As always Erick, you're right on the money. I truly appreciate your balanced, fair way of looking at bombshell issues like this from both sides. I watched the entire interview too after reading post after post of hair-on-fire progressives in my FB feed. My conclusion was exactly the same as yours without the benefit of as much hindsight as you provide. Bravo again!
Ukraine and Russia have a long history. Going back 1,000 years. They don't like each other. Russia has been the tyrant the while time. Stalin killed millions in the '30s. Putin is liking civilians left and right. Russia wants to"end" Ukraine. Further, these two countries are not part the Western legal heritage. The Romans never got there. Ukraine was hike to nomadic guess tribes until the early 1400s.
My point is, Ukraine and Russia are locked in a blood feud and will fight until the last man. The West can help Ukraine, but by now Ukraine can hold is own for another 12 months. Can Russia keep up the pressure?
It will be horrible to watch, but the fighting will keep going on. Nothing the West can really do to stop it.
It is clear that Zelenskyy is of the species of human that is an American Democrat that emote rather than critically think. It seems that he had that same media gaslit Trump Derangement Syndrome and it clouded his judgment. Democrats continue to miss their opportunity to work with Trump due to their emotional turmoil over mean Tweets.
Can someone, anyone provide me with the timestamp from last Fridays Oval Office meltdown where Trump says “he could conceivably commit US troops alongside British and French troops to provide security after a peace deal was reached?”
I’ve watched it twice and replayed parts where Trump was talking and I don’t find it.
And I really don’t get the concept that providing security guarantees can be done AFTER a peace deal is reached. Does any rational human being think Putin would sign such a deal? He will insist the other side agree to NOT introducing peace keeping troops. Why? He wants the war to continue. Because he currently has the military advantage and doesn’t care how many more civilians he kills.
Hey Erick, so I sent this post and video to my progressive-democratic-but-still-love-her sister in response to a very terse email she sent me regarding last Fridays Whitehouse meeting in an attempt to better explain my position. Well, I'm quite sure I heard her head explode all the way from Mississippi and her rambling outraged email back to me confirmed it. Thank you for the post and your breakdown of the meeting as it unfolded. Liz
Great summary. Let me try to break this down and try to play some actual 3D chess here:
Players:
US: The US wants Russia contained so we don't have to worry about them from the perspective of NATO. Russia will never be beaten, but they can be contained. US would also like the Russia-Ukraine war done so it can focus on Pooh Bear/PRC and the Middle East and not have to worry about responding to an attack on NATO.
Russia: Russia wants a warm-water port, and regrets giving up the Baltics and the Warsaw Pact to NATO. Russia wants to put the Soviet Union back together, for pride and for some semblance of a buffer zone--neither of which is a really good reason to encroach on Ukraine.
Ukraine: Wants its territory back and to be left alone, with someone to back it up.
Europe: Has more of a vested interest in a contained Russia and peaceful, intact Ukraine than the US does.
Politicos:
Dems: TDS is a thing. If Trump went all-in on Ukraine, they would be complaining about warmongering and the MIC and the Pentagon and bringing back the draft and nuclear holocaust. So the Dems will always be on the other side of Trump. There's also a measure of Europhilia among the Dems.
MAGA GOP: They will go along with whatever Trump wants, for good or ill.
Traditional GOP: Still wants the US to be the policeman of the world, again for good or ill.
Relevant facts:
Europe is broke.
Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Russia is too, but they have a much deeper bench.
We don't know what Russia will do after any peace agreement. "Give peace a chance" is a little naive and hippie talk, but I don't know of any alternatives short of escalation.
Ukraine isn't getting into NATO. Period. Too many NATO members don't want Ukraine, for a variety of reasons, good and bad. Uncle Sam can't do jack about it.
Trump wants a better relationship with Russia for future efforts against Pooh Bear and possibly Iran.
Europe has been freeloading off the USA for defense ever since WWII. It was fine at first while Europe was rebuilding and the Cold War was underway, but as time has gone on Europe has needed to step up and hasn't. This has been a huge opportunity cost for the USA--we could have spent that money on other things, such as social programs and other things that progs like perhaps. Meanwhile, Europe gets to have their welfare state butter while Uncle Sam takes care of the guns at great expense. If the EU wants to be taken seriously, they need to grow up and take care of big-country things like defense themselves. The USA can help, but the EU needs to own the responsibility for their own defense.
Zelensky wanted to grandstand for the cameras and reopen negotiations, and Trump/Vance took the bait instead of kicking the press out and going back to closed doors immediately. Shame on all 3 of them. But that's the least of it.
Alternatives:
There are really two:
1) Send soldiers and materiel to Ukraine to get back the Russian-occupied territory, now. Costly in lives and money and runs the risk of escalation, possibly including NATO members such as the aforementioned Baltics and former Warsaw Pact.
2) Draw a red line and get Ukraine and Russia to declare a truce. Be prepared to go to option 1 if Russia violates the truce.
Analysis:
The mineral deal puts Uncle Sam's skin in the game without overt military action. It primes and gives legitimate cause to a military response should Russia violate a ceasefire.
Russia is sensitive to red flags. This is more of a pride game for them than people realize. See my comments above about the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact/Baltics. Russia (Putin) psychologically needs a win, even an insignificant one geopolitically.
It seems what Zelensky wants and isn't getting is some kind of security guarantee. Trump doesn't want to offend Putin any more than necessary, because he needs him later AND he wants to avoid escalation elsewhere on the Russian/NATO border. And don't forget that Russia is still a nuclear power and has a big arsenal of conventional weapons as well. This isn't just like blowing up Hamas.
I agree with Eric 100%. The press and the "Stop Trump 24 hours a day crowd" want to see him fail. Democrats do not care about anyone or anything except power. Manchin and Sinema are gone. The only Democrats remaining are the rabid anti-reality members that the American people rejected.
Excellent summary, imho, Erick. When politicians pontificate, soldiers die. i believe Trump really does want the killing to stop, for practical economic as well as humanitarian reasons. It appears to me that Putin, Zelensky, (some) Democrats and European leaders are fine with continued sacrifice of soldiers and innocent non-combatants. Given Russia's nukes and its growing alignment with China--strategically speaking, it makes a lot more sense for the U.S. to be less confrontational with Russia. For the U.S. to threaten Russia with combat forces (boots, etc.) and advanced weapon systems for Ukraine is a metaphor for pouring gasolene on Putin and giving Zelensky a match. Stupid.
Apart from your constant hedging with "you may or may not like Donald Trump", I agree with Joe Hatfield, this is an analysis that is directly on point. I watched the entirety of the meeting, and then read the transcript. Zelensky clearly received very bad advice; even WaPo's body language "experts" noted his anger and dismissivness. Last time I looked, Chris Murphy was a back-bench senator, not president or secretary of state. He, along with several others, need to be taken to the proverbial woodshed.
Murphy was on the ground in Ukraine in 2014 with John McCain supporting the Maidan demonstrators against Yanukovych, the duly elected president of Ukraine. Two sitting US Senators were openly supporting the opposition because they thought Yanukovych was a Russian puppet. Obama stood by lamely letting the warhawks do foreign policy. The result was the toppling of Yanukovych. We just can't stop poking the bear . . .
Probably the best, most level-headed analysis of this whole mess to date.
I have no doubt that Zelenskyy is taking very bad advice from Left-wing Democrats..... Let's not forget that he flew to the US on one of our military jets to campaign for Kamala Harris.
Privately, and I do hope this is the case, Zelenskyy is kicking himself for listening to the American Left. If he has one bit of sense, he'll quit listening to those hacks and crawl back to the White House on his knees.
Either that, or he needs to resign as Ukraine's leader and enjoy the money he grabbed from the US.
👏👏👏👍👍👍👍AMEN BROTHER! Another who watches the whole thing with an open mind should agree with Erick’s conclusion. Zelensky not only kept digging after he got in the hole, he switched from a shovel to a steam shovel. And continued later by saying that he had nothing to apologize for. For a former actor, he clearly does m]jot know how to read a room and was totally unaware that it was not applause that he was hearing. The look on the Ukrainian ambassador’s face said it all.
Truth. Good, lucid assessment of the situation. Zelinsky has been willingly convinced by several someones that he is... both mentally and politically... equal to or superior to President Trump. If I may, to a degree, misappropriate Rom 1:22 "Asserting themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
This is arguably the best essay Erick has written since I've started coming here every day. And it's to the point, with that point being VERY sharp. And I agree with some of the other posters--Democrats who've stuck their noses up Zelinskyy's butt could very well be charged with treason here.
Very good post, Erick. Two items have stuck out to me, one admittedly petty, one, in my mind, extremely significant.
The first is that reports do say that Zelensky was asked to wear a suit; that meant that he was poking at us from the moment he stepped out of the vehicle.
Secondly, it is apparently true that Zelensky met with Democrats before this meeting who encouraged him to dig in and refuse this deal (I'm not a lawyer, but Hatch Act?). So his attitude was at least partially fueled because these Democrats egged him on and emboldened him.
Zelensky had the appearance and attitude of a little banty rooster strutting "his stuff" when he had no "stuff". He was not just disrespecting the President and VP but OUR White House and country.
As always Erick, you're right on the money. I truly appreciate your balanced, fair way of looking at bombshell issues like this from both sides. I watched the entire interview too after reading post after post of hair-on-fire progressives in my FB feed. My conclusion was exactly the same as yours without the benefit of as much hindsight as you provide. Bravo again!
Very well stated .
Ukraine and Russia have a long history. Going back 1,000 years. They don't like each other. Russia has been the tyrant the while time. Stalin killed millions in the '30s. Putin is liking civilians left and right. Russia wants to"end" Ukraine. Further, these two countries are not part the Western legal heritage. The Romans never got there. Ukraine was hike to nomadic guess tribes until the early 1400s.
My point is, Ukraine and Russia are locked in a blood feud and will fight until the last man. The West can help Ukraine, but by now Ukraine can hold is own for another 12 months. Can Russia keep up the pressure?
It will be horrible to watch, but the fighting will keep going on. Nothing the West can really do to stop it.
Very good article---informative and insightful.
It is clear that Zelenskyy is of the species of human that is an American Democrat that emote rather than critically think. It seems that he had that same media gaslit Trump Derangement Syndrome and it clouded his judgment. Democrats continue to miss their opportunity to work with Trump due to their emotional turmoil over mean Tweets.
Can someone, anyone provide me with the timestamp from last Fridays Oval Office meltdown where Trump says “he could conceivably commit US troops alongside British and French troops to provide security after a peace deal was reached?”
I’ve watched it twice and replayed parts where Trump was talking and I don’t find it.
And I really don’t get the concept that providing security guarantees can be done AFTER a peace deal is reached. Does any rational human being think Putin would sign such a deal? He will insist the other side agree to NOT introducing peace keeping troops. Why? He wants the war to continue. Because he currently has the military advantage and doesn’t care how many more civilians he kills.
Hey Erick, so I sent this post and video to my progressive-democratic-but-still-love-her sister in response to a very terse email she sent me regarding last Fridays Whitehouse meeting in an attempt to better explain my position. Well, I'm quite sure I heard her head explode all the way from Mississippi and her rambling outraged email back to me confirmed it. Thank you for the post and your breakdown of the meeting as it unfolded. Liz
Great summary. Let me try to break this down and try to play some actual 3D chess here:
Players:
US: The US wants Russia contained so we don't have to worry about them from the perspective of NATO. Russia will never be beaten, but they can be contained. US would also like the Russia-Ukraine war done so it can focus on Pooh Bear/PRC and the Middle East and not have to worry about responding to an attack on NATO.
Russia: Russia wants a warm-water port, and regrets giving up the Baltics and the Warsaw Pact to NATO. Russia wants to put the Soviet Union back together, for pride and for some semblance of a buffer zone--neither of which is a really good reason to encroach on Ukraine.
Ukraine: Wants its territory back and to be left alone, with someone to back it up.
Europe: Has more of a vested interest in a contained Russia and peaceful, intact Ukraine than the US does.
Politicos:
Dems: TDS is a thing. If Trump went all-in on Ukraine, they would be complaining about warmongering and the MIC and the Pentagon and bringing back the draft and nuclear holocaust. So the Dems will always be on the other side of Trump. There's also a measure of Europhilia among the Dems.
MAGA GOP: They will go along with whatever Trump wants, for good or ill.
Traditional GOP: Still wants the US to be the policeman of the world, again for good or ill.
Relevant facts:
Europe is broke.
Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Russia is too, but they have a much deeper bench.
We don't know what Russia will do after any peace agreement. "Give peace a chance" is a little naive and hippie talk, but I don't know of any alternatives short of escalation.
Ukraine isn't getting into NATO. Period. Too many NATO members don't want Ukraine, for a variety of reasons, good and bad. Uncle Sam can't do jack about it.
Trump wants a better relationship with Russia for future efforts against Pooh Bear and possibly Iran.
Europe has been freeloading off the USA for defense ever since WWII. It was fine at first while Europe was rebuilding and the Cold War was underway, but as time has gone on Europe has needed to step up and hasn't. This has been a huge opportunity cost for the USA--we could have spent that money on other things, such as social programs and other things that progs like perhaps. Meanwhile, Europe gets to have their welfare state butter while Uncle Sam takes care of the guns at great expense. If the EU wants to be taken seriously, they need to grow up and take care of big-country things like defense themselves. The USA can help, but the EU needs to own the responsibility for their own defense.
Zelensky wanted to grandstand for the cameras and reopen negotiations, and Trump/Vance took the bait instead of kicking the press out and going back to closed doors immediately. Shame on all 3 of them. But that's the least of it.
Alternatives:
There are really two:
1) Send soldiers and materiel to Ukraine to get back the Russian-occupied territory, now. Costly in lives and money and runs the risk of escalation, possibly including NATO members such as the aforementioned Baltics and former Warsaw Pact.
2) Draw a red line and get Ukraine and Russia to declare a truce. Be prepared to go to option 1 if Russia violates the truce.
Analysis:
The mineral deal puts Uncle Sam's skin in the game without overt military action. It primes and gives legitimate cause to a military response should Russia violate a ceasefire.
Russia is sensitive to red flags. This is more of a pride game for them than people realize. See my comments above about the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact/Baltics. Russia (Putin) psychologically needs a win, even an insignificant one geopolitically.
It seems what Zelensky wants and isn't getting is some kind of security guarantee. Trump doesn't want to offend Putin any more than necessary, because he needs him later AND he wants to avoid escalation elsewhere on the Russian/NATO border. And don't forget that Russia is still a nuclear power and has a big arsenal of conventional weapons as well. This isn't just like blowing up Hamas.
I agree with Eric 100%. The press and the "Stop Trump 24 hours a day crowd" want to see him fail. Democrats do not care about anyone or anything except power. Manchin and Sinema are gone. The only Democrats remaining are the rabid anti-reality members that the American people rejected.
Excellent summary, imho, Erick. When politicians pontificate, soldiers die. i believe Trump really does want the killing to stop, for practical economic as well as humanitarian reasons. It appears to me that Putin, Zelensky, (some) Democrats and European leaders are fine with continued sacrifice of soldiers and innocent non-combatants. Given Russia's nukes and its growing alignment with China--strategically speaking, it makes a lot more sense for the U.S. to be less confrontational with Russia. For the U.S. to threaten Russia with combat forces (boots, etc.) and advanced weapon systems for Ukraine is a metaphor for pouring gasolene on Putin and giving Zelensky a match. Stupid.
99 percent of Russians agree with you.
As well as most Americans . . .
Not true.
Of course I meant most sane Americans.
No, really it’s the MAGAs, who have now merged with the MRGAs. Not exactly a sane bunch.
Apart from your constant hedging with "you may or may not like Donald Trump", I agree with Joe Hatfield, this is an analysis that is directly on point. I watched the entirety of the meeting, and then read the transcript. Zelensky clearly received very bad advice; even WaPo's body language "experts" noted his anger and dismissivness. Last time I looked, Chris Murphy was a back-bench senator, not president or secretary of state. He, along with several others, need to be taken to the proverbial woodshed.
Murphy was on the ground in Ukraine in 2014 with John McCain supporting the Maidan demonstrators against Yanukovych, the duly elected president of Ukraine. Two sitting US Senators were openly supporting the opposition because they thought Yanukovych was a Russian puppet. Obama stood by lamely letting the warhawks do foreign policy. The result was the toppling of Yanukovych. We just can't stop poking the bear . . .
💯 💯 💯 🎯 🎯 🎯 Well done, Erick.
Probably the best, most level-headed analysis of this whole mess to date.
I have no doubt that Zelenskyy is taking very bad advice from Left-wing Democrats..... Let's not forget that he flew to the US on one of our military jets to campaign for Kamala Harris.
Privately, and I do hope this is the case, Zelenskyy is kicking himself for listening to the American Left. If he has one bit of sense, he'll quit listening to those hacks and crawl back to the White House on his knees.
Either that, or he needs to resign as Ukraine's leader and enjoy the money he grabbed from the US.
👏👏👏👍👍👍👍AMEN BROTHER! Another who watches the whole thing with an open mind should agree with Erick’s conclusion. Zelensky not only kept digging after he got in the hole, he switched from a shovel to a steam shovel. And continued later by saying that he had nothing to apologize for. For a former actor, he clearly does m]jot know how to read a room and was totally unaware that it was not applause that he was hearing. The look on the Ukrainian ambassador’s face said it all.
Since no Republicans will stand up to Trump’s lies about Ukraine, maybe Zelensky felt obligated.
Truth. Good, lucid assessment of the situation. Zelinsky has been willingly convinced by several someones that he is... both mentally and politically... equal to or superior to President Trump. If I may, to a degree, misappropriate Rom 1:22 "Asserting themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
This is arguably the best essay Erick has written since I've started coming here every day. And it's to the point, with that point being VERY sharp. And I agree with some of the other posters--Democrats who've stuck their noses up Zelinskyy's butt could very well be charged with treason here.
Very good post, Erick. Two items have stuck out to me, one admittedly petty, one, in my mind, extremely significant.
The first is that reports do say that Zelensky was asked to wear a suit; that meant that he was poking at us from the moment he stepped out of the vehicle.
Secondly, it is apparently true that Zelensky met with Democrats before this meeting who encouraged him to dig in and refuse this deal (I'm not a lawyer, but Hatch Act?). So his attitude was at least partially fueled because these Democrats egged him on and emboldened him.
Zelensky had the appearance and attitude of a little banty rooster strutting "his stuff" when he had no "stuff". He was not just disrespecting the President and VP but OUR White House and country.