
Trump and Putin Could Decide Others' Fates, Echoing Yalta Summit
As President Trump prepares to meet President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday in Alaska, there is more talk — and anxiety — among Ukrainians and Europeans about a second Yalta. They are not scheduled to be present, and Mr. Trump has said he plans to negotiate 'land swaps' with Mr. Putin over Ukrainian territory.
'Yalta is a symbol of everything we fear,' said Peter Schneider, a German novelist who wrote 'The Wall Jumper,' about the division of Berlin. At Yalta, the world itself was divided and 'countries were handed to Stalin,' he said. 'Now we see that Putin wants to reconstruct the world as it was at Yalta. For him, it begins with Ukraine, but that's not his ending.'
Yalta, itself in Russian-annexed Crimea, has become a symbol for how superpowers can decide the fates of other nations and peoples. 'It's a linchpin moment, when the European world is divided in two and the fate of Europeans in the East is locked in without any possible say,' said Ivan Vejvoda, a Serb political scientist with the Institute for Human Sciences, a research institution in Vienna.
'Of course today's world is different, but decisions are being made on behalf of third countries for whom this is an existential issue,' Mr. Vejvoda said.
The prospect that big powers might settle the fate of a third country that is not present is 'a national trauma in most of Eastern Europe, including Estonia,' said Kadri Liik, an Estonian and Russia expert with the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'That fear is always close to the surface, the fear that someone will sell us off or sell Ukraine off and that's the start of a bigger process.'
Mr. Putin's stated aims do not end with Ukraine. As a revisionist who wants to upend the current order, he has made clear he wants NATO to end any expansion, pull its troops out of any country that joined after 1997 — including all countries that had been under Soviet occupation and became members starting in 1999 — and negotiate a new 'security architecture' in Europe that recognizes the old Soviet sphere of influence. He wants to divide the United States from Europe, if he can, to weaken or destroy the trans-Atlantic relationship created after World War II.
The Yalta meeting of the three 'great powers' — Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States — took place in February 1945, after France and Belgium had been liberated and the defeat of Germany was inevitable. The summit was followed by a conference in Potsdam, Germany, in July, which reconfirmed the division of Europe into Western and Soviet spheres.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were both ailing and exhausted. Many in Eastern Europe came to believe that the two men had been taken in by the promises of Joseph Stalin that he would allow free elections in the countries occupied by the Red Army.
'Yalta has gone down in history as many things, but it became a dirty word in Eastern Europe and especially in Poland,' since a main topic of the conference was its new borders, said Serhii Plokhii, a professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard and the author of numerous books about the Cold War, including 'Yalta: The Price of Peace.'
Charles de Gaulle was also not invited to Yalta, Mr. Plokhii noted. 'Here we see clear parallels between de Gaulle and Europe and Poland and Ukraine,' he said. Europe's major powers are also left out of the Alaska summit and plan to discuss the meeting virtually on Wednesday with Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
Of course, there are clear differences, Mr. Plokhii said. Stalin was troublesome but an ally, who had been instrumental in defeating the Nazis. Roosevelt and Churchill were doing what they could 'to better the situation for the territories already occupied by the Red Army.'
They were not giving up territories the allies held or negotiating about the government of France, as Stalin wanted, he said. 'So there were no real concessions on territories not already controlled by the Soviet Union.' And neither Washington nor London wanted to expand the war to drive out the Soviets, although Churchill later ordered contingency planning for such a conflict.
For Timothy D. Snyder, a historian of Ukraine and the Cold War, the Alaska summit is 'morally less defensible' than the one in Yalta because Mr. Putin is not an ally, as Stalin was. 'Although he was ruling a terrible system and oppressing as he liberated, the Soviets had just borne the brunt of the war in Europe, so it was inevitable to discuss with them a settlement at the end of the war,' he said.
But for Mr. Snyder, a professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto, there is a crucial difference with Yalta. It is Russia now, not Nazi Germany, that is 'carrying out an unprovoked war and all its atrocities.' Russia is 'not an ambiguous partner who helped end the war, but started the war.'
That Mr. Trump is engaging and negotiating with Mr. Putin, which former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was reluctant to do, is easily defensible because Russia is a combatant. But so is Ukraine, the critics argue, and President Volodymyr Zelensky should be there, even if Mr. Putin claims to regard him as illegitimate and Ukraine as artificial.
Today, Mr. Plokhii said, Mr. Putin wants Ukraine to hand over territories not occupied by Russia. So that also raises another controversial moment in history, at Munich in 1938, when Neville Chamberlain agreed with Adolf Hitler to dismantle Czechoslovakia, which was not represented at those talks, in a vain, doomed effort to keep the peace.
'We know Churchill and Roosevelt got some criticism over Yalta, but it was Chamberlain who became infamous,' Mr. Plokhii said.
Mr. Putin's demand for unconquered Ukrainian territory is also similar to Hitler's demand for the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938, Mr. Snyder said. 'If Ukraine is forced to concede the rest of the Donbas, it would concede defensive lines and fortifications crucial to its defense, which is what the Czechs had to do,' he said.
'Hitler's aim was to destroy Czechoslovakia,' Mr. Snyder said, 'and Putin's ultimate goal is to destroy Ukraine.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ana Navarro Calls Out Melania Trump's ‘Performative' Letter To Putin
Ana Navarro of 'The View' is accusing first lady Melania Trump of hypocrisy, and she has a long list of receipts to back it up. On Aug.15, President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to negotiate a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine — a goal that ultimately went unmet. During the meeting, Trump reportedly handed Putin a letter from Melania Trump urging him to protect children and future generations worldwide, saying, 'It is time.' Related: The letter, which was obtained by Fox News, was reposted by Navarro on Instagram on Tuesday — but not before the political commentator added her own unflinching critique of Melania Trump's message. 'I just can't with the performative, hypocrisy from these people,' Navarro captioned her video, right before reading the first lady's words claiming that Putin could usher in peace with merely 'a stroke of the pen.' In the video, Navarro juxtaposed Melania Trump's appeal for global peace with the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant families in the U.S., especially children. She pointed to the fear among immigrant children, many of whom are U.S. citizens, who live in constant anxiety over 'their parents being dragged through the streets of America.' Among Navarro's list of examples were the school children in Los Angeles, California, who were detained by ICE. Earlier this month, the government agency mistakenly detained a disabled youth outside of his L.A. school. 'Trump and his minions have literally destroyed U.S. aid that could feed starving children, instead of distributing it,' Navarro continued in her caption. 'They are destroying and separating families. They are taking safety nets away from poor American children and giving tax-breaks to the ultra wealthy.' Related: While Navarro acknowledged the importance of advocating for Ukrainian children, she urged the first lady to turn her attention closer to home — namely, to the policies enacted by her own husband. She wrote that Trump should 'spare' her the gestures towards influencing Putin, and suggested that she 'stands a better chance of influencing Trump.' Related: 'There are children in America crying, suffering, going to bed in fear,' Navarro said, 'returning to homes that are abandoned and empty, not knowing where their next meal is coming from because of what her husband is doing.' Related... Ana Navarro Urges One Of Trump's Kennedy Center Honor Nominees To Reject His Award Michael B. Jordan Makes Ana Navarro Swoon With Just A Single Sound On 'The View' Ana Navarro Shares Her Thoughts On Meghan Markle Controversy
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American
When President Donald Trump first declared a crime emergency in the nation's capital and sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to patrol its streets, this district resident had a hard time taking it too seriously. The initial images of bored Drug Enforcement Administration agents strolling past perplexed joggers on the National Mall were more clownish than carceral. Local street resistance to the occupation was limited to a drunk guy throwing a sandwich at a federal agent. But inevitably, as this operation has dragged on, things have taken a darker turn. The sandwich-thrower was overcharged and rearrested in a needless, publicized show of force. Masked federal agents have set up an unconstitutional checkpoint, violently arrested at least one delivery driver, and filmed themselves tearing down a banner protesting their presence in the city. Each day, more and more National Guard members pour into the capital. The conversation about Trump's declared crime emergency has understandably, albeit unhelpfully, provoked a lot of discourse about how safe D.C. is, whether a federalized local police department will make it safer, whether federal agents are being deployed in the right places and going after the right crimes, and on and on. This incessant crime conversation has distracted from just how un-American Trump's show of force in the nation's capital is. Uniformed troops and masked federal agents doing routine law enforcement at the command of the president is just not how we do things in the United States. The entire point of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the federal government from becoming a despotism, and one of the primary ways it does this is by limiting how many men with guns it has at its disposal. This is why the Constitution places strict constraints on maintaining a standing army. It's why there are only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, none of which would plausibly require federal agents to patrol U Street. It's why questions of what to criminalize and who to prosecute were largely left up to the states. The Third Amendment is mostly treated as an anachronistic joke today. In fact, it is a load-bearing part of the Constitution that makes clear that the military and the police are different things and that Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of armed agents of the states as a routine part of daily life. Obviously we've deviated considerably from this ideal since the founding generation. The federal criminal code is now extensive. The feds' wars on drugs, terror, and immigration have grown the number of militarized federal agents doing law enforcement activities. Federal money has subsidized a similar trend of militarization of state and local police forces. Reason has been decrying this trend for decades. In his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes about how the trend of increased police militarization has eroded the "Symbolic Third Amendment" and the free society it protects. It's darkly ironic then that, after decades of politicians of both parties in D.C. gifting the federal government vast powers to police the rest of the country, a militarized federal police force is now being deployed on the streets of America's capital against its residents. This is why arguments about whether federal agents could be more effectively deployed in less visible, higher crime areas of the city are completely beside the point. The federal government acting as a beat cop is inimical to our constitutional design, regardless of how effective its efforts are. That D.C. is a federal district might seem to complicate this point. In fact, it reinforces it. Despite being a constitutionally peculiar special district, a lot of effort has been put into giving D.C. a local police force that does not practically function as an arm of the federal government. Even in the seat of federal power, it's understood that a force of federal agents policing everyday life is not something ordinary citizens should have to put up with. That Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police or deploy the D.C. National Guard doesn't stop his actions from being authoritarian and offensive to the spirit of the Constitution, even if it doesn't violate the letter of it. It's also cold comfort that Trump's declared crime emergency is clearly mostly a performative act to rile up the libs and not a serious effort at combating crime. While the president is staging the performance, it's disconcerting that he's opted to cast himself as the villain in the play. Moreover, the longer federal agents are deployed on D.C. streets, the greater the odds that more serious abuses do happen. It's true that D.C. today is not as locked down as it has been in recent years. The police-enforced curfews during the George Floyd protests or the security cordons that sprang up after the January 6 riots were a lot more visible and heavy-handed. Excessive as those police actions were (particularly the latter), they were at least being done as an emergency response to widespread breakdowns in public order. Trump is rolling out the feds in D.C. to do routine law enforcement. That's un-American. The post Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword


The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats press DHS for ‘Alligator Alcatraz' information
Democratic lawmakers are pressing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for more information about how the Trump administration teamed up with the state of Florida to create a controversial detention facility for migrants in the middle of the Everglades. 'Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, [DHS] has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals' human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health and violate federal law,' House and Senate Democrats wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem dated Wednesday. The detention facility, dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' opened in early July to house arrested migrants awaiting deportation. It was created through a state and federal partnership, with Florida officials leading oversight and construction, with DHS footing the bill. President Trump toured the facility when it opened, along with Noem. A federal judge last week temporarily halted expansion of the site after tribal and environmental groups filed a lawsuit over potential damage to wetlands. Located just south of Miami, Alligator Alcatraz quickly raised alarms about conditions for detainees in the hot, humid climate. Some whistleblowers have described worm-infested food, plumbing problems and other issues since its opening. 'The Everglades site was selected precisely because of its remote location and harsh surroundings, which Florida officials reportedly view as 'an ideal location to house and transport migrants,'' the Democrats wrote in their letter Wednesday. 'We ask that DHS promptly provide critical information for the American public to better understand this detention plan.' The letter was signed by more than five dozen members of Congress, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). It requested that DHS respond to several questions by September 3.