Here’s the meat of David Ignatius’s most recent Washington Post column:
The diplomatic agenda was summed up well by Keith Kellogg, a retired Army lieutenant general who’s serving as Trump’s Ukraine envoy. “What you are seeing now are urgent efforts to bring both sides to the table to get to a peace settlement. Bringing both sides to the table means applying pressure points and incentives — sticks and carrots,” he said in a talk Thursday at the Council on Foreign Relations.
So far, Zelensky has been getting all the sticks. Trump pounded him in an Oval Office shouting match last Friday — and that ugly scene produced the concessions Trump wanted: Zelensky sent a message this week offering to halt air and sea attacks on Russia, and to immediately sign a deal giving the United States a share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth. He lamented the “regrettable” fracas at the White House. “Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible,” he said.
Okay, Putin, how about you?
There are some good words for President Trump:
Give Trump this much: He’s right that the time has come to end the horrific Ukraine war, and he’s right, too, that the United States needs to reestablish a relationship with the Kremlin to play an effective mediating role.
as well as some criticisms:
But beyond that, he’s winging it. As one Trump associate put it to me, his foreign policy is like jazz: It’s free-form, with no structure and constant improvisation. It could save lives — or get lots more Ukrainians and Russians killed.
and a soupçon of realism:
Here’s the paradox at the core of the negotiations: Though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has bristled at Trump’s pressure, he badly needs a ceasefire. His forces are tired and depleted and could begin to buckle in the next six months. As for Russian President Vladimir Putin, he has welcomed Trump’s embrace — but he doesn’t want a ceasefire unless it gives him the victory he hasn’t won on the battlefield.
What I deeply miss from Mr. Ignatius’s column is any inkling of how to square that circle. What is the resolution that will bring a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine without “rewarding Putin” for his aggression?
Let me put it this way. If the only choices are a complete subordination of the entirety of Ukraine to Russia or starting a nuclear war, which do you choose? If you don’t think those are the only choices, what choices do you think are at hand? Please make sure that your answer comports with your characterization of Putin.
I think Putin grossly overestimated the ease of invading and conquering Ukraine. To be fair, I think the majority of us in the US thought Ukraine would fold. Few thought that Ukraine could fight so effectively. Few thought that the US and Europe could get it together quickly to support Ukraine. So, do I think Putin wants all of Ukraine? Yes. However, I also suspect he would be happy to settle for the land he has now, announce a victory because he has freed Russians from the evil (pretend) Nazis and then build back up to take another shot later. EU leaders are talking about defense spending now but if there were a betting market I would bet on it not being sustained.
Steve
Ignatius et al. are being obtuse. The Russians have repeatedly rejected a ceasefire until there is a comprehensive agreement on European security. Agreement first, then a ceasefire.
Parts of the agreement must include the complete removal of the Zelenskyy government (not just Zelenskyy and a few aides), demilitarization of Ukraine, neutrality of Ukraine. Withdrawal of American and other NATO forces from former Warsaw Pact countries plus Finland and Sweden will also be required.
How much of Ukraine Russia wants is not clear. They will take Crimea and all of the four oblasts they have already annexed. There is no undoing that.
In the 2010 runoff election, Yanukovych won every oblast east of the Dneiper by majorities of 60 to 90%. His opponent, Iulia Timoshenko, won every oblast west of the Dneiper by similar majorities. So, the Dneiper is the natural boundary between Ukraine and Russia.
But all that is secondary. The primary issue is the comprehensive security agreement for all of Europe. Until US-NATO-EU starts listening to Russia, there can be no peace.
I will have to say bob lays out the Russian plan pretty well. Ukraine surrenders, gives up land and all of its weapons and its right to choose the govt it wants. In return Russia pinky promise to leave the rest of Ukraine alone. Sounds like the kind of plan Trump can get behind.
Steve
Yes, those are Russia’s demands. They will not get all of them (maybe they will impose them), but the US and its allies had better start thinking about them in their own negotiating positions. Simply ignoring Russia’s position, as the West is doing, will continue the war.
Despite what they believe, the West does not have the economic and military power to impose a settlement on Russia. Russia can impose a settlement on the West, but the cost might be too high. If the West doesn’t wake up, Ukraine will be utterly destroyed. Even the Russians won’t want it.
“ If the only choices are a complete subordination of the entirety of Ukraine to Russia or starting a nuclear war, which do you choose?”
Hasn’t this been the very dilemma that has faced Western decision makers since 2014? I recall Obama made the assumption that Russia had escalation dominance over Crimea/Ukraine and proceeded from there.
I would say the path out is to redefine (or really define for the first time) US / European / Western goals. Given the last two weeks; I won’t assume they are the same, but if one has incoherent; implausible goals; — like Ukraines maximalist goals, then ones actions has a temporizing character rather than actually moving towards the goal line — and I think that’s what been happening for the last 2 years.