And this, too
Victor David Hanson:
Ten bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up
1. Zelenskyy does not grasp—or deliberately ignores—the bitter truth: those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American Left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those with whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (cf. his Scranton, Penn. campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being “briefed” by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront Trump, given their interests are not really Ukraine’s as they feign.
2. Zelenskyy acts as if his agendas and ours are identical. So, he keeps insisting that he is fighting for us despite our two-ocean-distance that he mocks. We do have many shared interests with Ukraine, but not all by any means: Trump wants to “reset” with Russia and triangulate it against China. He seeks to avoid a 1962 DEFCON 2-like crisis over a proxy showdown in proximity to a nuclear rival. And he sincerely wants to end the deadlocked Stalingrad slaughterhouse for everyone’s sake.
3. The Europeans (and Canada) are now talking loudly of a new muscular antithesis, independent of the U.S. Promises, promises—given that would require Europeans to prune back their social welfare state, frack, use nuclear, stop the green obsessions, and spend 3-5 percent of their GDP on defense. The U.S. does not just pay 16 percent of NATO’s budget but also puts up with asymmetrical tariffs that result in a European Union trade surplus of $160 billion, plays the world cop patrolling sea-lanes and deterring terrorists and rogues states that otherwise might interrupt Europe’s commercial networks abroad, as well as de facto including Europe under a nuclear umbrella of 6,500 nukes.
4. Zelenskyy must know that all of the once deal-stopping issues to peace have been de facto settled: Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO; and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbass and Crimea. So, the only two issues are a) how far will Putin be willing to withdraw to his 2022 borders and b) how will he be deterred? The first is answered by a commercial sector/tripwire, joint Ukrainian-US-Europe resource development corridor in Eastern Ukraine, coupled with a Korea-like DMZ; the second by the fact that Putin unlike his 2008 and 2014 invasions has now lost a million dead and wounded to a Ukraine that will remain thusly armed.
5. What are Zelenskyy’s alternatives without much U.S. help—wait for a return of the Democrats to the White House in four years? Hope for a rearmed Europe? Pray for a Democratic House and a 3rd Vindman-like engineered Trump impeachment? Or swallow his pride, return to the White House, sign the rare-earth minerals deal, invite in the Euros (are they seriously willing to patrol a DMZ?), and hope Trump can warn Putin, as he did successfully between 2017-21, not to dare try it again?
6. If there is a cease fire, a commercial deal, a Euro ground presence, and influx of Western companies into Ukraine, would there be elections? And if so, would Zelenskyy and his party win? And if not, would there be a successor transparent government that would reveal exactly where all the Western financial aid money went?
7. Zelenskyy might see a model in Netanyahu. The Biden Administration was far harder on him than Trump is on Ukraine: suspending arms shipments, demanding cease-fires, prodding for a wartime, bipartisan cabinet, hammering Israel on collateral damage—none of which Westerners have demanded of Zelenskyy. Yet Netanyahu managed a hostile Biden, kept Israel close to its patron, and when visiting was gracious to his host. Netanyahu certainly would never before the global media have interrupted, and berated a host and patron president in the White House.
8. If Ukraine has alienated the U.S. what then is its strategic victory plan? Wait around for more Euros? Hold off an increasingly invigorated Russian military? Cede more territory? What, then, exactly are Zelenskyy’s cards he seems to think are a winning hand?
9. If one views carefully all the 50-minute tape, most of it was going quite well—until Zelenskyy started correcting Vance firstly, and Trump secondly. By Ukraine-splaining to his hosts, and by his gestures, tone, and interruptions, he made it clear that he assumed that Trump was just more of the same compliant, clueless moneybags Biden waxen effigy. And that was naïve for such a supposedly worldly leader.
10. March 2025 is not March 2022, after the heroic saving of Kyiv—but three years and 1.5 million dead and wounded later. Zelenskyy is no longer the international heartthrob with the glamorous entourage. He has postponed elections, outlawed opposition media and parties, suspended habeas corpus and walked out of negotiations when he had an even hand in Spring 2022 and apparently even now when he does not in Spring 2025.
Quo vadis, Volodymyr?
7 comments:
Snapshot, unscientific poll conducted by Frank Luntz, who's usually pretty evenhanded: 90/10 in favor of Trump/Vance over Zelenskyy re the Oval Office blowup, and nearly evenly split Putin/Zelenskyy over the conflict in general. That one surprises me, as I have a hard time seeing this from Russia POV.
I wanted Ukraine to win this, even though they had bad odds right out of the gate. But they haven't, and they aren't going to.
We have to accept that reality, even if Ukraine doesn't.
We have to accept that reality, even if Ukraine doesn't.
We can accept anything we want. It's Ukraine that's fighting for its existence. They remember Russian jackboots on their necks, and they'd rather die than live in slavery with rampant rape and baby butchery at the hands of Russians. They're reminded of that fate in every city overrun by the barbarian that they got back and in every ongoing attack on their hospitals, schools, apartment complexes.
Ukraine can't accept "that reality," and they have nothing left to lose by continuing the fight for their survival.
Shame on the rest of us for quitting and sitting back and watching, if that's what our several nations end up choosing to do.
Eric Hines
The thing is, Mr. Hines, a lot of the Ukrainians in the occupied zone are Russian-speaking rather than Ukrainian-speaking; and a lot of them were fighting to get back under Russian rule, or 'protection,' as they might prefer. There was a very active war against Ukraine's sovereignty that Russia decided to join.
We helped Ukraine stop them from taking all of it, and helped them stabilize a front. A peace treaty can let those Ukrainians who don't want to be under Russian rule relocate to the west.
But the war's over. We can throw more men into the grinder at ~30K casualties a month, or we can admit that it's over and bring peace to the area. The longer it goes on, the worse for the good people of Ukraine, who are seeing the flower of their young manhood destroyed for no appreciable gains. I mentioned that artillery production in the West is tapped. Russia has 3x more. They also have just about 3x more military aged males to draft if they want to.
The best thing for everyone is to stop this bloodletting. I really believe that to be true.
I wanted Ukraine to win, too. I'm trying to keep in mind my reaction to the incessant calls for "ceasefire at any price" in Gaza. There's no such thing as "peace at any price" if you're being invaded by butchers. At the same time, unless the idea is to die to the last man, woman, and child, there definitely is such a thing as picking the time when your military resistance has been the most effective, and figuring out the best deal you can cut, even if that means abandoning conquered territory you can't realistically recover, and remaining armed to the teeth to repel a future invasion.
"...picking the time when your military resistance has been the most effective..."
Also a fair point. Right now, Ukraine has a sizable salient in Kursk to trade. But it's almost cut off, after which those forces will be prisoners of war whose freedom Ukraine has to buy at a price.
a lot of the Ukrainians in the occupied zone are Russian-speaking rather than Ukrainian-speaking; and a lot of them were fighting to get back under Russian rule
That was the case in 2014 and later. After that, after Russian occupation, a lot of those ethnic Russians decided they were better off under Ukrainian rule. It's far from determined that that population is pro-Russian anymore. As an aside, having seen the behavior of the Russian army in Ukraine, a lot of the Russian speakers in the Baltics also are rethinking their status and adjusting their attitudes.
Regarding Russia's artillery, and ammunition and drones I add, they're using up barrels even faster than is the UA, and they need the artillery ammunition from northern Korea pretty badly, unreliable as those rounds seem to be. Their longer-range drones are Iranian, for all that they're starting to reverse engineer and build their own. The Russian army remains entirely too dependent on outside supply.
Two differently sourced maps of the Kursk incursion doesn't at all indicate the Ukrainians as being at risk of being cut off:
https://liveuamap.com/
https://map.ukrdailyupdate.com/?lat=51.227528&lng=35.353317&z=11&d=20149&c=1&l=0
We can throw more men into the grinder at ~30K casualties a month....
We aren't throwing anyone into that front; the Ukrainians are, and that's their choice. We had a saying, very widespread in the US in my youth, "Better dead than red," even as the saying was nearly as widely disparaged. The Ukrainians appear to have decided, a large fraction of them, that they'd rather be dead than exist under Russian boots and routine atrocities. They're not interested in peace at any price, and they know there'll never be any peace for them if they lose: Russians are just too barbaric.
I really believe that to be true.
No one, least of all me, is doubting your sincerity.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment