At the August 15 Alaska summit, Vladimir Putin performed as expected. He desperately wants an end to Western sanctions, détente with the U.S., and assurances that the U.S. will not impose a disastrous anti-Russian secondary boycott—and, apparently, some additional Ukrainian territory.
Consequently, Putin, in his media synopsis, talked more about restored friendship with a “neighborly” United States under Trump. He scarcely mentioned Ukraine directly—other than to imply to Westerners that he seeks not merely to annex a foreign country, but to reclaim what he views as a former Soviet province with ancient ties to the Russian people.
Trump did not get his ceasefire with Putin. But he quickly pivoted to remind us that the table is set for a supposedly comprehensive peace without first requiring a temporary cessation of arms.
Trump addressed the media more succinctly and with greater discretion than Putin, appearing more optimistic that the Russian-American hostility was thawing. And he views normalization as a necessary step toward comprehensive peace in the weeks to come.
The left lambasted Trump for speaking politely of Putin and vice versa. There was additional criticism of a Fox interview in which Trump mentioned “land swaps” and for his supposed prior naïveté in believing he could obtain a ceasefire with Putin.
Yet for all the posturing, we have known for some time the general outlines of a peace, how it could come about, and why it has not yet happened.
Ukraine will not join NATO, but will likely be fully armed by the West. Ukraine lacks the power to retake Crimea or the Donbass, but with Western aid, it can preserve most of its territory.
Russia is worn out, but it is not yet ready to give up and may not be even after the envisioned destructive secondary sanctions. Putin will only make peace when his dictatorship feels it has advanced far enough westward (perhaps 100 miles west of the border) to justify to the oligarchy and military his foolhardy invasion and the needless toll of one million Russians dead, wounded, missing, or captured.
No one knows where a hypothetical DMZ line might eventually be drawn. But for now, it depends on which army has the greater wherewithal and momentum to push its enemy backward before there is a general consensus to stop the madness.
These contours of peace can be shaped by promises of trade deals and normalization between Russia and the West. Or, contrarily, they can be realized by threats of tougher sanctions and boycotts, as well as by security guarantees to Ukraine, by near-permanent aid to Ukraine to maintain its quite formidable army and deterrence, or by internal erosion from the war either in Ukraine or Russia.
Yet few critics of the administration address the unmentionables that likely account for the above general outlines of a settlement. There are some realities that serve as subtexts to any possible agreement that cannot be simply thought away.
- Ukraine could only regain Crimea and the Donbass and return to its pre-2022 borders by a historic transference of U.S. and European arms, intelligence, logistical support, and financial aid that would be little short of actively fighting nuclear Russia.
Europe talks grandly of unlimited support. But some Europeans still buy Russian energy, slow-walk aid, seem exhausted by the war, and are likely in time to peel away as they once did from the endless “no-fly zones” over Saddam’s Iraq after the first Gulf War. Europe sounds as if it fields vast armies, but in truth, Putin believes European support will erode more quickly than Ukrainian resistance or American help.
So, for all the talk of an “exhausted” Russia, there is a silent consensus that a depopulated and broken Ukraine cannot sustain its current levels of resistance without a much greater Western profile. And that is unlikely to happen.
- Notably, the left never really dwells on the likely 1.5 million dead, wounded, missing, and captured from three and a half years of war. It is a humanitarian nightmare, a modern Stalingrad that makes Gaza look like child’s play.
Yet Westerners are far more likely to posture on the human costs of the “genocide” in the distant Mideast wars than on Europe’s doorstep. Perhaps Germany or France feels it can influence Netanyahu by performance-art declarations of statehood for the Palestinians (on the quiet assumption that Israel is Western, friendly, and more likely to listen to Euro-moralizing than is a proximate, hostile, and dangerous Putin’s Russia).
Strangely, Trump alone seems to be lamenting the needless loss of thousands of lives each month, with no end in sight. It is fine to demand zero concessions to Putin or to accuse any who seek negotiations through land swaps as appeasers. But it is quite another to lay out a strategic plan for victory and complete recovery of pre-2014 Ukrainian territory, the likely costs necessary for such an ambitious strategy, and who, and for how long, will pay the tab.
- There is a long history, both peaceful and hostile, between Russia and Ukraine that Westerners often ignore due to the current naked aggression of Putin and the murderous nature of his regime. Nonetheless, most recently, since 1939, the borders of present-day Ukraine have been fluid and changeable between Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. There still remains strong Russian influence and even support in Eastern Ukraine. And there has been a Western naivete since the end of the Cold War about pre-Putin Russia’s trip-wire sensitivity to the eastward trajectory of Western military alliances toward Russia and the more insidious Westernization of former and still mostly Russian-speaking areas of the old Soviet Union.
The current tensions with Canada and the U.S. would certainly boil over if China were to begin overtly championing the Canadian cause. Americans remember the 1962 U.S. response to Castro’s Cuba when Nikita Khrushchev broke Cold War conventions by strategically arming a third-nation proxy on America’s doorstep.
- Talking to a monstrous Putin is not treasonous, foolhardy, or unnecessary. FDR openly courted, joked with, and even praised (“Uncle Joe”) an even greater monster in Joseph Stalin, who by 1941 had the blood of nearly 20 million Russians on his hands. Stalin had already invaded pro-Western Finland and Poland. And between September 1, 1939, and June 22, 1941, he had enabled Adolf Hitler to overrun much of Western Europe, hoping Germany would destroy both the West and itself in the process.
Nixon did not just “go to China” but sought to change the geostrategic nuclear landscape by courting Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
Not calling Putin a “killer” and “murderer” at the summit is hardly appeasement but more like art-of-the-deal, speaking softly while carrying a big stick, rather than Biden-style loud rhetoric while carrying a twig. Who is the greater humanitarian—the inert and anemic blowhard who resorts to name-calling a “murderous thug,” or the president willing to meet face-to-face with a monster to explore costly ways of halting the mass slaughter?
- Finally, few seem to remember that Trump is a latecomer to the Ukrainian-Russian mess.
In the end, we should remember it was not Trump who once talked grandly of a soon-to-be NATO Ukraine or who for years welched on the promise to spend a meager 2 percent of GDP on defense.
It was not Trump who pushed a plastic red button to embark on a “Russian reset” with a voracious Putin. It was not Trump who invited Russia back into the Middle East after a nearly 40-year hiatus.
It was not Trump who, after the reset’s failure, moved on to concoct “Russian collusion” and “Russian disinformation” to use Russia to destroy a political rival. It was not Trump who went to Ukraine, threatened to hold up aid, and fired a prosecutor looking into his son’s selling to Ukrainians the influence of his father’s vice presidency.
It was not Trump on whose watch Putin invaded Georgia, the Donbass, and Crimea, and sought to absorb Kyiv.
It was not Trump who dreamed up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to subsidize green energy fantasies—while still buying Russian energy.
And it was not Trump who conditioned his possible reaction to Putin’s invasion based on whether it might be “minor.”
The same people that for ten years tell you “Orange man bad”, “Trust the science”‘, “Diversity is strength”, tell you “Putin man bad, all Russians lie” and you belive them. Europe and Ukraine are run by A cabal of pedo satan worshipers, no not Jews, but rather descendants of people the they were supposed to have gotten rid of back in the Old Testament. Stop believing nato/Ukraine propaganda. Trump’s ego is, for now, keeping the war going because he wants a “win” but in the end either God will show him what to do or Ukraine will capitulate. Either way Russia will have the four regions plus Crimea and the truth about the trafficking and human experiments in Ukraine will come out. And every one that was screaming for the death of Russians will either switch tune and claim they knew the truth all along or pretend they were neutral the whole time.
Security For Ukraine, The Great Affirmative Solution.
In an effort to end the war in Ukraine and provide a solid security solution for Ukraine the USA, Western Europe and President Zelensky need to move forward with my plan immediately.
1) Immediately stop all the killing.
2) Allow Russia to retain land taken during the Military action.
3) Set a demilitarized zone of 50 miles.
4) USA, each European Country and Ukraine should provide 2 million gays, lesbians, sissy boys and cross dressers per Country to be permanent residents of Western Ukraine.
5) Since Zelensky has previously proven he likes cross dressing and acting gay he will remain in power as the leader of the new Gay Ukraine.
6) This will provide Ukraine with security because Putin and Russia will never want to have the gay country as part of Russia.
7) No money will be spent on war equipment, send them makeup and we could send Tampon TIM with a Billion Tampons to satisfy the needs of the new constituents.
This creative solution provides security for Ukraine, a good reason for Russia to not want western Ukraine, a place for all of the worlds gay population to immigrate. Like the Jews wanting their own Country, the gay/lesbian world can have their own Country.
All problems solved with one simple solution.
Thank You for your attention to this matter.
Response to Jaro: your job of selectively editing my thought and the putting your spin on their intent is worthy of the MSM. My point was to express frustration with both the large number of nazi sympathizers one side and the large number of Holomodor denying Russians on the other maintain absolutist positions and social innocence. making total war the logical outcome.
From the SS Galicia, to the welcome parades for the Wermacht to the 10s of thousands hiwis to suggest that support for the Nazis was only the Galician division is wrong.
To conclude & repeat: I see bad dudes on both sides; where are your Thomas Jefferson types. And if your end point is to start a nuclear war with Putin, do it without me.
Would you support a Gleiwitz type operation to trigger an Article 5 response? Be truthful.
Some random thoughts on comments.
Fred Theobald, the Ukraine/Russia war is not “extremely complex as you say.” It’s been made complex by Putin’s convoluted version of history, compounded by the lack of familiarity in the West with the history of Ukraine.
Completely agree with Christopher Morton — “The lack of harder sanctions still boggles my mind, as they would have the best effect to force Putin to real talks.” The $300 billion of Russian assets in Brussels come to mind.
RE Lew Miller’s “What I find frustrating are the Ukrainian nationalists who do not recognize the number of Nazi supporters.” I suspect you have in mind the SS Galicia Division. If you consider that by that time Stalin had starved, murdered or exiled to Siberia over 10 million Ukrainians, not to mention 300+ yeas of Russian tyranny, it’s understandable that to some the Bolsheviks were the bigger devil, redolent of the adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” However, the more relevant question is, is Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine because they are all Nazis? Agree with Graig Snow: NATO’s growth isn’t a Western provocation. “Its growth reflects Eastern Europe’s desperate flight from Moscow’s grip, not Western provocation.” Finally, Craig Jenkins, it is easy to conflate Rus and Russia. But the latter did not come into use until the 18th century. BTW, the names of the first rulers of Kyivan Rus were Nordic: Oleg-Helgi, Igor-Ingwar, etc.
Based on historical patterns, a frozen or semi-frozen conflict seems most likely. Neither Ukraine nor Russia can achieve total victory, and the West isn’t ready to provide the support Ukraine would need to push Russia completely out. At the same time, Putin won’t back down without something to claim as a win. This combination often leads to a stalemate, like what happened in Korea after 1953 or Cyprus after 1974. That means the war could drag on for years, and diplomacy like Trump’s approach may be the best way to manage the situation and prevent further escalation.
Jaro,
Thanks for the clarification. You’re right about Kievan Rus preceding the establishment of Russia in 1169. The Varagians, Swedish Vikings, established trade routes through Finland & present-day Russia to the Black Sea. The Swedes brought civilization (law & order, property rights, coinage, etc.) to the poor peasants who called them the Rus, hence the name Russia; it’s also possible that Russia derives its name from Rurik, Swedish ruler & first tsar with Novgorod as his capital. Eventually, the Slavs defeated the Norsemen and took over the whole territory. Your knowledge of Russian history is much better than mine!
Victor Davis Hanson’s brilliant take on Trump, Ukraine, and Europe dazzles, yet his view that Western naivety misjudged Russia’s paranoia over NATO’s eastward push and ex-Soviet states like Ukraine stumbles. It risks excusing Russia’s imperial strut, implying the West should cower to soothe Moscow’s ego. Ukraine’s sovereign right to choose its path is non-negotiable. Yielding to Russia’s tantrums invites disaster, emboldening Moscow’s claims over Poland, Finland, the Baltics, Bulgaria. Pity the U.S. misses how fiercely pro-American Eastern Europe and Ukraine are, perhaps the world’s staunchest allies. Stephen Kotkin rightly argues that supporting Ukraine’s NATO bid strengthens Western resolve and curbs Russian aggression. Conversely, John Mearsheimer’s escapist drivel, blaming NATO expansion, distorts reality, ignoring Ukraine’s agency and painting NATO as the aggressor. NATO’s a defensive shield against Russia’s revisionist rampage—see Georgia 2008, Crimea 2014, Ukraine 2022. Its growth reflects Eastern Europe’s desperate flight from Moscow’s grip, not Western provocation. Russia’s economy, dwarfed by the West’s in 1991 and lagging Canada’s by 2022, exposes Putin’s imperial gambit as folly. Hanson’s broader assault on Western complacency cuts deep, urgent and true. The West must defend its civilization with iron resolve, as Hanson brilliantly demonstrates in his writings.
Dear Mr Jenkins. Thank you for understanding the plight of the Ukrainin people, something commentators here prefer to ignore, and that is disgraceful. I’m reminded of Trump’s outrageous statement to Zelensky “you should not have started the war.” Your comment that “Russia dating back to the ancient Kingdom of Khazaria has been the main aggressor,” is interesting with one caveat. At that time, there was no Russia; however, there was the ‘kingdom’ of Kyivan Rus, led by Prince Sviatoslav. Moscow was established only in 1169, and its aggressive expansionism began with Ivan III and Ivan IV of Moscow, first destroying the Republic of Novgorod, followed by Kazan, which eventually opened the door to the conquest of Siberia all the way to the Pacific.
Victor Davis Hanson’s razor-sharp dissection of Trump, Ukraine, and Europe dazzles, yet his notion that Western naivety misread Russia’s paranoia over NATO’s eastward surge and the Westernization of ex-Soviet lands like Ukraine falters. It flirts with excusing Russia’s neo-imperial strut, suggesting the West should shrink back to spare Moscow’s pride. Ukraine, a sovereign nation, wields an ironclad right to forge its path. Caving to Russia’s historical tantrums courts catastrophe, greenlighting Moscow’s grip over old imperial domains, Poland, Finland, the Baltics, Bulgaria. Pity the United States doesn’t fully grasp how fiercely pro-American Eastern Europe and Ukraine are, arguably the most pro-American nations on earth. Stephen Kotkin rightly insists that backing Ukraine’s NATO bid steels Western resolve and smacks down Russian aggression. By contrast, John Mearsheimer’s escapist nonsense, blaming NATO expansion for Russia’s belligerence, twists truth like a funhouse mirror. It obliterates Ukraine’s sovereignty and casts NATO as the villain, when it’s a defensive bulwark against Russia’s revisionist rampage,witness Georgia 2008, Crimea 2014, Ukraine 2022. NATO’s growth isn’t Western provocation; it’s Eastern Europe’s frantic dash from Moscow’s talons. Russia’s economy, a runt beside the West’s in 1991 and trailing Canada’s by 2022, lays bare Putin’s imperial delusion as a fool’s gamble.Hanson’s broader assault on Western complacency slices like a blade, urgent and unyielding
Mr Martyniuk sounds like he speaks for the “ all of it or WWlll faction”. What I find frustrating are the Ukrainian nationalists who do not recognize the number of Nazi supporters in their history when they try to talk to the Russian nationalists who do not acknowledge the Holomodor took place. And that’s just the last 100 years. Not much longer than a decent college football rivalry. The enmity on both sides goes back a lot longer. Jaro, i am not an expert so if there are any Thomas Jefferson types currently in Ukraine please point them out, all I can see are lots of bad dudes on both sides doing what they’ve been doing for 800+ years.
Good points all sir. I don’t have issue w/ Alaska meeting. Keeps the ball moving, even if sideways. It’s why Trump didn’t use dictator or other epithets (though he tried to hang dictator around Zelensky’s neck fsr). The lack of harder sanctions still boggles my mind, as they would have best effect to force Putin to real talks. I can only imagine that Trump fears a crashed Russian economy as a far greater issue post war than any advantage now. And he is perhaps right, but their threat for 6 months has done little without action.
Let us never forget how corrupt is Zelinskyy and with who he surrounds himself.
Agree completely with the last comment by Adrienne Wasserman: “it’s just wrong to ignore the vicious immorality of Russia’s behavior in Ukraine.”
One commentator, B. Hammer accused me of lacking substance. Mr Hammer, Trump is no Reagan, who called the USSR an “empire of evil” and told Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” while Trump rolls out the red carpet. All that was left out was the soviet style kiss on the lips.
Finally, regarding VDH’s statement “Trump did not get his ceasefire with Putin. But he quickly pivoted to comprehensive peace without first requiring a temporary cessation of arms.” That seemingly rationalizes this disaster. Professor Hanson, that is a non sequitur: any peace plan sooner or later will need a ceasefire. And then there is the ludicrous notion of “land swaps.”
It is a pity that the space allowed for commenting is limited to approx 300 words. Moreover, the present format does not allow a back-and-forth exchanges. This meant that only one-third of what I intended to say evoked some snide remarks labeling me “an angry reader.” I follow VDH religiously and on domestic issues agree with him 100%. I enjoy his writings on history, but on foreign policy regarding the Russo/Ukrainian war, he is often lacking. For example, he writes that “there has been a Western naivete since the end of the Cold War about pre-Putin Russia’s trip-wire sensitivity to the eastward trajectory of Western military alliances toward Russia.” NATO expansion is a canard Putin uses to justify his aims to erase Ukraine, reestablish the Soviet Union, or recreate the Russian Empire. According to him, there is and never was a Ukraine. Ask the Balts and Poles why they wanted to be part of NATO, or why the Finns and Swedes joined.
VDH also notes “the more insidious Westernization of former and still mostly Russian-speaking areas of the old Soviet Union.” That kind of statement equates Russian speakers with Russians, which is simply not true, but it gives an uninformed reader the impression that it somehow justifies Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In fact, many Russians in Ukraine have become ardent Ukrainian patriots because Putin’s war has left their land and homes in complete ruin. (more to come)
Dr. Hansen, I support Donald Trump and his vision for America’s future. But it’s just wrong to ignore the vicious immorality of Russia’s behavior in the Ukraine, even as we follow the pragmatic America first course. The Ukraine is being attacked as we announce great progress in negotiating peace; it’s wrong.
@ WILLIAM MCKEE, Angry Reader nominee, was my initial thought for JAROSLAW R MARTYNIUK comment. The more I read, the less angry he sounded. His comments are simply lacking in enough substance to be considered for the Angry Reader nominee.
For some reason the old Sting song: Russians, began playing in my head as I continued to read JAROSLAW R MARTYNIUK comments. Back in the 80’s, the left was in hysterics about Ronald Raygun. I truly felt that the democrats had more respect and admiration for Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Gorbachev, than Ronaldus Maximus. Well, a zebra can’t change its stripes.
*Mr. Khrushchev said, “We will bury you”
I don’t subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
Mr. Reagan says, “We will protect you”
I don’t subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
*Russians, Written by: Serge Prokofieff, Gordon Matthew Sumner, 1985.
Western Europe’s “security guarantees” are as good as the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 that was the previous guarantee to Ukraine — for which they gave up the nukes that the dissolution of the USSR left them with. That lasted about 20 years.
I just read yesterday a summary of the UK armed forces — 71,000 troops and a whole fourteen 155mm artillery pieces and 150+ tanks. Germany’s Army is hollowed out as well — 328 tanks and 180,000 troops.
Biden’s name calling works better than Trump’s “art of the deal” when the MSM only wants a headline for its readers to scan quickly before moving on.
Bravo Cynthia! You have encapsulated in only a few words what lots of us think about VDH, and no one has ever said it better. Years ago, I asked his friend and colleague Bruce Thornton why VDH is the best. He said it was because he has that very rare combination of genius and common sense. His erudition is paired with the hands-on work ethic of a farmer. VDH is the heir to Tom Sowell.
Which would proove more challenging, negotiations with Putin or the Mainstream Media?
As with most high-stakes situations that require a negotiated settlement, the Ukraine/Russia War is extremely complex, has historical issues not visible to the unlearned, and not an either/or solution. Anyone who has had to negotiate such as resolution understands this, which is not most of those in the media or the talking-heads. One may go in with a wish list, a Plan A, but one has to be flexible, fluid, hard-listening, and willing to leave without Plan A being accomplished but at least some movement towards resolution. Decisions in these situations are made on the fly because one cannot anticipate exactly how the other side is going to act and respond. Would it have been great for Putin to acquiesce and surrender territory gained? Sure. Would it have been great to walk away with a ceasefire? Yes, definitely. Were either of those situations reasonable to expect? No. As VDH states, this is not Trump’s war and it is not a war in which the US is losing lives, so neither is it a US war. It is a war between to hated enemies with neither wanting to budge for a number of reasons. How to get a peace deal, if only one that lasts a few years, is not something that is going to happen or be answered overnight. And confronting Putin with the number of deaths or children kidnapped was not going to move the ball forward. Many who comment on this issue are like Monday-morning QB’s who have never played the game or played it at a very minor level. We need to sit back and watch.
Absolutely brilliant and incisive analysis from Victor Davis Hanson, as usual, offering a largely accurate assessment of contemporary geopolitical dynamics. However, the assertion that Western naivete since the Cold War’s end has ignored Russia’s acute sensitivities to NATO’s eastward expansion and the Westernization of former Soviet territories, particularly Ukraine, overlooks a fundamental principle: the sovereignty of independent nations to determine their own alliances and futures. While Hanson highlights Russia’s historical paranoia over border security, this perspective risks validating imperial revanchism, where autocrats like Vladimir Putin can invoke past empires to justify aggression.
Ukraine, recognized as sovereign since 1991 following the Soviet Union’s dissolution, possesses the inherent right to pursue NATO or EU membership without external veto, just as Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, and Bulgaria, former subjects or satellites of the Russian Empire or Soviet sphere, have integrated into Western structures post-1991 without triggering invasions.
Russia’s own commitments, such as the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, which acknowledged NATO’s enlargement, undermine claims of Western provocation. To concede to Russia’s “trip-wire” logic would invite Putin or his successors to eye other neighbors like Georgia or Moldova under the guise of historical entitlement, perpetuating a cycle of instability rather than fostering genuine security through deterrence and
Bravo! A well said, straightforward, and honest analysis. Thank you, Victor, for clearly being the voice of reason, and God bless Donald Trump for attempting to bring peace to this conflict and the Middle East.
1. Azovs.
2. 19 bio weapon labs in UKe.
3. Barry O’s and Soros’ color revolution in 2014 in Uke resulting in coup ovrthrowing duly elected Uke Pres.
4. Uke payoffs to Joey B. and several US Senators, most notably Warner.
I hereby nominate JAROSLAW R MARTYNIUK as Angry-Reader of the week.
Another great analysis by VDH.
Thank You VDH.
Professor Hanson,
A couple of pieces here, I agree taht the border lines have shifted and as Mr Martyniuk point out that could apply to most European counties. I was in grad school ( physics) with a guy from Yugoslavia when it was breaking apart and he pointed out that in an area you couple have a serb village, then croat village, then a slovenian village and most of the farmers between the villages being Bosniana. (I am sure that someone who know Yugoslavia better than I will point out my geography error). Putin wants to be the protector of the ethnic Russian people. Can he be that without having those areas be a part of Russia. If an area is 51% Russian he definitely wants it, what about if it is 20%
It is also not clear if the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine want to be part of Russia.
One thing that Trump seems to do well is to treat the outcast with respect; Putin, Kim Jung Un, Xi, the Europeans may want to buy there stuff but they also seem to look down on them as uncultured and barbarians. As we know from every bad coming of age movie in the 80’s. The stuck up elite eventually get their come uppence. I wonder how much of Trump’s negotiating ability is his willingness to treat people like Putin with respect.
I quit reading Mr Martyniuk after this comment – “If Trump really laments the loss of life, why did he not confront Putin…”
Dear Mr. Martyniuk,
In life, it’s important at times to maintain lines of communication with one’s adversaries to avoid misconceptions & further conflict. Anyone with a heart is disturbed by the pain & suffering of these broken Ukrainian families fighting for their independence. And yes, the borders of Ukraine have changed significantly over the centuries, as with a number of European countries, but over time Russia dating back to the ancient Kingdom of Khazaria has been the main aggressor.
Absolutely spot on, concise, fact filled analysis! I sure wish more people would read and learn from your brilliant writings.
It is apparent to me that none read the 1939 history of Finland. Especially those who deem themselves worthy to criticize you and the historical record. Keep writing and lecturing as we need more of the sunlight that you bring.
Thank you.
Dear Prof Hanson, I will be frank. After reading your essay, I am stunned by its rueful tone and your attempt to rationalize Trump’s appalling humiliation in Alaska. To put it bluntly, I found it unconscionable. By caving in to Putin and ignoring the red lines he has drawn — demand for a “cease fire” —Trump has humiliated himself and disgraced the US.
Also, by writing that “Trump alone seems to be lamenting the needless loss of thousands of lives each month,” you seem to put a sympathetic spin on his demeanor. Professor Hanson, no one is lamenting the loss of thousands more than Ukrainian families whose sons are being killed or maimed by barbaric invaders, and homes/hospitals/schools are being bombed and children kidnapped. If Trump really laments the loss of life, why did he not confront Putin, even as the murderer mocked and humiliated him? It’s this apologetic tone that makes your seeming justification of Trump’s actions so incomprehensible.
Let me comment on a few of the facts in your essay that are misleading or simply wrong. You note that “since 1939, the borders of present-day Ukraine have been fluid and changeable between Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia,” suggesting they may be changed again by force. BTW, changing borders applies to nearly every country in Europe, so what’s your point? (comment continues in next post).
Brilliant as always VDH. It is understandable, perhaps, that people don’t remember decades ago history, but it is deliberate obfuscation to forget what happened in the last decade where American weakness under Democrat President’s emboldened the Russian bear (to say nothing of the Iranian mullahs). I remember quite clearly Barack Hussein, the Democrats and national security “experts” ridiculing Mitt Romney for suggesting Russia was still a major national security threat. No one is laughing now.
VDH is the most BRILLIANT man in the planet! He is the one person I trust the most. Thank you for always synthesizing the necessary information.
Nail hit on head.
Leftists will ignore as per the program.
I have been making the same 3 points for 2 years.
1: this is as much of a 2 state solution as is Israel/Palestine
2: I cannot conceive of circumstances where Russia cedes Crimea
3:no credible Russian leader will accept Ukraine in NATO.
The thought of Ukraine in NATO is scarier for the West than it is Russia. There are certainly more than a few guys in Ukraine who would stage their own Gleiwitz to invoke Article 5. If you don’t know what took place in Gleiwitz you may be part of the problem.
I guess the Ds & the MSM have shown this week that they support crime and criminals in DC before citizens and WWlll before giving DJT any credit for anything.