are going to look alot like what I said I’d do if I was president, and that is putting your own soldiers into Ukraine as “trainers” but really as a “trip wire” that Russia would have to kill in order to reopen hostilities.
If your idea of guarantees does not include the willingness to take casualties on behalf of Ukraine then you are, by definition, NOT SERIOUS on this topic.
But, we’re at a point where almost every single interested party internally and European (minus the recent British comment) have made declarations about “no boots on the ground”. So please remember most of these comments when you take into consideration Trump’s move on making an economic deal with Ukraine. That is the next step that gets interested countries physically in Ukraine without “boots on the ground”. But it is step in the direction of eventually getting boots on the ground.
So, the Trump Deranged, because they don’t want to admit to the reality of the situation and reality of their lack of seriousness, poo poo Trump’s initial offer of an economic arrangement as what is actually “unserious”.
And now, here we sit, probably the most important relationship needing to be established, and a meeting that never should have happened, allowed a spat that never should have happened outside of closed doors to very likely ensure that the two unethical courses of action are the ones that will be taken:
Cut and run or continue the undecisive bloodletting of yet another European country, meanwhile we have Asian concerns growing.
All because the Trump Deranged hate him so much they won’t just let him get ***where he’s trying to go. Based on conversations I’ve had, many of the Trump Deranged are so addled in their analysis, that Trump’s mere presence in a room, by definition, makes the person he’s talking to, always in the right and never in the wrong. There is a refusal to accept that Zelensky said things, albeit calmly, that were pretty undiplomatic. But never mind that they were undiplomatic, Trump *deserves* to be treated undiplomatically because he is Trump, and so therefore, the conduct wasn’t undiplomatic at all. It’s frustrating to see people willingly blind because they hate Trump so viscerally.
But, course of action 4 does carry risk. What if the Trump deranged are right? What if Trump is a “Putin lover”. What if negotiations really are about selling Ukraine out to the benefit of the Russians. There’s some risk, but I don’t see it yet.
***I partially understand the frustration of people not knowing where Trump is trying to go. But unfortunately that’s how power competition and diplomatic negotiation works. I can’t give away my playbook to the opposing team and sometimes that means the people watching, even on my side, don’t get to see my playbook.
As a final sign off, I know a lot of people have exhausted themselves insisting that Donald Trump is risking the NATO alliance. No, the NATO alliance, a *good thing*, has always had a shaky existence threatened by lots differing European opinions. No, the European grasshopper, the neighbor that won’t clean his shovel he insists is necessary to clean the spillway is the threat to NATO stability, not the American ant, the neighbor who spends the time and resources keeping his shovel in working condition.
I think, for the most part, it still pays the United States dividends to foot the NATO bill with a pittance provided by Europeans – not just economically, but also in the fact that it prevents another pan-European catastrophe that millions of American boys would have to respond to. And so I don’t mind when a President doesn’t demand other countries pay their fair share.
I however will not pretend like it bothers me when a President does make the demand of our allies. And I am not beholden to what any particular European “feels” about my country either. I don’t think they think too highly of us anyway in any other aspect that how we beat up people on their behalf only to find out they spend part of their time criticizing how we beat the people up on their behalf. I really don’t care if they say they’ll lose respect for us. We don’t need their good feels if their good feels are only based on our willingness to fight. This isn’t a movie.
Ethics Alarms 
“I apologize to Michael for the facetious introduction above”
It’s ok, when this post was formulating in my head all weekend, I wanted to put it to the song. But alas….that’s ALOT of verses.
A magnum ups, indeed.
Frankly, I wanted to take your well cared-for shovel to your neighbor’s backside.
jvb
Well, since it doesn’t undermine the purpose of the allegory: to not smear any of my actual neighbors, yall should know I don’t have any bum neighbors nor do I perfectly maintain my shovel. But that ain’t what the allegory was about.
The surrealism of the metaphor was not lost on me as I didn’t really believe the errant, obnoxious neighbor guy actually existed but was a foil for your larger point. Still, I wanted to shovel backside the guy.
jvb
Likewise. The ant/grasshopper metaphor really worked and has reminded me of some real-life people.
I was thinking of recommending you switch to linseed oil for the shovel and save the “good stuff” for the furniture. As the Army taught me, “if you take good care of your equipment, your equipment will take good care of you.” Still good advice almost 60 years later…
Michael, Thank you for taking the time and effort to put this together.
Thanks!
Maintenance feels expensive but try buying new stuff to replace your unmaintained stuff.
Re: the shovel. Interesting analogy. Unfortunately, America’s shovel is not well maintained, its military is in a parlous state due to decades of underinvestment caused by a belief that the end of the Cold War = an end to history.
Awesome and epic guest post!
I love the last paragraph, in my opinion it’s spot on!!!
Thanks!
By the way, Europeans, in fits and starts, will begin to have talks about putting boots on the ground in Ukraine – the only way there would ever be any serious security guarantees against future Russian aggression after a ceasefire.
Not one person is going to acknowledge that Europe was not going to ever do that independent of Trump’s actions.
Trump *could* have proposed such a solution, and Europeans and at-home scoffers would have said one of two things:
They would have screamed about Trump’s reckless escalation
They would have agreed to the proposal, content that America would shoulder the burden, commit something like 87 soldiers to the effort and called it a day.
But no, now they will eventually get around to realizing reality, and when they do, the narrative will be:
“Europe shows bold leadership in Ukraine security, despite Trump’s abandonment!”
Eventually, once we see Europe is serious, we’ll make our own commitments and the Trump deranged will bleat out “Trump *forced* by true statesmen to join international effort”.
Just ignore the idiots when this happens.
Just look at the fact that none of them will admit that Trump was right when he chided Germany back in 2018. He was right on the Russian threat back then, and Germany just mocked him.
Wow! Excellent exposition that provides a lot of food for thought. Thanks for sharing.
A few other shining clues that Russia isn’t the threat we think it is:
Two years into the war, most of Russia’s foreign adventures have been scrapped to prioritize those energies into the Ukraine War.
Also, ostensibly Russia’s ally – Belarus, run by a Russian puppet – should have committed forces to the war. They didn’t.
Because I think they know about themselves something seething under the surface waiting to burst out – and we saw flickers of it early on: but that if Lukashenko committed Belarusian soldiers to die in Ukraine on Putin’s behalf – that Belarus would be one more switch flipped towards the West.
I feel bad responding to such a massive, well written post with something so trivial, but it struck me when reading about those who now “stand with Ukraine” against Adolf Trump–this is just another example of slacktivism in action.
They don’t want to send troops to Ukraine. They don’t want to risk escalating things. They don’t DO anything, except what they do best–signal their virtue.
Sure, send more money (but don’t cut down the size of the government workforce, or people will die!). It doesn’t affect them personally if Congress sends another $100B (but don’t cut overhead on grants, or people will die!), but it does show the world and their friends that they really care about Ukrainians. So they are okay with spending other people’s money (but don’t cut Medicare, or people will die!) and looking down from their high horses at those who think maybe sending more money isn’t the right thing to do.
It’s sickening, and I see no way of getting any of them to realize exactly what is going on.
I have the impression that if instead of Ukraine, Russia had invaded another non-NATO country, I don’t know. Say…. Moldova, or Georgia, the conversation would be different. If only we had some kind of example like that. /s
I feel like a lot of this is beside the point. Despite spending an amazing amount of ink accurately describing facets of the problem, you somehow managed to miss writing the one word that matters more than almost any other: nuclear. Are you unaware of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, or do you find them inconvinient?
Because Ukraine did their part: They disarmed their nukes, and gave up trillions of dollars worth of material for security assurances, which America reaffirmed in 2009, only five years before the Russian invasion of the Crimean Penninsula.
This isn’t a matter of relative maintenance of materiel. America has perennially been a bad ally. Does anyone think that Ukraine would have signed those agreements and disarmed if they’d known that at the first sign that America might actually be called to follow through on their commitments, they’d him and haw over mineral rights?
If you don’t want to protect them, give them back their nukes.
HT, in reading through the document, it seems that the promise of aid to the Ukraine is contingent on nuclear weapons being wielded against Ukraine.
I also have a question that if Russia is a guarantor of the accords, and Russia is the treaty-breaking asshole, what does that do to the technical text of the document? Each statement has all four reaffirming commitment in one single “AND” statement. The logician in me thinks that if one guarantor reneges, the accords become a vacuous statement. What does that do to the obligations of the other guarantors, in the strictest legalistic interpretation? I would hold ethically that if any one nation signed as guarantor, that makes the commitments obligatory regardless of the faithfulness of the other guarantors, but I actually don’t know the legal standing here.
I don’t like linking more than one citation, because WordPress eats the comment, but you could also look at the 1993 Massandra accords, the 1994 Trilateral Statement, or the 2009 Joint Declaration by Russia and the United States.
But perhaps most telling was the Russian Foreign Ministry’s own defense of their actions in Crimea:
“the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the coup d’etat.”
This is, of course, nonsense.
As to Russia being the treaty breaking asshole…. Of course they are. Who else was ever going to be? America? The UK? Poland? The entire point of the exercise was for America and the UK to come to the territorial defense of Ukraine if and when Russia decided to invade. No one was confused by this, again: Do you think Ukraine would have agreed to this and given up their 1900 nuclear warheads if they thought that Russia could roll in 15 years later and they’d be on their own?
“Do you think Ukraine would have agreed to this and given up their 1900 nuclear warheads if they thought that Russia could roll in 15 years later and they’d be on their own?”
This presumes that Ukraine had a functioning democratic government when Clinton pushed the disarmament of Ukraine. We, meaning the UK, US and Russia were concerned that nuclear materials would fall into the hands of those non governmental bodies who do not respect life who will take control of the fissionable materials and sell them on the black market. No matter how much Putin sucks neither he nor anyone else want fissionable materials in the hands of private profiteers.
If the goal was to keep Russia at bay why are they a signatory to this pact. It obligates Russia to come to Ukraine’s defense just as the other signatories were obligated.
From the LATimes in 1994 discusses the rationale for the Budapest accord
Ukraine Agrees to Give Up Its Nuclear Arsenal, Clinton Says : Summit: President hails the accord as a breakthrough, but it faces parliamentary opposition. NATO endorses the U.S. ‘Partnership for Peace’ plan to broaden alliance. – Los Angeles Times
Its funny how today’s reports make no mention of the thinking back in 1994. The issue was not to protect Ukraine from Russia it was a deal to advance disarmament and Russia did not want a nuclear power on its doorstep.
“If the goal was to keep Russia at bay why are they a signatory to this pact. It obligates Russia to come to Ukraine’s defense just as the other signatories were obligated.“
Because different people can have different motivations in a negotiation. If Ukraine hadn’t given up their warheads, they would have been the third largest Nuclear arsenal on Earth, and Russia wasn’t thrilled at the idea of having that on their doorstep.
And what did signing the agreement cost them? In theory, they’d have to come to Ukraine’s defense if America attacked them? Ok then, what was that even supposed to look like? Well, 20 years later, Russia invaded anyway, and the international community basically wagged their collective fingers. So maybe that’s what it was supposed to look like.
You’re right, I didn’t mention the nuke surrender deal. Thanks for bringing it up.
I think you’re overplaying the importance of the memorandum in any of this. Thanks for the link but I don’t see anywhere obligating the signatory powers to do anything other than appeal to the United Nations Security Council for some sort of UN action. From the looks of it, the Security Council passed several worthless resolutions given that Russia is on the security council.
Now, it does look like the United States and the United Kingdom both went beyond the memorandum’s expectations and provided direct support to Ukraine to assist in remedying the Russian incursion. Looks like the US has provided, to date, something like more than $69 billion and the UK more than $16 billion.
Now as for weak diplomacy, I won’t fault your gripe: we didn’t really have peace-through-strength types in 1994, 2009, 2014, or 2022.
As for using the word “perennially” when claiming the United States’ reliability as an ally is “bad”. You’ll need to back that up, cuz, along with Europe’s ginned up outrage at America, I could care less what a Canadian thinks about our country.
“I think you’re overplaying the importance of the memorandum in any of this. Thanks for the link but I don’t see anywhere obligating the signatory powers to do anything other than appeal to the United Nations Security Council for some sort of UN action.”
It’s rough for a lay person to try to explain to another lay person how to interpret years long foreign relations agreements spanning multiple documents, but the thing is that no one was really confused at the ramifications at the time, including the Russians. And it only makes sense: Why would Ukraine disarm against the background of an expansionist neighbor, absent a security agreement? Is your contention that the agreement wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on? Why would America sign that?
“As for using the word “perennially” when claiming the United States’ reliability as an ally is “bad”. You’ll need to back that up, cuz, along with Europe’s ginned up outrage at America, I could care less what a Canadian thinks about our country.”
I mean, in recent memory? The Kurds, The Afghan translators, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada… Part of America’s perennial betrayals are they your parties are so diametrically opposed that when there’s a regime change, your allies basically have to start from scratch again. Can you think of an agreement you’ve made that you’ve actually adhered to?
valid point about the flip flop inherent in a two party system. Multiparty systems have a similar issue in that they generally do nothing, which makes a lack of follow through, irrelevant. Never helping is not a better stance, merely a more comfortable one.
It is similar to the SCOTUS precedent problem. How much is each administration bound to carry though on promises made by previous administrations that are deemed unwise or even destructive? I’m old enough to remember when the supposed argument-ender regarding Vietnam was “We made a commitment to these people!”
But there’s a way to do it. When we renegotiated NAFTA, an announcement was made: “This deal isn’t working for us, we’re going to renegotiate.” We might not have liked that, but we can understand, and respect it.
This…. This is waiting until after the meal is served and eaten and calling the deal off when the bill is due. It’s gross.
removing 1900 nuclear weapons from the Great game seems a worthwhile move. Ukraine has been considered a less than stable country since it reappeared after WW2.
Ukraine is currently using modern day press gangs to fill its army. The current regime declined to have the last regular election, making it arguably a dictatorship, not a democracy.
national relations are not equivalent to neighbors arguing over their shared fence.
I think having an election would be good… Because it’s fairly obvious that Zelenskyy would win it, and it would nip this particularly stupid talking point at the bud, but I don’t think there has ever, in the history of humanity, been a Democratic election while 20% of a country is occupied and 10% of the population has refugee status in third nations. If they actually held an election, and Zelenskyy won, would you abide the results?
Worse than that though, if you actually believe what you just wrote, you absolutely gave up the point: Ukraine gave something up, they paid the price, they served you the meal, and you’re stiffing them the tab.
Was pulling 1900 nukes out of the “Great Game” was worth America’s credibility?
Bingo.
“The Kurds” –
How so? They seem to be doing fine.
In Syria, we backed them so substantially, they of all the Syrian civil war groups secured an area far outsizing their demographic scope. Does direct support extend forever after certain objectives are met? Man I wish France was still securing us against England since they helped us in the late 1700s. Where were they in 1812!!!??? Oh right… assistance isn’t an open ended deal.
Kurds in Syria weren’t left out to be murdered when we backed off direct tactical support.
The Turks you say?
The people the Kurds have perennially engaged in conflict with. Should we back the Kurds in a fight against an actual treaty ally of ours that they have been engaged in for hundreds of years? Maybe plucky Canada has a perfectly simplistic view of the world in which that makes sense.
Nah, that’s asinine. The Kurds got to a point that we didn’t necessarily need to continue to support them in. We never promised them a Kurdistan. We promised them assistance while they were battling ISIS.
Amusingly, for funzies, just to see if Canada ever does much to help across the globe after England stopped telling to them do so, I looked up “Canadian support for the Kurds” and first article that popped up was headlined “From Israelis to the Kurds, Canada abandons its friends on the world stage”.
Huh.
So I read the article thinking, oh boy, have I got Humble Talent now! Only to find out it turns out Canada hadn’t really done much of anything at all to “help” other countries or people groups other than rhetoric and the great betrayal of the Canadians according to this article was that they changed their rhetoric regarding the Kurds.
At least the fact that Canada doesn’t try to do much of anything on behalf of anyone else on the world stage other than rhetoric and good vibes means that by default Canada can’t ever be put in a position it might have to materially change its stance in places as circumstances change.
Smart move quirky Canada hanging out there somewhere behind the United States of America sending thoughts and prayers.
Once a country actually has the capacity to do good in the world and that country actually comes on the hard realities of a complex global environment requiring changes, then I’ll worry about that country’s self-claims of “reliability”.
“The Afghan Translators” –
Yep. Abjectly shameful that we cut and run when didn’t need to and simultaneously left behind people who openly collaborated for the benefit of their country. Whichever administration led that awful episode should be informative to countries who claim to want to do business with adults in the room.
“Ukraine” –
Hasn’t been betrayed. So there’s that.
Whatever a memorandum said in 1993, reinforced in following years, we’ve been doing what we feasibly can to support Ukraine against the aggressions of another signer of the same memorandum. Anyone who thinks the signers of the memorandum were agreeing to potentially go nuclear on behalf of Ukraine operates in a world of imaginative stupidity. If you think somehow the guarantees meant we were going to nuke Russia over this, I think you should go outside and touch some grass.
Since we know at a minimum that wasn’t going to happen, then we know, somehwere there’s an upper limit of commitment to actively stop an aggressor. And since we know somewhere there was an upper limit to what any nation would do on behalf of Ukraine, feel free to describe what you consider an upper limit. But we know there is one. You just currently disagree with what that practical upper limit is.
Support levels that have limited Russia to the pathetic gains it has made, ensuring Ukrainian sovreignty at the cost of some territorial integrity, seem pretty successful.
We betrayed Saudi Arabia? The same guys who are active along side us in aiming for some sort of middle east peace? Those guys? You’re going to have to elaborate.
Mexico betrayed? Canada? How so?
The tariffs? Whether you agree with the rationale or not, Trump doesn’t think Canada or Mexico are fulfilling any obligations they may have regarding drug flow and illegal immigration into the United States. Now, while individual treaties and agreements between nations are written separately – in real terms they form a larger body of agreements – the violation of one agreement seen de facto as bringing all other agreements into question.
Imagine if my neighbor and I agreed to trade eggs for milk as I have chickens and he has a cow. We also agreed to shoot all coyotes seen wandering around.
Imagine me seeing my neighbor letting coyotes across the property when he could’ve stopped them.
Imagine my neighbor getting mad at me when I’m less enthusiastic about giving him my eggs and him screaming “we had a deal!”
While there’s room to gripe at Trump’s rationale regarding drugs and illegal immigrants – there’s much less room arguing that separate agreements do not join into an informal whole.
Your anger here is a political one – not a legal one or ethical one.
Geopolitics is far more complex than your black and white expectations here. I don’t think backing off support of the Kurds while they’re doing ok is going to make South Korea or Japan wonder if we’ll be there for the big one with China. I would doubt that negotiating a cease fire between two exhausted belligerents in Ukraine will lead to Israel wondering if we will support them against Iran. Every nation is big-brained enough to know that every context is unique and every circumstance has its own priority.
Maybe Canadians having to spend more on American products has you personally incensed, but I think it’s clouding your usually objective analysis of the world.
The Kurds
“How so? They seem to be doing fine.”
This is something so mind-bogglingly stupid to say, I can’t believe you’ve said it. You can’t possibly know what you’re talking about. Is the contention that someone who is betrayed necessarily has to do bad? Or is the contention that America hasn’t betrayed the Kurds? Because not only have you, you’ve done it eight times:
“In Syria, we backed them so substantially, they of all the Syrian civil war groups secured an area far outsizing their demographic scope. Does direct support extend forever after certain objectives are met? Man I wish France was still securing us against England since they helped us in the late 1700s. Where were they in 1812!!!??? Oh right… assistance isn’t an open ended deal.”
Every time America wanted something done in that area of the world, they armed and supported the Kurds against their foes, promising them autonomy, sometimes mentioning the formation of Kurdistan, and then abandoned them to mass slaughter the moment their mission was done.
“Kurds in Syria weren’t left out to be murdered when we backed off direct tactical support.”
They literally were.
“The people the Kurds have perennially engaged in conflict with. Should we back the Kurds in a fight against an actual treaty ally of ours that they have been engaged in for hundreds of years? Maybe plucky Canada has a perfectly simplistic view of the world in which that makes sense.”
Hyperfocusing on Turkey in a vacuum, that almost makes sense. But realistically, America has been The Kurd’s “ally” longer than Turkey has existed, and the Kurds have never betrayed America. Put into context against the backdrop of a century’s worth of American mendacity and betrayal? The hundreds of thousands of people you’ve abandoned to death? It’s not my view that is simplistic.
As to the next few paragraphs on how Canada hasn’t betrayed someone because we’re not as active on the world stage: Yeah. We didn’t go out there and tell people we’d support them when it was convenient, only to pull up stakes and leave them to genocide when our mission objectives were done. It is absolutely morally better to not promise to do something that you can’t or won’t do, then promise something good and fail, particularly if the failure was a choice, as opposed to a circumstance.
Ukraine
“Whatever a memorandum said in 1993, reinforced in following years, we’ve been doing what we feasibly can to support Ukraine against the aggressions of another signer of the same memorandum.”
Um…. Bullshit. It doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to think of ways that America could have better supported Ukraine (even short of your soon to be mentioned nukes). Biden’s administration was providing enough aid that Ukraine didn’t immediately fail, but also not enough to succeed. Not only did America owe them a defense, but despite the current spate of conservatives bitching about costs, the reality is that America has reaped benefits on this: By using Ukranian troops as a cats paw, you’ve effectively hollowed out Russian military capability. For the cost of what? $50 Billion and some surplus materiel, you’ve gutted our largest geopolitical foe. They bled for you too.
“Anyone who thinks the signers of the memorandum were agreeing to potentially go nuclear on behalf of Ukraine operates in a world of imaginative stupidity. If you think somehow the guarantees meant we were going to nuke Russia over this, I think you should go outside and touch some grass.”
Literally no one said this. Get a grip.
“Since we know at a minimum that wasn’t going to happen, then we know, somehwere there’s an upper limit of commitment to actively stop an aggressor. And since we know somewhere there was an upper limit to what any nation would do on behalf of Ukraine, feel free to describe what you consider an upper limit. But we know there is one. You just currently disagree with what that practical upper limit is.”
Again… This doesn’t take much imagination. You’re smarter than this. America was supplying Ukraine with surplus, sometimes decommissioned and refurbished materiel. Trump keeps on saying that America has sent Ukraine $300 Billion in aid. No one seems to have any idea where that number comes from, but you could have actually done that. Ukraine is an army armed with 00’s materiel fighting an army armed with 80’s soviet materiel, imagine what the conflict would have looked like with modern tech.
“We betrayed Saudi Arabia? The same guys who are active along side us in aiming for some sort of middle east peace? Those guys? You’re going to have to elaborate.”
History is longer than the last two years, Michael. For whatever reason, the Democrats want to placate Iran and bribe them into not hating you, and the Republicans support the Saudis, which means that every time there’s a regime change, you break agreements.
“Mexico betrayed? Canada? How so?
The tariffs? Whether you agree with the rationale or not, Trump doesn’t think Canada or Mexico are fulfilling any obligations they may have regarding drug flow and illegal immigration into the United States. Now, while individual treaties and agreements between nations are written separately – in real terms they form a larger body of agreements – the violation of one agreement seen de facto as bringing all other agreements into question.
While there’s room to gripe at Trump’s rationale regarding drugs and illegal immigrants – there’s much less room arguing that separate agreements do not join into an informal whole.”
The amounts of drugs and illegal immigrants entering Canada from America is larger than the amount headed south. We’re talking about less than 50 pounds of fentanyl. Trump’s supporters will immediately say that’s enough to kill thousands of people. Sure. Theoretically. But it won’t, because it won’t be divided up into perfect lethal doses, and in practice it represents 0.2% of seizures in America. If the 50 pounds from Canada are going to kill thousands of people the other 25,000 pounds seized last year would have killed the entire population of America several times over.
To use your own, really sad example, Canada is letting the neighbor’s dog wander around while America has let the coyotes roam freely, And America is throwing a bitch-fit because their cow is dead and there’s coyote shit everywhere.
Not only that, but the other things Trump whines about just don’t happen to be true: The Canadian banking system has American banks participating in it, the dairy quota system which was explicitly part of Trump’s negotiated and signed USMCA, was upheld by the courts. Most eye-rollingly: Despite lying and saying that Canada had a tariff on lumber, we don’t. America does have a 14.5% tariff, which the courts have deemed illegal. None of the weak, contrived excuses Trump claims in the case of Canada have the benefit of actually being true and are often complete projectionist inversions of reality. I have no idea why he’s picked this fight, but it’s absolutely a betrayal.
“Your anger here is a political one – not a legal one or ethical one.”
I mean…. It’s absolutely a legal one. And ethics isn’t concerned with things like Honesty? Responsibility? Justice? How do you get like this?
“Maybe Canadians having to spend more on American products has you personally incensed, but I think it’s clouding your usually objective analysis of the world.”
What do you think I’m paying more on? That’s not how tariffs work… I’m not paying more because of Trump’s tariffs, you are. My government hasn’t implemented retaliatory tariffs yet. But if I were, then yes, I would find that annoying, particularly since no one can articulate a good reason that I should be doing it.
I can’t believe that conservatives are defending tariffs. This is bizarro world. Economists are ringing alarm bells, the market is tanking, and reasonable pundits like Ben Shapiro aren’t confused by this. I don’t think my objective analysis of the world is being impaired here.
You ridicule the notion that I think history is 2 years old. You seem to forget history is older than 100 years also. The Kurds have always been pressed on all sides. Have been so for over 1000 years as an identifiable ethnic group, have been so for over 2000 years as a group a people occupying that territory. I also don’t need to mention to you that the entire history of peoples of the middles east (and the world) is one of conflict with neighbors, conquering and being conquered. For the most part, the Kurds have not been a conquering people but have been a conquered or temporarily independent people. The presence of the United States’ in the Middle East has not *increased* this tendency. For the most part it has actually decreased it. For the most part Kurds enjoy far larger autonomy than they ever had. The notion that the increased and periodically decreased assistance by the United States has degraded they situation requires ignoring the entirety of their history.
Kurds have their own history of antagonizing neighbors. The Turks, another nation we partner with, being one of those neighbors. Turks and Kurds have not had amicable relations since long before the United States arrived. If you remotely think it makes sense for Kurds to assume that having our backing in certain respects (such as going after ISIS) expands to having our backing in going after the Turks in pursuit of their own long range vision of Kurdish separatist movements inside Turkey, then I don’t know what kind of playbook you’re running with. Of course when Kurdish groups are found to be supporting attacks against the Turks, we’re not going to tell Turkey they can’t react. Unbelievable.
Ukraine and nuking Russia. You can read as well as any and you can also clearly read I pointed out “nukes” as an obvious minimum “upper limit” to the kind of aid we’d provide in defeating a country invading Ukraine. You can also read (since you copy pasted the whole bit) that I mentioned this was to show that *if there is an upper limit to aid* (and their is), then that upper limit is obviously up for discussion and undermines the point that you imply is somewhere in the Budapest Memorandum (it isn’t). Don’t pretend like the point was meant as a serious proposal.
Again the Budapest Memorandum expected the signing parties to appeal to the United Nations. The fact that the United States and the United Kingdom sent anything at all separate from a UN mission, by definition is beyond the expectation. And naturally, since the UNSC, with Russia, would be a useless entity to oppose Russian aggression, any support would have to occur separately. Now, since we know that there is an upper limit to what the United States must do to stop an aggressor, you’re going to be hard pressed describing exactly what that means knowing what that minimal upper limit is. We ain’t nuking Russia – which simultaneously means we aren’t taking action which could probably lead to them nuking any of our assets. Which probably means troops on the ground are out of the question. Which definitely means that material support is all we *could reasonably* do to back the Budapest Memorandum.
Ah, we did that. But somehow that’s a betrayal in your book. I don’t understand that calculation.
If the goal was to enable Ukraine to win the war, then I’m all ears for your plan there. The front line is a mine-packed no-man’s land that dwarfs the WW1 scale something like 4 to 5 times. The Ukraine War’s trench layers make the WW1 trench system look like something a weekend soccer team could overcome. The length of the front line is more than 3 times as long as the Western Front in WW2. Russia – enjoying Air Superiority AND an outsized advantage in Artillery Fires has taken 3 years to *GRIND* out what it has achieved at the cost of some 200k KIA and 500k WIA. Go ahead and reverse the needs here. Ukraine will need *triple* the material support to stop Russian advances. Then *triple* or *quadruple* that to possibly start its own GRIND back at the likely cost of as many Ukrainian lives.
Here’s the bottom line: Ukraine needs men to fill these roles and they *refuse* to lower the draft age. I heard a discussion with a guy who often goes to Ukraine to consult and he mentioned that despite the public enthusiasm to regain lost territory and the political necessity to make those claims that the general reality talk there is that most Ukrainians would rather let the Donbas go than to start drafting 18 year olds. This seems supported by the fact that Ukraine lacks the political will to start drafting.
Given those realities, it looks pretty solidly like we’ve done absolutely everything to fulfill the Memorandum you say we’ve ignored. Ukraine still has its sovereignty, Russia isn’t going to be able to grind forward much more but it also isn’t going to be ousted without great bloodshed. So again, I could care less how you characterize US efforts in Ukraine.
It is absolutely morally better to not promise to do something that you can’t or won’t do, then promise something good and fail, particularly if the failure was a choice, as opposed to a circumstance.
All hindsight analysis. If you can try, you ought to try instead of sit comfortably saying “ah man, I can’t guarantee we’ll succeed, so better not try”. That’s spineless talk and as morally unjustifiable as your claim.
Saudi Arabia obviously doesn’t share this “betrayal” narrative you’re selling, as they are neither noticeably less or noticeably more amicable to our middle east vision than they have been. Their primary recent foreign policy attitude shift was driven entirely by the October 7 attacks and Israel’s response.
First three paragraphs: Irrelevant.
The point isn’t how historically hard done by the Kurds are, or how many enemies they have, or who else has screwed them over. The point, which you cannot get away from, is that America has been a bad ally, has absolutely stabbed these people in the back, multiple times, over generations.
I mean really… What did you think your point was?
“Again the Budapest Memorandum expected the signing parties to appeal to the United Nations. The fact that the United States and the United Kingdom sent anything at all separate from a UN mission, by definition is beyond the expectation. “
Bullshit. And not only bullshit, but facile, ignorant bullshit. This isn’t the first time the memorandum has come up and no one in any administration seemed to understand the technicalities quite the way you do.
And what you’re failing to understand is that you’re making your point for me.
Ukraine had the third largest stockpile of nukes on Earth. Absent those, they did not have the military deterrence to stop anyone, notably Russia, from invading their territory, and so they traded their nukes for protection. That was the deal. It was obvious then. It’s obvious now. Administrations throughout history have admitted this.
But in 2025, Michael West says “Fuck that, run to the UN.” Do you think that Ukraine would have signed that agreement and disarmed had they thought that their entire protection going forward would amount to a UN mission?
This is EXACTLY why no one should ever trust your country again. Not only are you breaking your international covenants, but you’re basically saying that we were stupid for trusting you.
No, the point is that geopolitics will *never* lead to perfect outcomes. And your Canadian response of “well, better never do good if you can’t do perfect” is literally acting the role of Simplicio in this conversation. Peoples continue to come back to us despite your description of “betrayals” because every time our goals align, their circumstances improve a little more each time.
Your expectations of perfection sound like someone informed by too many superhero movies than by someone informed by history and geopolitical realities.
Since, you’ve chosen to stop reading, I’ll likely quit writing after this. To repeat myself – we’ve gone beyond any expectations of the Budapest Memorandum. There would never be a “counter-invasion” of Ukraine barring a complete collapse of their nation, government and military – and our defense of them to the level we did – stopped the Russians.
But, do go on about not supporting them…
“This is EXACTLY why no one should ever trust your country again. Not only are you breaking your international covenants, but you’re basically saying that we were stupid for trusting you.”
Keep being America’s hat and enjoying the comfort of a security blanket our nation provides you.
“And your Canadian response of “well, better never do good if you can’t do perfect””
It’s more like “don’t make promises you can’t keep” or “don’t say things you have no intention of doing” or “don’t promise things that you intend to do the exact opposite of”
I want to take a step back and point out that this is an ethics forum. This isn’t a controversial call when it comes to ethics: You shouldn’t do this shit.
I’m not saying that other nations are perfect here… But I will say that the brazenness with which America lies to it’s allies is special. Again… going back to the Kurds, Clinton was literally privately supplying arms to Turkey, which he knew would be used to genocide the Kurds while publicly supporting a British aid mission to them.
By the way, you still owe me a realistic description of what a defeated Russia looks like and then a plan for achieving that in Ukraine given the realities on the ground. Which were fully discussed in the sections of my response you may not have read.
And screaming “Budapest Memorandum” once again doesn’t cut it.
Previously? Shit or get off the pot.
Currently? Shit or get off the pot.
Tomes have been written about how America supported Ukraine to the point where Ukraine wouldn’t lose, but couldn’t win. It doesn’t take a whole lot of thought to envision what a Ukrainian victory would have taken: America could have actually dumped modern war materiel into Ukraine until Ukraine had secured it’s border.
The idea that this was impossible is… weird. Do you really not understand this?
And the case for it is easy: Every couple of years, Russia has decided to take a chunk out of a neighbor: Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia… It has been playing hell on the world stage for decades. It would have been good for someone, and someone in this case is code for America, because America has deemed itself to be the global first-responder, to just straight up say “no more of this bullshit”.
It would have been good, even absent an agreement to do it.
So you really haven’t paid attention to the combat in Ukraine.
Figures.
“Just give them everything, they would have won!!!!”
I’ll wait around for a serious proposal. They won’t even mobilize their young men because they know it is politically untenable.
Not “everything”, just “more”, and not “unlimited” more, obviously. Do you really think that America couldn’t defeat Russia with a fraction of your military materiel? Do you think it would take everything you had and then some?
Be real, America can take Russia, and could have done it with another country’s sons. What do you think the amount would be? Is that really such a bad deal?
I don’t know what to tell you, I think you’ve ceded the argument by resorting to hyperbole.
Nope, no cheating. I could say the same of you regarding topics dropped from the thread. I need to hear a plan more than “All we had to do was give them more”.
As noted in my original comment, I’m a hawk on this, but hawkishness is too late. If we’d actively cowboyed with Russia early on, I don’t think there ever would have been an invasion. But there was zero political will for that course of action. And if there is zero political will, making the option an impossibility, the next best option was flooding Ukraine with materiel. Which we did. But there was also zero political will (not just in the United States), to outfit the Ukrainian Army like its the 2nd coming of the 82nd Airborne Division or the 1st Armored Division. There never would be that kind of will *before* the expanded invasion because that’s just not how people work in the days before a possible confrontation.
I think you’re not only armchair quarterbacking, but you are also armchair quarterbacking with a great deal of hindsight bias. Before the expanded invasion, there was every belief that Russia was still the world’s 2nd best military. And the only way to oppose the 2nd best military *and win* is for others to show up, in person, boots on the ground.
Again – that was never going to happen, because no nation is going to risk going nuclear with Russia – and that’s the risk when American soldiers show up pulling triggers.
And there would simultaneously be no belief that dumping Divisions-worth of American equipment into the Ukrainian battlefield would do anything other than get the equipment destroyed or captured in the early days of the fight. It took a *year* to fully train the forces for the Zaporizhzhia Offensive and those were veterans pulled from the line for that training. The offensive ground to a halt barely breaching the 1st of about 3-5 defense lines.
So yeah your general hand wave of “just dump American equipment on the ukrainians” is going to need alot more elucidation on your part.
You can’t pull the entirety of the veteran force back to train them on it filling the front with draftees that Ukraine has been incredibly reluctant to the point that they probably will not to bring in and man the front with the quantity of equipment to retake the lost territory.
As for arming the Ukrainians like that before 2022 on the assumption Russia would invade? Be serious. There was no political will to do that among us or our allies NOR would there have been a militarily justified ability to do that without a lot of wags screaming “you Crazy Americans are walking us straight into WW3!!!!” (and you know full well that would be the international and domestic outcry).
I’ve already outlined what would have been the preferred stance before the invasion – but that’s not going to happen without a president that most other European nations would scream about being “a reckless cowboy”.
Excellent article, thank you, I enjoyed reading it.
Regarding your list of options:
1) Keep doing what we’re doing. Which essentially is giving Ukraine enough to not lose quickly. But it is losing.
The question is how fast they’re losing? The answer is that it would take decades to move any meaningful distances. The pace is measured in maybe 5 miles a year, in a country about the size of Texas. Neither side can last that long. I fully concur it is unethical to let it play out, but it won’t go forever. Obviously the two have manpower limits, and the much larger size of Russia isn’t an advantage when they’re using meat wave tactics and are facing a punishing kill ratio against the defending Ukrainians. But I don’t forsee that as the final limits.
On the Russian side they have some other limitations. The Russians are drawing down their cold war era stockpiles of everything. They’re dusting off and refurbishing everything they can lay their hands on. That stock runs out eventually, and then they have a real issue. That’s estimated to happen in less than 2 years. The Russians also have economic issues that can’t be ignored. They face a severe labor shortage, made worse by the fleeing young men on top of all the men that have died or been maimed. This too, is an uncertain time limit but can’t go forever.
On the Ukrainian side, the question is: how long will the west support them? You correctly point out that even without the US there, the EU economy is almost $20T USD, FAR bigger than Russia. Russia can put everything into the war and it is only slightly painful for Europe.
Moving on to your 2a/2b option, I think there is a plurality support for 2a and hostility to 2b. That’s where I am.
3) Cut and Run. Cut all aid. Many non-serious European nations will do the same – certainly the ones dependent on Russian oil ——- SIDEBAR HERE ——– how are we supposed to take any European claim about their seriousness towards the Russians when they are still flat out doing business with them getting around the sanctions they claim to have wanted in place or openly drinking Russian gas to keep their economies going? SIDEBAR COMPLETE.
As far as the sidebar: Europe is not homogeneous. Three nations are supporting Russia; Hungary, Slovakia and Moldova. They’re the only ones clamoring for more Russian oil and gas. The rest range from reluctant feeling of use lacking other options to downright rejection.
Leaving the sidebar, I think option #3 is where I think we go though. Trump will withdraw our support, and Europe will step up enough to keep the war on path #1. Why? Because there is no deal either side will accept. Russia won’t accept peacekeepers in the deal, and Ukraine won’t make a deal without it. Neither side is ready. The west has no leverage over Russia unless we’re willing to go with option 2, and I don’t foresee that. The West’s leverage over Ukraine is #3, and I can’t see Europe doing that, even if we do.
Good thoughts and considerations.
When you say there is plurality support for 2a, I think there is support for some increased aid – I don’t think it would be a war winning amount. But both of our assessments boil down to gut level instincts.
Russians aren’t broadly using “meat wave” tactics. We have this hold over stereotype about the great Russian horde pouring across the Fulda Gap in the 1960s like emotionless zombies being mowed down by plucky American machine gunners, built primarily on the charnel house that the Nazis and Communists turned the eastern front into. There was some truth to the mass grind of men during that time.
Our stereotype is reinforced by the periodic videos released of Russian soldiers seeming making foolish maneuvers and big rushes as the ground demands. But the videos you get to see are heavily curated by Ukrainians for a purpose. Occasionally the Russians have used “meat waves” in this war – mostly consisting of convicts Russia can afford to lose and occasionally consisting of units of hyper-paid guys who are volunteers.
The Russians aren’t complete idiots.
Regarding gas:
https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/eu-imports-of-russian-fossil-fuels-in-third-year-of-invasion-surpass-financial-aid-sent-to-ukraine/
The problem is coming up with a good term to describe exactly what’s going on. Is this a rush of bodies at a machine gun like we saw in the Pacific during WWII, or the Korean war? No, not even close.
But it is a case of sending troops in to have a 5:1 kill ratio, man after man, trying to pound down Ukrainian defenses. That’s how they’re moving the lines feet by day. It is a truly horrible ratio of dead and wounded for the meager territory gained.
It is also a case of what Russia is winning is utterly destroyed land. The fighting itself is brutal, and on top of that, Ukraine is widely using the tactic of placing demolition charges en masse, so every time they do retreat, they blow up the advancing Russians as they move into the newly vacated territory.
Something already happened with your yard and he refused to help you:
“One time, I asked my neighbor if he would be prepared to help my on the other side of my house cut a firebreak because I was concerned about the danger of a wildfire over there. His response was “I’ll see what I can do, but I’m pretty busy over here, so I wouldn’t expect to be able to soon.”
This man is a taker, not a giver. He is the grasshopper to your ant. Is there some reason why refusing to help him with a problem that doesn’t exist will cost you goodwill in your entire neighborhood? No, there isn’t. Unless your neighbors are all boundary-less jerks, he’s just trying to make you – a good neighbor – feel guilty about setting boundaries. He’s not mad because you aren’t being neighborly; he’s mad because he was taking advantage of you and you finally wised up.
European countries have spent the last 80 years implementing social welfare programs and other amenities that have allowed their citizens perks while simultaneously lecturing the United States on our health care system, our educational system and our work/life balance…all while being largely defended by the taxpayer-funded dollars of hardworking Americans that gives them the opportunity to invest heavily in their citizens’ standard of living. They demand, like your neighbor, our valuable time and money to prop them up without doing their share of the work.
What you owe your neighbor is different than what you owe your neighborhood. If your other neighbors are willing to contribute their fair share to protecting the area, you all owe it to each other. You are not required to be the neighborhood maintenance service.
And we are not required to the Europe’s fire department.
Regarding Trump on this…
When the war started, I was puzzled by the behavior of many on the right. I get isolationism; I get wanting to not waste our tax dollars on a war that isn’t ours. But I was very confused by the open hostility some had towards Ukraine. I work in tech. I work with some fairly smart people, and the conservatives who went through college and on to work in tech have to be good at critical, logical thinking regarding their political beliefs. A liberal, raised urban, going through college and working in tech can be intellectually lazy, they’re never forced to confront a contingent opposing viewpoint. Not so for a conservative. As a fairly libertarian person, I’ve had some very good and spirited discussions with many. I noted some parroted the Tucker Carlson line and I was very confused. Here they were, smart, informed people yet they spouted clear bullshit and believed clear bullshit. I was confused for quite a while
It wasn’t until much later it dawned on me about what happened. We’re now 9 years into a massive conspiracy. When the war started, we were 6 year in. The democrat party, in support of Hillary, conspired with the news media, the US intelligence agencies, the US justice system, and social media tech companies to lie about Trump AND suppress opposing viewpoints. The rot was in these federal agencies. They lied about Trump, they spied on Trump. Once Trump was in office, they hamstrung his administration with lies and suppression of truth. Things doubled down during covid, and got even worse during the 2020 election campaign. Once Trump was removed from office, they all conspired to enter a new lawfare campaign against Trump.
Meanwhile, the Russians realize they have an opportunity. If they use their news media to go out and tell the truth on most things in the face of the lying American media, they gain credibility. Yes, the American press fell to the point that they lied more often than Russian media. Russian voices gained credibility, being objective on all reporting except for those stories regarding Russian affairs. It worked REALLY well. They gained credibility with many, and they buy all they’re selling. That’s where the whole idea of the war being started by Ukrainian provocations gained the traction.
So here we are today. Many, including Trump, Vance and their followers don’t trust US media, for good reason. They don’t trust US intelligence agencies, for good reason. So Trump and Vance can get those intelligence briefings we don’t see, and think their all bullshit. The classic case of the “boy who cried wolf”. Trump win impossible. Now we all suffer for their mistakes.
This is an interesting theory. I’ll have to think on it.
If so, certainly more proof of how absolutely destructive to trust in our society the main stream media was.
Good article. Couple of points I’d challenge.
1): RE the US Navy: yes, it’s the most formidable currently afloat. Don’t sleep on China. And the US Navy has some significant issues – for example, an inability to transport supplies and personnel due to an effectively non-existant Merchant Marine, and the fact that it’s still heavily dependent on aircraft carriers and manned aircraft when war fighting technology shows every sign of moving beyond that. The planes and ships may be more sophisticated, but it’s still a 20th century strategy in a rapidly-developing 21st.
2) This all overlooks the very real threat represented by radical Islam, which is making tremendous inroads in Europe (and elsewhere). Islamists have made no bones about it: once they’ve done away with the Jews, they plan to go after everyone else. They’re having massive numbers of babies to help ensure that happens. They are not a sophisticated opponent, but they’ll be able to create considerable damage along the way – even if that damage is short-term oriented towards gumming up the works for everyone else. This is why I’m pleased that Trump basically just gave Netenyahu carte blanche.
Michael, this was an outstanding piece from you. A colossal effort, to be sure. I’m going to have to read it a few times to even begin absorbing it.
Fantastic work!!
Well done Michael. Great read.
I do think that if Trump announces that he is reinstating the draft then those who “stand with Ukraine” will suddenly get very quiet.
I wonder at times why we have a president when members of Congress are actively coaching Zelenskyy. I thought advice and consent applied to our government and that Congress was not to advise those with whom the president is currently negotiating. I guess the Logan act does not apply to Chris Murphy and others.
We still need to see how Trump’s foreign policy will develop; I see a move away from GW Bush idealism / neoconservatism (nation building / capturing hearts and minds), as this policy has to be proven unsuccessful, as demonstrated by a shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan. Instead Trump seems to move towards a Henry Kissinger style realism, that focuses on American strategic interests first, is more pragmatic, and is also willing to consider solutions that satisfies Russia’s strategic interests. That still does not mean that the USA moves in the direction of isolationism as we has been World War I and World War II.
There is more at stake for Europe than for the USA in the Ukraine conflict. Many countries that used to belong to the Warsaw Pact are understandably concerned about Russia’s intentions, as it has been a longstanding Russian policy going back to the czars to occupy direct neighbors (Polish partitions) or surround itself with satellite states (Warsaw Pact). It is therefore reasonable that Europe spends more money on defending their interests against Russia, and the USA less money.
In the long term good relationships with Russia matter more to the USA than good relationships with the Ukraine. Russia and USA share a common adversary, namely China, and we need Russia as a balance against China. Also Russia has some struggles with radical Islam, which is a greater threat to Western civilization and Christianity than Russia.
Russia has a longstanding policy going all the way back to Czar Peter the Great to strive for access to seaports that are open all year long; Murmansk is frozen during the winter. That is why it is important for Russia to possess Crimea with Sebastopol As the Donbass region is ethnically mostly Russian, Russia will most likely not give that up either. So Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions to Russia.
I would guess that the USA have stronger strategic interests in Asia than in Europe. For instance a lot of precious metals needed for our technology (including defense technology and IT) come from China.
Europe needs to watch out that they do not loose their own identity (e.g. due to multiculturalism), and become totally dependent on other countries for critical resources, as their energy dependency on Russia shows. That means that the prime responsibility and effort for Europe’s defense should move to European countries. It should also concern a number of European countries and the EU that the USA under has doubt about their values (e.g. free speech), that undercuts the desire of the USA to continue supporting EU countries and the NATO.
Zelenskyy made a tragical error by not understanding the long term strategic interests of the USA, and the change in foreign policy philosophy. Zelenskyy may have resided too long in a bubble created by the mainstream media, and interlocutors in the Democrat party; shortly before the meeting in the Oval Office he had a meeting with Senator Murphy (D-Connecticut), in other words he listened to bad advice. He is now in a situation where he has nothing to offer to the USA and a lot to ask (and thank/apologize for.)
Ok, this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I think Europe is a greater threat to us today than Russia. Europe has always had reluctant democracy. They are still run by their nobles (Von der Leyen) and only allow the commoners a voice when they are forced to. That is falling apart rapidly. We can see it in the EU cancelling elections in Belarus and Romania because the people voted wrong, Germany trying to outlaw their #2 political party (they already have put the members of that party on a terrorism watch list of sorts), the British are jailing more people for unpopular speech in a month than Russia does in a year (per capita). I am not saying that Russia has free speech and is a democracy, I am saying that Russia appears to tolerate dissent to a larger extent than out ‘liberal Europeans’ do. A British police chief even threatened to come to the US and arrest US citizens who posted prohibited material (like the existence of a terrorist attack) on Twitter/X. The Europeans are intent on extinguishing free speech and ‘inconvenient’ political parties. They are also not content to keep that to themselves, but insist on trying to force that on US and our companies.
The Europeans will not help us. They laughed at Trump when he scolded them for expecting us to protect them from Russia while they decommissioned their nuclear reactors so they could rely on Russian natural gas for energy. To them, we are merely commoners who owe them our money and our service. They treat Russia the same way. They really had such an elitist mentality that they thought Europe could go to war against Russia and Russia would still sell them cheap natural gas!
Now, Russia is no democratic, free speech paradise. However, Russia does not seem as intent on imposing its will on us as the Europeans are. The Russians also don’t expect us to prop up their failing society with US taxpayers money while insulting us and giving us nothing in return. Russia has shown that it still has the manufacturing ability that we need to face China. We can’t make anything anymore because it requires $90 in bribes to NGO’s, special interests, and defense contractors to get $10 worth of products. DOGE has shown us that. Even then, we can’t make anything. We gave all of our Stinger missiles to Ukraine and we can’t make more because some Secretary of State, who is not allowed to be named, signed off on allowing the contractor to stop using US microchips and use microchips sourced from China in them. The Chinese now won’t sell us any more of those chips and the US manufacturer was driven into bankruptcy by this. Repeat this with everything else we rely on. Even the security systems we use on our military bases are made in China and full of spyware.
We do need partners to counter the growing threat of China. The Chinese have captured our manufacturing, our universities, and many of our politicians (elite capture). The US taxpayers even pay the shipping of the goods the Chinese sell to US customers, but not goods that US companies sent to China (we pay them to destroy us). The Chinese are importing fentanyl and other drugs that kill over 100,000 Americans/year. They are stripping the world’s fisheries with impunity. They are positioning themselves to take over the domination of the world and we cannot stop them because we sold out our own people to them and shipped our manufacturing to the Chinese to make a select few into billionaires. We put our own workers on unemployment because we wanted the cheap products produced by slaves. Well, it is going to be pretty hard to undo that and we are going to need help. But we better do it if we don’t want to become the slaves ourselves.
I think we should negotiate an end to the Ukrainian conflict with the current borders andin return, we forge a more in-depth economic alliance with Russia. We should involve India as well as a 3-party anti-Chinese domination pact. The benefits of such an alliance are more than worth it to keep Putin from bother Ukraine much. In fact, such an alliance would relieve most of the motivation Putin had for invading in the first place.
Now, if we wanted a peace where Ukraine kept everything except the pro-Russian Donbas, we already had that chance and we let BoJo kill it. The time for a cheap peace is long since passed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdQcGzbpN7s