Latest news with #Russo-UkrainianWar
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why Washington failed to end the Russo-Ukrainian War
In the early 19th century, one of the founding fathers of modern war studies, the Prussian general and military historian Carl von Clausewitz, commented on the Napoleonic Wars: "The conqueror is always peace-loving; he would much prefer to march into our state calmly." This remains an observation that applies to most military aggressions. Yet, Clausewitz's basic idea was ignored by most Europeans in their interpretation of Moscow's behaviour after the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014. Much of European diplomacy and commentary until 2022 instead built on the assumption that the Kremlin's public insistence on the peacefulness of its intentions towards Kyiv implies that one can and should negotiate and moderate Russian aims and behaviour in Ukraine. This inapt premise ignored that Russian President Vladimir Putin merely preferred Ukraine's non-violent takeover to an uncertain future military campaign against Kyiv. When, eleven years ago, Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea and covertly invaded eastern Ukraine, the war as such had no benefits for Putin and his entourage. Instead, a hybrid subversion of Ukraine by Russian agents and proxy forces, rather than a violent occupation of most of the Ukrainian lands by tens of thousands of regular Russian troops, was the preferred method. During the last three years, however, the role of Russia's - now full-scale - military invasion of Ukraine for Putin's regime has changed. One the one side, the war itself has acquired a stabilizing function for the Russian political system that relies on an increasingly extremist ideology, militarized economy and mobilized society. On the other side, most European politicians, diplomats and experts now have fewer illusions about Putin's putative love for peace than they had a decade ago. In contrast, the hitherto largely adequate perception of Moscow's strategy in Washington has been replaced, since January 2025, by an escapist approach to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Read also: 'It's all a farce' — Ukrainian soldiers on Russia's 'smokescreen' peace talks in Istanbul The degree of the new U.S. administration's political naivety, moral indifference and diplomatic dilettantism, during its first four months in office, has been astonishing. Even in view of the aberrations during Trump's first presidency of 2017-2021, the inadequacy of the last months' statements and actions by the White House regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War has triggered shockwaves in Europe and elsewhere. One suspects that not only strategic infantilism, but also political respect and even personal sympathy, in the Trump administration, for Putin, have been driving the recent zigzags of the U.S. Four months of American shuttle diplomacy and mediation attempts have achieved only little. The results of this week's two-hour conversation between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump have also been meagre. To be sure, the two presidents spoke, after their telephone talk, of success. Yet, there are no tangible outcomes of the intense trilateral negotiations between Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv, and of the direct interactions between the U.S. and Russian presidents. Putin made it clear that there would not be any ceasefire soon. Russian imperialism will not be neutralized by negotiations, compromises, or concessions. Trump announced that there should be direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, as if the two countries had not been negotiating with each other, in different formats, for more than eleven years already. In his comment about Monday's phone call, Putin, in fact, engaged in a trolling of Ukraine, the U.S., and the entire West in two ways. First, the term that Russia has recently introduced and Putin used to label the primary aim to be achieved in upcoming negotiations is "memorandum." Everybody familiar with the history of post-Soviet Russo-Ukrainian relations will know that there exists already a historic security-related "memorandum" signed by Moscow and Kyiv (as well as Washington and London) at Hungary's capital more than 30 years ago. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Moscow guaranteed, in exchange for Kyiv's agreement to hand over all of its nuclear warheads to Russia, that it would not attack Ukraine. Washington and London too assured Kyiv that they respect the Ukrainian borders and sovereignty. After Moscow has been demonstratively trampling the letter and spirit of the Budapest Memorandum for eleven years, the Kremlin is now offering to sign another Russo-Ukrainian "memorandum." Second, Putin did not exclude, after speaking to Trump, that future negotiations with Kyiv may lead to a truce. Yet, the Russian president added that, "if appropriate agreements are reached," a "possible ceasefire" would only be "for a certain period of time." Even if the negotiations are successful, the armistice will be merely temporary. That caveat by Putin is an apt admission: The Russian war economy and population's military mobilization are now so far advanced that they cannot be easily stopped. Moscow is not any longer able to abruptly discontinue warfighting. What would happen to Russia's hundreds of thousands of enlisted soldiers, large-scale weapons production, and routine bellicose as well as intense Ukrainophobic campaigns in many spheres of Russian social life (education, media, culture etc.), if there is suddenly a permanent peace? These and similar signals from Moscow allow only one conclusion: To end the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russia needs to experience a humiliating defeat on the battlefield. The lesson from the past is, moreover, that Russian military failures have triggered domestic liberalization, such as the Great Reforms after the Crimean War of 1854-1856, or the introduction of semi-constitutionalism following the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. One of the determinants of Glasnost and Perestroika was the disastrous failure of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979-1989. Russian imperialism will not be neutralized by negotiations, compromises, or concessions. Instead, such approaches only promote further foreign adventurism in Moscow and military escalation along Russia's borders. The Kremlin will one day end Russia's expansionist wars as well as genocidal terror against civilians in Ukraine and elsewhere. Yet for that to happen, the Russian people first need to start believing that such behaviour cannot lead to victory, may trigger internal collapse, and will be resolutely punished. Submit an Opinion Read also: 'There we go again' — For war-weary Europe, Trump-Putin call yet another signal to 'wake up' We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Mint
11-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Donald Trump offers to mediate in India-Pakistan's ‘Kashmir' problem, but what is his track record in solving conflicts?
India-Pakistan Ceasefire: Just a day after taking credit for the "US-brokered ceasefire agreement," US President Donald Trump reignited the Kashmir mediation debate with a dramatic pledge. On Sunday, he declared his intent to help India and Pakistan find a resolution to a 'decades-old' dispute "to see if, after a 'thousand years,' a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir." Trump's offer to mediate between India and Pakistan isn't his first foray into the issue. Back in July 2019, the POTUS had offered to mediate between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, only to later walk. Now, with India-Pakistan tensions thrown into the melting point once again, Donald Trump appears poised to step back into the fray. Posting on Truth Social, Trump wrote, 'Additionally, I will work with you both to see if, after a 'thousand years,' a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir,' signaling his renewed interest in playing peacemaker. A quick glance at Donald Trump's record in resolving crises or conflicts involving countries with ongoing fighting presents a mixed scenario, if not controversial. Here's a look at the POTUS's track record in resolving crises: Israel Gaza war: The most prominent of Trump's offer to mediate a conflict is his vow to end the Israel Gaza war. US President Donald Trump had said that he would like the war in Gaza to end and expressed optimism that it could happen in the near future. Middle East Peace Efforts: Trump brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries (UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco). These agreements were seen as a significant diplomatic achievement in the region, promoting economic and diplomatic ties. Russia and Ukraine: Trump promised to negotiate an end to the Russo-Ukrainian War quickly but largely sought to reduce US involvement and pressured Europe to bear more costs. According to Wall Street Journal, Trump, while speaking to a room of top donors at his Florida Club, had described Russia and Ukraine war as a 'growing frustration that keeps him up at night'. Trump's approach included mixed signals, such as undermining Ukraine while seeking better relations with Russia. A detailed peace plan was proposed internally but not fully implemented. The administration did not deploy U.S. troops as peacekeepers and shifted focus away from Ukraine's territorial recovery. Syria and Kurdish Conflict: Trump ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria, which led to a Turkish invasion against Kurdish forces. The administration responded with sanctions on Turkey and helped negotiate a cease-fire that divided control of the territory among Russia, Syria, and Turkey. Venezuela crisis: The Trump administration recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó and imposed sanctions on Nicolás Maduro's government but did not resolve the political crisis. Military action was not taken despite threats Troop withdrawals in Afghanistan: Trump announced troop withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan, aiming to end "endless wars," but these moves were criticized as precipitous and destabilizing. North Korea: Trump engaged in high-profile summits with Kim Jong Un, but these talks failed to produce substantive denuclearization agreements. North Korea continued to advance its nuclear program despite the diplomatic efforts. Other Conflicts: Trump vetoed congressional efforts to end US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, reinforcing military support after attacks on Saudi oil facilities. In the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the administration negotiated ceasefires that were short-lived and did not take a clear side.
Mail & Guardian
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Could Ali Mazrui's nuclear pragmatism inspire practical policies?
Kenyan American political scientist Ali Mazrui Possession of nuclear weapons is not incidentally negative, it is directly and purposefully so, designed to instantly kill millions of people upon pressing an intercontinental ballistic missile button, according to Kenyan American political scientist He made this obvious point in the course of comparing what he called the crises of global survival, including climate change and nuclear war. He knew this was an obvious point, although it was often ignored. The Russo-Ukrainian War and the potential fractures in United States extended deterrence have today triggered fears of a renewed nuclear arms race and nuclear proliferation, or even a nuclear war. Contemporary nuclear politics may therefore need creative and even radical ideas that part ways with established practices. One such idea is Mazrui's 'nuclear pragmatism', which holds that horizontal nuclear proliferation — the spread of nuclear weapons to new actors in the Global South — is a necessary step toward a universal nuclear disarmament. He believed this could fundamentally change the mindsets of the leaders of major nuclear powers and encourage them to abolish their arsenals. This idea, a little too counterintuitive for sure, has long been overlooked in the Western canon of security studies literature. I argue that giving it a closer look could at least provoke new lines of thinking. 'Abolish to abolish' and 'proliferate to abolish' are the two schools of thought in Africa on nuclear disarmament championed, respectively, by the first president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, and by Mazrui. Both Nkrumah and Mazrui were for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Nkrumah argued that nuclear weapons were too dangerous to be used for any purpose, including deterrence, since a threat of violence itself is a form of violence. Mazrui agreed with Nkrumah that nuclear weapons must be abolished. But the two diverged sharply on how to achieve this. Nkrumah preferred a geographically focused, legally based approach. The ideas of Africa as a nuclear-free zone and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons resonate with the approach once advocated by Nkrumah. Mazrui maintained that Nkrumah's approach could at best lead us to a nuclear-free Africa but not to a nuclear-free planet; the former is meaningless if it does not lead to the latter. Mazrui thus asserted: '… African countries should stop thinking in terms of making Africa a nuclear-free zone.' His alternative suggestion was for African countries to 'reconsider their position' vis-à-vis the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which came into being in 1968. In other words, Mazrui suggested that African countries should (threaten to) withdraw en masse from the treaty. He insisted, '… non-proliferation for the nuclear 'have-nots' will be a nonstarter until it is matched by progressive military denuclearization among the 'haves'.' From Mazrui's point of view a modest proliferation of nuclear weapons in Africa and the Middle East could increase nuclear anxieties among the major nuclear states in the Global North, intensify the pressure on the leadership there for total nuclear disarmament and ultimately lead to the rejection of nuclear weapons by all — and their abolition. He passionately advocated this idea for more than half a century. Unlike Nkrumah's view, Mazrui's idea was never seriously considered in Africa, and it was never referenced in the mainstream discourse on nuclear disarmament. But this appears to be slowly changing in recent years. The assertion made by the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, in February 2025, however, still accurately captures the prevailing mood about nuclear weapons in the Global South. Guterres said: 'The nuclear option is no option at all.' Mazrui's nuclear pragmatism is based on at least four assumptions: (1) nuclear weapons are evil by nature and should be illegitimate, not just for some, but for all; (2) a modest horizontal nuclear proliferation in the Global South would increase nuclear anxieties within the major nuclear powers; (3) this anxiety, in turn, would intensify the public pressure on the leaders of the major nuclear states for total military denuclearisation; and (4) ultimately, the whole process would lead to the rejection of nuclear weapons by all and their total abolition. Mazrui started from the premise that the nuclear accident at Therefore, he posed the question: what other, less catastrophic alternatives might lead to global nuclear disarmament? What thus came into being was his nuclear pragmatism: horizontal nuclear proliferation, specifically a modest increase in nuclear capabilities in Africa and the Middle East, could offer such an alternative, fostering a climate where crises may be manageable and constructive. Of course, horizontal nuclear proliferation has its risks, Mazrui added, but are those risks really more dangerous than the risks of vertical proliferation in arsenals of the superpowers themselves? A key element of Mazrui's nuclear pragmatism is the distrust that Western powers have about nuclear weapons in the Global South. This distrust could be beneficial if it generates enough alarm in the Northern Hemisphere, which could, in turn, lead to a significant movement aimed at declaring nuclear weapons illegitimate for all nations and working toward their elimination in every country that possesses them. It must nevertheless be reiterated that Mazrui never overlooked the risks associated with nuclear proliferation. The ideal scenario for him was total nuclear disarmament or an initiative toward that end without any additional nuclear stockpile (vertical nuclear proliferation) and additional membership in the nuclear club (horizontal nuclear proliferation). For him, however, horizontal nuclear proliferation would lead to a sufficiently great sense of imminent peril to tilt the judgment in favor of total denuclearization in the military field everywhere. According to Mazrui, the racial prejudices and cultural distrust of the white members of the nuclear club may well serve the positive function of disbanding the larger club. The geographical focus of horizontal nuclear proliferation was to be Africa and the Middle East. But a modest horizontal proliferation in the Middle East would be more dangerous in global terms than a slightly higher level of proliferation in Latin America or Africa. This is partly because a regional war in the Middle East carries a greater risk of escalating into a world war than does a regional war in Latin America or Africa. It was, therefore, the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East that could cause greater alarm in the Global North and trigger a movement for the prohibition of nuclear weapons for all. 'Perhaps until now, the major powers have worried only about 'the wrongs weapons in the right hands,'' Mazrui reasoned, 'when nuclear devices pass into Arab or African hands, a new nightmare will have arrived — 'the wrong weapon in the wrong hands'.' This Northern fear could be an asset for getting the North to agree to total and universal denuclearisation in the military field. Dr Seifudein Adem is a research fellow at JICA Ogata Research Institute for Peace and Development in Tokyo, Japan. He is also Ali Mazrui's intellectual biographer.
Daily Mirror
01-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump made bombshell admission to Zelensky during Pope funeral faceoff
While President Donald Trump pushed President Volodymyr Zelensky to sign the US-Ukraine mineral deal - which was formally agreed last night - Zelensky wanted Trump to take a harsher stance on Putin Donald Trump made a bombshell admission during his sit down with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky at the funeral of Pope Francis last week. At the historic event on Saturday, two months after Zelensky left the White House in a huff following a disastrous meeting about the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War, the world leaders met face-to-face for the first time in the hallowed St Peter's Basilica. While the discussion itself was photographed and beamed across the world, people had to rely on lip readers and body language experts to discern the content of the conversation - until now. According to US outlet Axios, Zelensky warned Trump that he would not change course on the invasion unless he was forced to do so. A source said Trump has acknowledged that he may have to change tact in regards to how he's been managing Vladimir Putin. Shortly after the meeting, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to slam Putin over a missile strike in Kyiv. It read: "It makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war, he's just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently, through "Banking" or "Secondary Sanctions?" Too many people are dying!!!" Reports say Zelensky also asked Trump to demand an unconditional ceasefire as a foundation for negotiations, which was his original position. A source told Axios that Trump seems to have agreed to it. However, Axios said that Trump had his own demands to make, including pushing him to sign the US- Ukraine mineral deal which would give Washington access to the country's rich mineral reserves. The US Treasury announced it signed the deal with Ukraine on Wednesday evening, agreeing to establish an America-Ukraine reconstruction investment fund. For Ukraine, the deal is seen as key move to gain access to future US military aid in its war against Russia. Some believe the reason the meeting was more productive was because White house envoy Steve Witkoff and vice president JD Vance - who was seen provoking Zelensky in front of the world's news media - were not present. Speaking to ABC News yesterday, Trump admitted that Putin "could be tapping me on a little bit". But he still believes Putin wants to end the war. Trump added he thinks Zelensky could be ready to make a major concession - the Russian annexation of Crimea - to secure a lasting peace with Putin. "Oh, I think so," the U.S. president said after the meeting in the Vatican. In February, Trump hinted at his desire for access to Ukraine's rare earth materials, framing it as compensation for the billions of dollars in US aid provided to Kyiv. But negotiations broke down after a tense Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelensky - which descended into a shouting match - and efforts to reach a deal had faltered amid strained US-Ukraine relations. On Wednesday, Ukraine's First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced she had signed an agreement to establish the investment fund. Svyrydenko said on X: "Together with the United States, we are creating the fund that will attract global investment into our country. Its implementation allows both countries to expand their economic potential through equal cooperation and investment. "The United States will contribute to the fund. In addition to direct financial contributions, it may also provide new assistance - for example air defense systems for Ukraine." Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said: "Truly, this is a strategic deal for the creation of an investment partner fund. This is truly an equal and good international deal on joint investment in the development and restoration of Ukraine between the governments of the United States and Ukraine."
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Zelensky Urges Trump Not to Surrender to Russia
'Vladimir, STOP!' These were the feeble words of a cowardly blowhard, whose failure to bring the Russo-Ukrainian War into line with his imagined reality has begun to leave an impression on the one thing that matters most to President Donald Trump: his own ego. Trump has never understood the war in Ukraine, and as a result he has never had a meaningful plan for ending it. But for this president, failure is always someone else's fault. In the Trump White House, the buck stops with Joe Biden. Or the 'stolen' 2020 election. Or Hillary Clinton. Or Barack Obama. Or Volodymyr Zelensky. On Saturday, on the sidelines of the funeral of Pope Francis, the embattled Ukrainian president met with Trump in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. 'Good meeting. We discussed a lot one on one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional cease-fire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out. Very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic,' Zelensky wrote afterwards. The American president enjoys flashy, high-profile meetings that showcase his personal influence. The 'impromptu' meeting was clearly engineered, a bit of carefully orchestrated high-stakes unofficial diplomacy that would make a Jesuit like Pope Francis proud. Photos from the funeral show Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gathered around Trump: All of them have reason to hope they can shift his views and keep America in the game. Trump has a pathological inability to admit when he is wrong — this is the kind of man who used a sharpie to revise an official hurricane forecast because he misspoke, after all. So it shouldn't be a surprise that he has been unwilling to gather his courage, face the truth, and change course after his confident promises to end the war in Ukraine in '24 hours' turned out to be nothing more than hot air. Always keen to claim Russian President Vladimir Putin has all the cards, what Trump sees as a poker game is in fact a knife-fight. And everyone involved gets cut in a knife-fight, no matter what cards they were holding at the table. If the United States wants to break that fight up, it would be wise to do it wielding a pretty big stick. The White House has the ability to do this — to hit Putin where it hurts, economically and militarily, the only pressure points to which Russia will respond. Trump could, as he previously threatened, expand economic sanctions against Russia; he could increase U.S. energy exports and cut into the Kremlin's war chest; he could use Presidential Drawdown Authority to send vital weapons to Ukraine while backfilling American military stocks with new munitions; he could employ the bully pulpit to urge Congress to increase funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, demonstrating to Moscow that America isn't backing down; he could support European efforts to expand military cooperation with Kyiv. None of these would cross any red lines; none of these could be construed as escalatory. But Trump — in his eagerness to ally the world's most powerful democracy with a tyrannical aggressor — continues to do nothing to stop Russia but stand on the sidelines uttering weak-kneed protestations, and even those sparingly. How many times must it be explained that Ukraine is fighting for its existence, while Russia is fighting for conquest? Does anyone need to be told that asking Ukraine to surrender is equivalent to telling a neighbor he should let the armed intruder harm just a few of his kids, so that you can get back to your barbecue in peace, without all the screaming and commotion next door? Ukraine's dogged resistance mystifies those who are cowards at heart. Why would anyone want to keep fighting when — as Vice President J.D. Vance is always eager to point out — they are clearly losing? Simple. Because fighting a losing battle is preferable to extinction. The average barista in Kyiv, awaiting mobilization orders as he messages with friends on the frontlines, has a clearer understanding of the desperate situation than do most American politicians. And yet 82 percent of Ukrainians believe they must continue to fight, even if the U.S. withdraws all support. 'Nations that went down fighting rose again, but those that surrendered tamely were finished,' Winston Churchill told his War Cabinet in May 1940. The modern history of Ukraine — the past 150 years of it, and more — is of a people struggling to define their national identity, amid an unenviable strategic position, crushed between great powers. In April 2022, I was at a forward operating base in Donetsk Oblast, speaking to a Ukrainian Marine about Russia's claims that only far-right extremists — 'Ukronazis' as Moscow's propaganda called them — believed in a future separate from Russkiy Mir, or the 'Russian World.' He found the entire idea laughable, protesting 'but no one has done more for Ukrainian nationalism than Vladimir Putin.' Americans, in general, don't do nuance and complexity. And Trump, specifically, is so uninformed and convinced of his own genius that it is difficult even to engage with the views that drive his crackpot schemes. Ukraine started the war? Hogwash. The war is a continuation of one that started in 2014, amid years of lies and broken promises by Putin. Zelensky is the biggest obstacle to peace? Nonsense. Putin started the war; it is the Russian military that occupies Ukrainian lands and attacks Ukrainian cities. Russia is a land of untapped economic opportunity, more important than Europe? Insanity. In 2021, before the war started, U.S. exports to Russia were $6.4 billion. That same year the U.S. exported $271.6 billion to the European Union alone. What can a reasonable person say to such a parade of lies and fallacies? Why entertain such nonsense? Oh, right. Because the American people elected this chaos monkey, this self-absorbed buffoon, knowing full well that he is all of those things and worse. But even so, part of his appeal was his promise to end this bloody war that has at times taken us to the brink, with open talk of the use of nuclear weapons. The 'final offer' peace plan unveiled by Trump's minions in Paris last week was shameful idiocy of the highest order, offering Russia nearly everything it wanted and giving Ukraine nothing. It is the latest non-starter in a bunch of razzle-dazzle bullshit about rare-earth minerals, or trade deals, or whatever else catches the fancy of a man whose sharp business sense and financial acumen resulted in four bankruptcies, and the erasure of trillions of dollars in value from the stock market since he took office on Jan. 20. Trump has promised to walk away from Russia-Ukraine diplomacy if he doesn't get his way, which he almost certainly won't. 'No matter how a war starts, it ends in mud. It has to be slugged out — there are no trick solutions or cheap shortcuts,' said Gen. Joseph Stilwell, the U.S. commander of the China-Burma-India Theater in World War II. It should be obvious to any serious person that the only way to end the war is to put pressure on Russia and create guarantees for Ukraine's security. This was obvious to the man Trump originally put in charge of handling negotiations with Russia and Ukraine, special envoy Keith Kellogg. Even before Trump won office again, Kellogg put together an 'America First' peace plan that called for decisive leadership and 'bold diplomacy,' and continuing 'to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement.' It was obvious to Trump's National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who in April 2022 wrote in an opinion piece for Fox News: 'The Ukrainian people have shown spirit, heart, and productiveness. They now need all the guns, tanks, and planes capable to defeat Russia militarily, and retake Crimea and the Donbas to restore their borders.' Where are such voices now? The MAGA apparatchiks have been silenced. The party line inside the Trump administration now is to portray support for Ukraine as warmongering, and friendship with Russia as the overriding priority for American foreign policy. Creating robust alliances, taking principled stands against tyranny and aggression, supplying military equipment through drawdowns — this is all woke nonsense, used by corrupt effete foreigners to take advantage of honest red-blooded Americans, or whatever. It was obvious that the culture wars had come for the real war in Ukraine back in January 2024, when the U.S. Congress shirked its responsibilities as representatives of the American people to block approval of a funding bill under Biden for Ukraine. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) led the charge in kowtowing to Trump, the megalomaniac who holds a mesmerizing influence over his party, the man every Republican politician fears, knowing that if they act against his will, he will unleash the rage of his red-hatted cult with a poorly spelled social media post, rife with Teutonic capitalization of nouns. There are no checks on Trump. So when he says, as he did last week, that if Russia and Ukraine don't accede to the deal he has offered, 'We're just going to say, 'You're foolish, you're fools, you're horrible people,' and we're going to just take a pass,' there is every reason to believe him. Likely, he will once again cut off military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, moves that would effectively provide support to Russia. That will be tragic. There are conflicts in which Washington has little interest or leverage, such as the civil war in Sudan, or where it has twisted itself into such intricate Gordian knots of ethical compromise and geopolitical intrigue, such as with Israel's war in Gaza, that it is difficult to discern where America's interests lie. Ukraine is more straightforward. That the United States has a constructive role to play in this conflict is not a matter of justice, it is one of pragmatic self-interest — which just so happens to align with some of the highest values our nation espouses: liberty, democracy, and the rule of law. With an eye on Ukraine, the world has already begun to re-arm, investing trillions of dollars on tools of death and destruction as the perceived threat of future conflict grows. Leaders who have previously eschewed nuclear programs have begun to rethink their position. Will the world be a safer place if dictators are given free rein to pursue schemes of territorial expansion? Will the world be more stable if the only guarantee of survival for smaller nations is to acquire nuclear arsenals? There are already over 12,000 functioning nuclear weapons in the world, the bulk of which are held by Russia and the United States. Do we want to see more nuclear proliferation, with ever more borders regarded as violable? As I embedded with Ukrainian military units and watched Russian missiles rain down across the country in the first weeks of the war, it was easy to see that a Pandora's Box of instability and conflict was opening — one which had the potential to spiral into the destruction of humanity. 'A battle is won by those who firmly resolve to win it!' as Leo Tolstoy's Prince Andrei observes about 'the so-called Battle of the Three Emperors' in War and Peace: 'Why did we lose the battle at Austerlitz? Our casualties were about the same as those of the French, but we had told ourselves early in the day that the battle was lost, so it was lost.' The defeatists in the Trump administration believe Ukraine's battle is lost, and want nothing further to do with helping to secure the peace. Ukrainians will continue to resist regardless. It isn't just shameful for Trump to walk away from this fight against the tyranny and chaos that threatens to engulf us all. It is a disastrous error which will have dire consequences. More from Rolling Stone 'I Was Taken Hostage': How an American Metal Rocker Landed in Russian Prison Trump Has Now Deported Multiple U.S. Citizen Children With Cancer Trump Admin Scraps Plan to Limit Salmonella in Poultry Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
