Tell me how this ends, Ukraine
Aug. 20 (UPI) -- The theatrics of Monday's White House confab are over. As badly as the Disasta in Alaska went last Friday, President Donald Trump did a first-rate job of presiding over this conclave of key leaders from six major European states, as well as the European Commission and NATO.
Expressions of solidarity were clear and apparent. And the Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a complete reversal of last February's debacle when the Big Z was escorted out of the White House in semi-disgrace.
But the looming question is the one Gen. David Petraeus posed about the second Iraq War to journalists: "Tell me how this ends?" And, indeed, how will the 3 1/2-year war in Ukraine end any time soon -- or will it?
To Donald Rumsfeld's useful list of "knowns and unknowns," history should be added in considering how this may end. The combination does not project optimism, although hope can never be abandoned.
The crucial issues are security guarantees and land swaps. Whether the West can achieve a NATO-like pact with Ukraine or not, the Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a firm "nyet" to any outside forces being stationed in Ukraine as peacekeepers from NATO or from NATO members -- a seeming reversal of what Trump believed President Vladimir Putin had accepted in Alaska.
Nor has the size, composition and states of origin been even roughly defined. Rules of engagement and other sticking points will arise. Of course, Russia's repeated and predictable failure to abide by agreements, especially the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the two Minsk Agreements of 2014/15, is too well-known to be ignored. And if this guarantee could not be maintained, would that automatically lead to war with Russia?
About land swaps, Putin has made the case "what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine," referring to three major Ukrainian cities in the Donbas that are crucial in Kyiv's defense network and are not occupied by Russian forces.
Zelensky is bound by his constitution and public opinion that at least 80% of Ukrainians are opposed to territorial concessions. His certain response, unless a deal is offered, that he cannot refuse is also "nyet," but on steroids.
About the unknowns, Putin is on top of that list. From what Trump and his envoy, Steve Witkoff, said right after Alaska and what Trump has said since is that Putin wants to end the war as much as others do. But on what terms? Putin had been unswerving in his intentions to return Ukraine to the Russian motherland whether through occupation or perhaps a puppet government subservient to Moscow.
Students of Putin will say there is no unknown here. Putin's response will be unchanged. Yet, because Trump and Witkoff believe differently, there is at least some plausible doubt about how Putin will react.
Interestingly, the comment was made that Putin will have to gain support from his cabinet, or what passes for it. But, does anyone believe that Trump will ask advice or concurrence from his advisers? Of course not. Both leaders are in charge.
Most depressing is history. In Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq 2, the answer to Petraeus' question was crystal clear. We lost. In the case of Vietnam, the North's will to win won. When Congress cut off aid by 1975, Saigon would become Ho Chi Minh City.
As Trump should realize, after he and the Taliban made the Doha Accords in 2020 without the presence of the Kabul government, it was do svidaniya, Afghanistan. And with the dissolution of the Iraqi army and dismissal of competent bureaucrats who were part of the Baathist Party, the fate was sealed.
Assuming if they meet, and that is by no means a done deal, suppose Putin and Zelensky cannot agree on the land swaps. Or suppose sufficient security guarantees cannot be put in place. From Trump's position, he has done all he can to end the killings and the war. He, too, is likely to say that he tried and now it is up to the warring parties to make a deal.
Trump would also argue that as Europe has agreed to shoulder the burden to rearm and supply Ukraine -- that while the United States is happy to sell weapons to Europe, we have done our duty. And make no mistake. Given Russia's overwhelming advantages in size and numbers, we know how this will end.
Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Best Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
US applications for jobless benefits rise last week, but layoffs remain historically low
WASHINGTON (AP) — More Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week, but U.S. layoffs remain in the same historically healthy range of the past few years. Applications for unemployment benefits for the week ending Aug. 16 rose by 11,000 to 235,000, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That's slightly more than the 229,000 new applications that economists had forecast. Weekly applications for jobless benefits are seen as a proxy for layoffs and have mostly settled in a historically healthy range between 200,000 and 250,000 since the U.S. began to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic more than three years ago. While layoffs remain low by historical comparisons, there has been noticeable deterioration in the labor market this year and mounting evidence that people are having difficulty finding jobs. U.S. employers added just 73,000 jobs in July, well short of the 115,000 analysts forecast. Worse, revisions to the May and June figures shaved 258,000 jobs off previous estimates and the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1%. That report sent financial markets spiraling, spurring President Donald Trump to fire Erika McEntarfer, the head of Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tallies the monthly employment numbers. The BLS does not contribute to the weekly unemployment benefits report except to calculate the annual seasonal adjustments. The BLS reported earlier this week that the unemployment rate in Washington, D.C. eclipsed 6% in July, the third straight month that it was the highest in the U.S. The rising D.C. jobless rate is a reflection of the mass layoffs of federal workers by Trump's Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. An overall decline in international tourism — a main driver of D.C.'s income — is also expected to have an impact on the climbing unemployment rate in the District. Neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia, where many federal employees reside, also saw an uptick in unemployment rates in July. Since the beginning of Trump's second term, federal workers across government agencies have been either laid off or asked to voluntarily resign, spurring lawsuits from labor unions and advocacy groups. Another recent report on the U.S. labor market showed that employers posted 7.4 million job vacancies in June, down from 7.7 million in May. The number of people quitting their jobs — a sign of confidence in finding a better job — fell in June to the lowest level since December. Some major companies have announced job cuts this year, including Procter & Gamble, Dow, CNN, Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft, Google and Facebook parent company Meta. Intel and The Walt Disney Co. also recently announced staff reductions. Many economists contend that Trump's erratic rollout of tariffs against U.S. trading partners has created uncertainty for employers, who have grown reluctant to expand their payrolls. The Labor Department's report Thursday showed that the four-week average of claims, which softens some of the week-to-week swings, rose by 4,500 to 226,500. The total number of Americans collecting unemployment benefits for the previous week of Aug. 9 jumped by 30,000 to 1.97 million, the most since November 6, 2021.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Live updates: Texas barrels toward new district maps; White House details EU trade deal
The Texas House gave its seal of approval to new congressional district maps, and the state Senate takes up the effort on Thursday. President Trump is pushing for the new lines to give Republicans a boost of five seats in Congress. California's effort to counter Texas redistricting is full steam ahead, with both legislature chambers debating the issue Thursday. The California Supreme Court on Wednesday handed state Democrats a win, rejecting a petition filed by state Republican legislators seeking to halt Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict California's congressional map. The Trump administration on Thursday morning rolled out details of its trade deal with the European Union, setting its exports tariff at 15 percent. The EU has agreed to eliminate all tariffs on industrial goods imported from the U.S. and to widen preferential market access to U.S. seafood and agricultural products. At the White House, Trump will sign executive orders at 3 p.m.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Putin has a Melania Trump problem, and the DC media is too slanted to see it
Of all the people in the White House not to end up on the wrong side of, outside of President Trump, I would put Melania Trump at the top of the list. Very private and not at all liking politics (although far too classy to constantly whine about it, unlike a certain former first lady), Melania Trump has taken a very low profile. But that doesn't mean she is uninvolved. Too bad for Vladimir Putin that he didn't get the memo. Now the Russian president is paying the price. In fact, Trump himself revealed the first lady is not buying Putin's soft-soap routine. USA Today reported that when the president told Melania about Putin's desire for peace, she quickly noted that Russia had just bombed another city, killing more civilians. In response, Russia's ham-handed propaganda machine went on the attack, peddling nasty gossip and calling her a 'danger to Russia.' But the first lady was not about to engage. To all appearances, she had a far more shrewd and effective response in mind. Her letter to Putin was a clear shot at the Russians. In the letter, she essentially says that Putin and the Russians abducted Ukrainian children, and she wants them released. Melania did not call Putin a war criminal, but that conclusion is just a step away. Has Putin figured out his attack dogs blundered? There is evidence to suggest just that. Putin compounded the Russian propaganda mistake with an even more serious blunder, possibly to make up for insulting the first lady. At the Anchorage summit — which was a success for Trump, since he didn't give anything away and forced Putin to confer on a U.S. Air Force Base on American soil — Putin was an obsequious as he could be. But in doing so he went a step too far, agreeing with Trump that he would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been president. For over three years Putin has claimed to the Russian people and the world that he is in a civilizational fight and battling Nazis in Ukraine. And that is a lie. Putin's invasion was opportunistic. He started the war because he thought he would win easily. Of course, it's one thing for a national leader to lie (happens all the time), and another thing to admit it — and make your loyalists look like fools. Even more problematic for Putin are his inner circle and the security state that surrounds him. Tied to Putin, his sheepish sycophancy to Trump is a humiliation for them as well. Instead of a proud, patriotic Russia fighting for its survival, Putin has portrayed himself and Russia as supplicants to Trump. Pretty humiliating, if you ask me. Putin is the main power in Russia, but he is not a dictator in the style of Kim Jong Un. There are other power centers in the country, and his personal control still relies on the support of Russia's security state. Expect Putin to pivot to a more aggressive posture in order to regain some semblance of pride and control — which will undermine his position with Trump. Of course, these complexities are utterly beyond the understanding and interest of a Western media that is obsessed with loathing Trump — and by proxy anyone associated with him, including the first lady. Instead of recognizing the subtle and substantive moves of Melania Trump, the progressive left immediately sought to demean her letter. Salon's pages snarked like an overqualified freshman English teacher. Others claimed it was an AI paste-up job. But even if the letter wasn't everyone's cup of tea or not quite the Gettysburg Address, that's beside the point. The significant revelation is that Putin and his thugs may well have created an implacable foe in the White House who cannot be displaced. Too focused on their mission to throw mud at anything and everything Trump, the establishment media and leftist echo chamber are unwilling (or unable) to amplify Putin's humiliation and fuel discontent within Russia. It all makes their support for Ukraine ring hollow, to say the least. When push comes to shove, there is no principle that supersedes hatred for Trump. Time will tell on this latest burst of diplomacy. It is more likely than not that Putin is in too deep to offer any compromise that could be remotely acceptable. His own propaganda and ultra-nationalist allies may well have put him in a box he cannot get out of. Not that this circumstance should surprise anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Russian history. There is a reason Russian autocrats almost never survive losing a war. This war will most likely not end until Putin is removed from power and a new Russian leadership can start over, blaming the dead man for all of the mistakes — another classic Russian trope. If and when that happens, Melania Trump will deserve some credit.
