I was appalled by the scene yesterday in the Oval Office. That is not the way to conduct diplomacy, and that is not the way to treat a guest. It seemed to give succor to Putin, and looked like two-on-one bullying.The first thing I thought of was Hitler’s bullying of Czech president Benes and the Munich Agreement.BUT: A lot depends on who started it. Did Trump invite Zelensky to the White House, or did Zelensky ask to come? Trump says it was Zelensky’s idea. Did Zelensky challenge Vance in front of the cameras to begin the row? I can’t sort that out. I can never tell whether I’m being shown the full exchange. This might have been Zelensky trying to push Trump around, grandstanding for the cameras to gain support in Europe. Sounds suicidal, but I think we have seen other European leaders try to do so. Macron publicly contradicted Trump before the cameras and in the latter’s presence a few days ago. Starmer was about to visit. If this was happening, Trump had to respond sharply, right now, before things got out of hand, to establish his authority. Better to go against Zelensky, now, than have a big diplomatic row with France or the UK later. You kill the chicken to scare the monkeys, as they say in China.Trump is doing now with Zelensky just what NATO should have done when Russia invaded Ukraine: a quick and powerful response. It is because they did not, that we are in this mess now.To state the obvious, Russia is in the wrong in this war, and Ukraine is in the right. Russia invaded Ukraine. All other considerations are a distraction and an alibi for not helping. Down to and including objecting to Zelensky not wearing a suit to visit the White House.At that point, when Russia first invaded, it was the moral duty of all other nations to support Ukraine. But instead of reacting quickly and resolutely with massive support—they should have sent in air cover and declared a no-fly zone, then shipped in tanks and missiles--they kept giving Ukraine aid in dribs and drabs, just enough to continue the war, but not enough to win it. Their argument was that they did not want to escalate for fear of starting World War III. This made no sense: if Russia could not handle Ukraine alone, they were not going to expand the war and take on all of Nato. Go nuclear? Not unless they were suicidal. Mutual Assured Destruction. This stance simply allowed Russia to escalate at will, confident Nato would not allow them to lose. It forced both sides into a never-ending state of war. Makes you wonder about that old saw, the "military-industrial complex."This stalemate has to be broken one way or another. Huge numbers of lives are being lost, daily, for nothing. Ukrainian lives matter. Russian lives matter. These are all innocent victims.Or not quite a stalemate: someone I said this to recently pointed out that, in fact, Russia is slowly gaining ground. In a war of attrition, Russia can expect to eventually win. They have more population than Ukraine to send to the front to be ground to blood and powder. And they have oil to finance it.The principle of the just war applies. You have a duty to self-defence, to fight for justice, and to defend the victim. But only so long as there is a real prospect of victory, and the suffering and death from war is less than the evil being threatened by the aggressor. Jesus told his followers to buy a sword. But when a large contingent of Roman soldiers appeared to arrest him in the garden, he told Peter to put away the sword. People would die, and the final result would be the same.As an aside, this is why it is immoral for Canadians to speak of armed resistance should Trump invade. There is no way it is worth killing people just to avoid being ruled from Washington instead of Ottawa. Similarly, is it so much worse being ruled by a kleptocracy in Moscow than by a kleptocracy in Kiev? Worth killing an entire generation of men?That is where we are in Ukraine; unless NATO is prepared to come in with much more at this late hour. I’m not sure they can; they’ve frittered away most of their available armaments now, and most of the Ukraine’s fighting-age men. If they can, I wonder if it would still be worth it; it would be far more costly now than it would have been in 2022. Perhaps Zelensky is calculating that they can and will. Perhaps Europe now has the confidence to go it alone. This itself would be a good thing, should they succeed. Trump may be happy enough to see Europe go ahead with it—he has been urging them to take more responsibility for their own defense. Failing that, it’s time to cut a deal. Trump was apparently upset that Zelensky was still badmouthing Putin and trying to get Trump to do so. Not good strategy if you want a deal. You need to preserve the other guy's dignity. And, if Zelensky is not prepared to coo a little at Putin, perhaps Trump's best course for peace is to disassociate himself, so that he looks to Putin like an honest broker. I half believe this confrontation was deliberately stage-acted in front of the cameras to let Putin save face while accepting a Trump-brokered deal.Zelensky is, sensibly enough, concerned that Putin cannot be trusted to keep any peace agreement. All very well for Trump to make a quick bargain for "peace in our time"; he’s protected by an ocean from this incipient Hitler. For Zelensky, this is life or death. A ceasefire or a peace may only give Putin the opportunity to rearm and come at him again in a few years, making all of Ukraine’s present sacrifice futile. Putin has been a serial aggressor. Trump says “He won’t dare break a deal with me,” but even if this is true, Trump is only in office for four years.A knotty problem. I feel for Zelensky. But I think Trump is right on the broad picture. The best course now is for Ukraine to take the deal, and surrender most of the ground lost, in return for European “peacekeeping” troops in Ukraine.We must hope Putin’s nose is bloodied enough that he is deterred from further aggression.'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
I was appalled by the scene yesterday in the Oval Office. That is not the way to conduct diplomacy, and that is not the way to treat a guest. It seemed to give succor to Putin, and looked like two-on-one bullying.
The first thing I thought of was Hitler’s bullying of Czech president Benes and the Munich Agreement.
BUT: A lot depends on who started it. Did Trump invite Zelensky to the White House, or did Zelensky ask to come? Trump says it was Zelensky’s idea. Did Zelensky challenge Vance in front of the cameras to begin the row? I can’t sort that out. I can never tell whether I’m being shown the full exchange. This might have been Zelensky trying to push Trump around, grandstanding for the cameras to gain support in Europe.
Sounds suicidal, but I think we have seen other European leaders try to do so. Macron publicly contradicted Trump before the cameras and in the latter’s presence a few days ago. Starmer was about to visit. If this was happening, Trump had to respond sharply, right now, before things got out of hand, to establish his authority. Better to go against Zelensky, now, than have a big diplomatic row with France or the UK later. You kill the chicken to scare the monkeys, as they say in China.
Trump is doing now with Zelensky just what NATO should have done when Russia invaded Ukraine: a quick and powerful response. It is because they did not, that we are in this mess now.
To state the obvious, Russia is in the wrong in this war, and Ukraine is in the right. Russia invaded Ukraine. All other considerations are a distraction and an alibi for not helping. Down to and including objecting to Zelensky not wearing a suit to visit the White House.
At that point, when Russia first invaded, it was the moral duty of all other nations to support Ukraine. But instead of reacting quickly and resolutely with massive support—they should have sent in air cover and declared a no-fly zone, then shipped in tanks and missiles--they kept giving Ukraine aid in dribs and drabs, just enough to continue the war, but not enough to win it.
Their argument was that they did not want to escalate for fear of starting World War III. This made no sense: if Russia could not handle Ukraine alone, they were not going to expand the war and take on all of Nato. Go nuclear? Not unless they were suicidal. Mutual Assured Destruction. This stance simply allowed Russia to escalate at will, confident Nato would not allow them to lose. It forced both sides into a never-ending state of war.
Makes you wonder about that old saw, the "military-industrial complex."
This stalemate has to be broken one way or another. Huge numbers of lives are being lost, daily, for nothing. Ukrainian lives matter. Russian lives matter. These are all innocent victims.
Or not quite a stalemate: someone I said this to recently pointed out that, in fact, Russia is slowly gaining ground. In a war of attrition, Russia can expect to eventually win. They have more population than Ukraine to send to the front to be ground to blood and powder. And they have oil to finance it.
The principle of the just war applies. You have a duty to self-defence, to fight for justice, and to defend the victim. But only so long as there is a real prospect of victory, and the suffering and death from war is less than the evil being threatened by the aggressor. Jesus told his followers to buy a sword. But when a large contingent of Roman soldiers appeared to arrest him in the garden, he told Peter to put away the sword. People would die, and the final result would be the same.
As an aside, this is why it is immoral for Canadians to speak of armed resistance should Trump invade. There is no way it is worth killing people just to avoid being ruled from Washington instead of Ottawa. Similarly, is it so much worse being ruled by a kleptocracy in Moscow than by a kleptocracy in Kiev? Worth killing an entire generation of men?
That is where we are in Ukraine; unless NATO is prepared to come in with much more at this late hour. I’m not sure they can; they’ve frittered away most of their available armaments now, and most of the Ukraine’s fighting-age men. If they can, I wonder if it would still be worth it; it would be far more costly now than it would have been in 2022.
Perhaps Zelensky is calculating that they can and will. Perhaps Europe now has the confidence to go it alone. This itself would be a good thing, should they succeed. Trump may be happy enough to see Europe go ahead with it—he has been urging them to take more responsibility for their own defense.
Failing that, it’s time to cut a deal. Trump was apparently upset that Zelensky was still badmouthing Putin and trying to get Trump to do so. Not good strategy if you want a deal. You need to preserve the other guy's dignity. And, if Zelensky is not prepared to coo a little at Putin, perhaps Trump's best course for peace is to disassociate himself, so that he looks to Putin like an honest broker. I half believe this confrontation was deliberately stage-acted in front of the cameras to let Putin save face while accepting a Trump-brokered deal.
Zelensky is, sensibly enough, concerned that Putin cannot be trusted to keep any peace agreement. All very well for Trump to make a quick bargain for "peace in our time"; he’s protected by an ocean from this incipient Hitler. For Zelensky, this is life or death. A ceasefire or a peace may only give Putin the opportunity to rearm and come at him again in a few years, making all of Ukraine’s present sacrifice futile. Putin has been a serial aggressor. Trump says “He won’t dare break a deal with me,” but even if this is true, Trump is only in office for four years.
A knotty problem. I feel for Zelensky. But I think Trump is right on the broad picture. The best course now is for Ukraine to take the deal, and surrender most of the ground lost, in return for European “peacekeeping” troops in Ukraine.
We must hope Putin’s nose is bloodied enough that he is deterred from further aggression.
