Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
To find an impossible peace between Ukraine and Russia we must understand the recent history of the war and the European and American roles in it. So, Americans should revisit some fundamental realities and questions from which to remember before going forward:
Why Did Putin Invade Ukraine in 2022?
Putin did start the war. Trump’s trolling aside, he knows that because he correctly pointed out that Putin invaded his neighbors in three of the last four administrations—but not his own, given Trump’s deterrence.
The most obvious answer why Putin did is that he thought he easily could. But why in 2022—as he had in 2008 and 2014?
Putin has nonending opportunistic desires to recombobulate what he thinks properly is and will always be Russian—whether territories to be formally absorbed or as coerced satellite states. But he moves on them only whenever he thinks the benefits outweigh the costs.
And by February 2022, he certainly felt they did.
The U.S. and NATO had lost all appearances of deterrence vis-à-vis Russia. Joe Biden had been part of the Obama-Biden administration that had naively appeased Putin for some eight years. Remember their 2009 reset by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that was based on numerous flawed and disastrous assumptions:
- The prior Bush sanctions against Putin for invading Georgia and grabbing parts of South Ossetia were overly harsh, reflective of his supposed cowboyism evident in Iraq.
- The Obama mystique, coupled with criticism of the prior Bush administration, would win over Putin. Remember Obama’s 2012 hot mic appeasement in Seoul, when Obama promised Putin “flexibility” (i.e., cancellation of Eastern European defense, ifPutin gave Obama “space” for his “last election” (i.e., please don’t invade and embarrass Obama until after he was reelected in 2012).
- The U.S. thought it could act unilaterally in Libya and Syria, talk of expanding NATO in Europe, and expect a humiliated Russia to keep silent and distant.
- Once rebuffed by Putin, who took Obama’s measure, an angry and rejected U.S. would cajole, beg, and finally try to force European Union democratic values onto the Putin regime—by sanctions, by aiding Russian dissident groups, and by claiming Putin was America’s archenemy.
The flawed working theory was that an either compliant or defiant Putin could acquiesce and begin liberalizing Russia, in emulation of EU and US democracy.
All these assumptions were manifested by both Obama and Biden in a number of ways:
- By ignoring Putin’s 2014 absorption of the Donbas and Crimea;
- By ignoring Putin’s continual cheating on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty;
- By contextualizing his hacking and cyber warfare that were targeting U.S. institutions and corporations (“Cut it out!” said Obama to Putin; “Certain critical infrastructure should not be attacked,” piped up Biden);
- By suspending offensive weapons shipments to Ukraine;
- By Biden’s announced hesitation to react to Russia’s “minor incursions” in Ukraine;
- By coupling such appeasement with a near decade of tough talk (Putin as a “killer”) and Putin-bogeyman hysterias like “Russian collusion” and “Russian disinformation.”
- And finally, and most importantly, by fleeing from Kabul after abandoning to the terrorist Taliban a $1 billion embassy, a $300 million airbase, and billions of dollars in military equipment.
Weakness and appeasement when coupled with loud false charges are a disastrous combination.
What Was the Biden/NATO Strategy to Deter Putin?
The most obvious answer is there was none.
After the failure of Obama covertly promoting the pro-Russian Ukrainian government in 2014 and trying to select replacement candidates that would supposedly cement the transformation of Ukraine into an EU, NATO-member, Westernized garrison state on Russia’s border, there was only an embarrassed acceptance that the Obama-Biden group had played into the hands of the aggressive Russian bear. But it soon proved it had no desire for any ensuing effort to put him back into his cave.
So, what followed with Biden after February 24, 2022, was ad hoc, on-the-fly measures that, as best we could tell, were guided by naivete:
- Gradually and silently slide Ukraine into NATO;
- Convince the Europeans to step up and arm Ukraine;
- Increase weapons shipments and provide economic and intelligence aid to Ukraine to levels sufficient not to lose the war, but not to excess to win it and provoke nuclear Russia;
- Keep feeding the war endlessly in efforts to bleed out the Russian military, weaken Putin, and perhaps provoke a “democratic revolution” in Russia;
- Transform Ukraine and Zelensky into modern heroes by:
Overlooking entirely that Zelensky had all but canceled habeas corpus, most opposition parties and media, and postponed scheduled elections. In other words, was our once rock star becoming a “benevolent” wartime autocrat amid the apparent corruption of US and NATO aid?
Keeping mostly silent about the horrendous costs to Ukraine, where a quarter of the population has fled the country, 500,000 have been killed, wounded, missing, or captured, while the economy and infrastructure have been all but destroyed—with no end in sight.
What Were and Are America’s Strategic Interests?
We have many interests and, in no particular order, would like to work to see the following occur:
- Stay out of a theater-wide, European war with a nuclear power.
- End the horrific killing.
- Seek a sustainable peace that keeps Putin inside his own borders.
- Convince Europe to rearm, defend its own interests, and deter Russia.
- Free up some US military investment in Europe to pivot to Asia and deter China.
- Disrupt the Russia-China alliance.
What Should Trump Now Do?
- Talk softer while carrying a bigger stick.
- Leverage, if possible, a return of Putin to his February 23, 2022, borders.
- Accept that none of the last three presidents believed Ukraine could militarily regain Donbas and Crimea and neither will be recaptured.
- Keep Ukraine out of NATO.
- Help NATO to ensure Ukraine is well-armed and capable of thwarting any Russian violation of the peace—in other words, a hyper-NATO ability without being in NATO.
- Insist that all NATO countries must meet their 2 percent contributions and over the next three years up it to 5 percent.
- Allow U.S. interests to do business in Ukraine for a variety of economic and strategic advantages.
For all of Putin’s bluster, he has paid a terrible price for marginal gains. And he would not like to repeat the invasion of an even better-armed Ukraine. Despite his braggadocio, Putin seeks an end to the war.
Russia has lost respect worldwide, especially in its military. And great powers in its neighborhood, like India and China, no longer fear Russian arms. Even without a NATO Ukraine, it is likely that both Ukraine and Europe will be better armed in the years ahead.
China may be more restive and opportunistic vis-à-vis Russia. Bottom line: Putin has lots of reasons to see the war end, especially if he understands that he cannot win it, or at least cannot win it without further political instability at home.
Trump also wants an end to the war and for lots of reasons. He knows that the U.S. is divided or rather, its parties have flipped. Conservatives want to end the war and see our military redirected to deterring China. They believe our presence abroad should not be enlarged, given the massive efforts at home needed to solve the debt, border, and cultural crises. The MAGA, don’t-tread-on-me creed is to avoid wars and entanglements unless belligerents either attack us or attack our close friends to hurt us.
In weird contrast, peacenik liberals quietly want the war to go on. They quite unrealistically believe that greater U.S. and European aid, along with Ukrainian and NATO partnership, will eventually “crack” Russia, lead to Putin’s removal, and the installation of a glorious Western, EU-Russian political and cultural democracy.
Trump must negotiate with, but not necessarily believe, Putin and proceed in Reagan’s trust-but-verify fashion. For the immediate term, he can neither politically afford to expand the war to gain negotiating leverage nor simply, in a Kabul-fashion, pull out and be blamed when Ukraine is overrun or continue the no-end-in-sight current Biden killing-field policy.
So, to avoid all three unpalatable choices, Trump wishes to move quickly and decisively to cut a deal no one will like now—but may be appreciated once the slaughter ends.
As for Ukraine, Trump has enormous leverage over it for two obvious reasons: 1) Zelensky’s resistance to Russia will collapse if U.S. military aid is even modestly cut back; 2) Zelensky is no longer the pop star of 2022 who saved Kyiv in what was naively then thought to be a short, quick victory for Ukraine.
Trump can persuade Zelensky to give up his NATO hopes and his dream of regaining lost pre-2022 territories. Instead, he can tell him to seek to reopen a free society—with or without his leadership—and to rebuild a new, somewhat smaller, more secure, and even better-armed Ukraine.
The model—unfortunately—is not a gloriously defiant and courageous Finland of winter 1939. Instead, it is—realistically—an exhausted, proud, and realistic Finland of March 1940, when it finally accepted the reality of a Russian impending victory, negotiated, surrendered disputed territory, was often criticized but still preserved its autonomy, balanced East and West, finally gained international respect, armed to the teeth, and deterred Russia from entering the Finnish quagmire again.
Trump can make the argument that Russian détente with the U.S. and Europe is in Russia’s interests. The West does not have any territorial ambitions in Russia—unlike Moscow’s current partner of convenience, China, which most surely does. That is Beijing’s attitude toward any territorially large, naturally rich neighbor (like Australia) that is underpopulated. Putin will likely stay in power if the war ends now; he will see real threats to his regime if it continues for another three years.
Trump can let Europe decide whether it wants a beefed-up NATO, under strong U.S. leadership and engagement, in which all the parties invest 2 percent of their GDP in defense now and 5 percent in three years.
Or he can let Europe prefer to keep conning and lollygagging—sorta, kinda arming, sorta, kinda not arming. And thus, Europe will ensure that the U.S. becomes a nominal 2-percent member but forgoes leading an alliance of what Obama once called deadbeat “free riders.” Their choice, not ours.
In sum, Trump can end the war to no one’s satisfaction, or let Europe and Zelensky negotiate and see the war continue endlessly to no one’s satisfaction. Given geographical realities, the U.S. can live without a settlement, but eventually, all the other parties cannot.
For all the media screaming and left-wing accusations, Trump’s recent antics have at least accomplished the following: the NATO nations, Ukraine, and Russia are all confused about what Trump is saying, and so now all the more want him to stop the war.
What does Prof. Hanson say about Craig Unger’s book that asserts that Trump is a Russian asset? Does Prof. Hanson deny it?
How utterly specious. This falls into the “You’re not even wrong” category, mindless liberal gibberish.
Religious factors do need to be addressed to some extent, and with these the social virtues of Russian, Ukrainian, and European societies. As difficult as ‘stopping the fighting’ is, are these societies worth saving–or, why are they worth saving? How would they be saved apart from setting borders and stopping the conflagration? I think that this is the question Socrates was asking Alcibiades in his untimely pursuit of political office (Alcibiades I). Just as President Trump has inserted an economic discussion into that of military strategy and power, so too a religious discussion is important for both practical and ethical reasons.
> Putin has nonending opportunistic desires to recombobulate what he thinks properly is and will always be Russian—whether territories to be formally absorbed or as coerced satellite states.
I keep seeing this claim, but I’ve never seen much actual evidence to support it. I’ve seen a *lot* more evidence that what Putin really wants is for NATO and the West in general to stop *stepping on his dick*.
I mean, come on. How acceptable would it have been to the USA, if back in the ’80’s, the Warsaw Pact had made noises about Mexico or Canada joining them? How acceptable to the USA was it when Russia parked missiles in Cuba?
Now, I’m not saying it’s completely impossible that Putin harbors those desires. But Occam’s Razor would suggest a far simpler explanation.
NATO needs to be disbanded. It is obsolete compared to its original purpose AND it is now doing more harm than good. We should be doing our best to befriend Russia to use as a foil to China, but as usual our foreign policy is hopes and dreams instead of realism.
1. “Sanctions against Putin for invading Georgia, grabbing South Ossetia”, Avkhasia
THE EU DID NOT BLAME PUTIN HERE – BUT, CORRECTLY, RECOGNIZE RUSSIA’S ACTION AS PROTECTION AGAINST AGGRESSIVE BOMBING BY SAAKASHVILI’S ARTILLERY – some call it “TEST RUN FOR UKRAINE”
And Saakashvili sent 3 snipers to the Maidan – how did he know? He was in DC!
2. “The Obama mystique to win over Putin. Remember Obama’s 2012 hot mic appeasement in Seoul, when Obama promised Putin “flexibility” (i.e., cancellation of Eastern European defense, ifPutin gave Obama “space” for his “last election” (i.e., please don’t invade and embarrass Obama until after he was reelected in 2012).
ABSOLUTE NONSENSE: YES – OBAMA WAITED WITH MAIDAN, BEFORE STARTING WHAT WAS MEANT TO BE A WAR INCLUDING RUSSIA – and weakening EU!
3. “Obama thought he could act WITH EUROPEAN NATO in Libya and Syria, talk of expanding NATO in Europe, and expect a humiliated Russia silent and distant”
FIRST ERROR: MERKEL KEPT GERMANY OUT OF BOTH AGGRESSIONS! STILL UNCLEAR WHAT FORCED HER INTO THE THIRD ONE: UKRAINE! BUT UKRAINE NATO WAS MEANT TO LEAD TO WAR! (see RAND CORPORATION)
4. Once rebuffed by Putin, who took Obama’s measure, an angry and rejected U.S. would cajole, beg, and finally try to force European Union INTO WAR —by sanctions, aiding Russian dissident groups, claiming Putin was America’s enemy.
These flawed working theory was that an either compliant or defiant Putin could acquiesce and begin liberalizing Russia, i
Chamberlain also knew he was playing a weak hand. Britain had neither military means nor popular will to resist Hitler when he signed the Munich agreement. He was aguably trying to buy time for the European Allies to rearm, but then as now they preferred to dither.
Ukraine v Russia is a European problem. The NATO Alliance is window dressing for Pax Americana. EU GDP is more than adequate to support a muscular defense sector. Chronic underinvestment in defense reflects not only “freeloading,” but also the fact that Europeans ultimately have greater trust in the US than in their neighbors.
The US confronts a dangerous rival in China. We currently lack the military means and popular will to resist its domination of the South China Sea countries. If China wins the AI race by taking over Taiwan, it becomes the dominant economic and military power in the world. Our ability to prevent this is diminished by distractions in Europe, the Middle East, and Korea.
Time for our Allies to step up and pay up. Time for the US to get its priorities straight.
I want more of Mister Hansons ideas, savvy,!learned thoughts, history and advice
Our President would do well to continue to seek his counsel. President Trump needs to read the posts ref his angry bad tempered remarks, lies, and BRAVADO I had hoped he had learned but his poor wife can only control him just so much and he can b bc his worst enemy. God love him
If the Kremlin is determined to keep coming, any cease fire will be just a pause.
The Kremlin will eventually keep coming until stopped militarily or upon taking the territory it covets. It is a Western war and the West has demonstrated no will or ability to stop the Kremlin. None.
To become serious in stopping the Kremlin the West would arm up fast, interdict the Kerch and Land bridges without which the Kremlin could not feed let alone fight any troops in Ukraine/Crimea.
No serious effort has been made by the West to win in Ukraine. The Kremlin and the China notice such things.
The Trump/American strategy reminds me of Chamberlain returning, curiously enough from Munich, waving his paper in the air claiming “peace in our time”.
What results are you expecting?????
My concern is that you have 2 cultures here and 2 differing views of their respective roles in the world. My late uncle was Ukrainian, and would become quite riled up if people naively confused him with being Russian. We have to recognize where these parties are coming from in history.
I’m impressed by VCH’s analysis, and hopeful that real peace can be accomplished.
Thank You VDH.
Yes, a Kissinger right about now (5 years ago?) would be a blessing. Think Taiwan. … Yes, an excellent result of a peace deal would draw Russia away from China, toward the West. … Zelenskyy has been and continues to be an excellent leader.
PS: Yes, a Kissinger right about now (5 years ago?) would be a blessing. Think Taiwan. … Yes, an excellent result of a peace deal would draw Russia away from China, toward the West. … Zelenskyy has been and continues to be an excellent leader.
Trump has not yet exhibited deterrence toward Putin, other than continued financial sanctions. Trump should deter by rallying the commitments of NATO to the 5% GDP contribution and all NATO agrees took take a larger military stance if Putin does not agree to cease-fire. That military stance might be to establish a no fly zone over Ukraine, or at a minimum, over the portions that Ukraine currently controls. It would be the security guarantee that Zelensky is asking for. But let it be Trump’s idea. I don’t think rare earth mining will deter without a no fly zone. The precious ports are too sprawling. Putin needs the deterring threat of military action or he’ll keep rolling his meat grinder.
Hmm. No fly zone. I am assuming the zone will be patrolled by NATO member aircraft. What happens if there is an incident involving Russian and NATO aircraft? Will article 5 be invoked?
In a just world, Putin would be hung, and Russia would pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine. In our real world, however, a price must be paid for the malfeasances of Obama and Biden. President Trump, make your best deal, and hope that the West’s future leaders do their job.
Are there any significant differences between today and Munich of 1938? It seems only the names have changed. Speak not of minerals, note that the Ukraine is a major breadbasket in today’s world.
Ukraine’s February 23, 2022, borders are unjust and unacceptable! Vladolf Putler must return Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea!
The solution is somewhat simple to end the conflict. Right now, Europe is buying their energy from Russia which is funding the war. Challenge Russia’s ability to fund the war by selling our energy to Europe instead of the Russians doing so. We need to drill baby drill! That will allow our prices to be low enough for the Europeans to buy from us instead of Russia. That may take a while, but it will also help deter them from invading Ukraine in the future if they cannot fund their war effort. Maybe it is more complex than that, but it is a similar principle used by Reagan to bring down the U.S.S.R. Maybe my comment the solution is too simple and more complicated than that, but at least a start.
Oh for a genius like Bismarck or Kissinger to come to the helm of our foreign policies. They would turn Russia from a foe into a friend or maybe an ally in about 5 years. It would start by recognizing that Russia, like any major Power has a legitimate interest in having neutral or friendly nations on her borders — a principle we have ignored for thirty years by pushing NATO eastwards, breaking the promise that we would do no such thing if post-Soviet Russia would agree to German unification. Within Russia’s sphere, while they were free to exert their influence, they would refrain from open warfare on their neighbors. In return for our recognition of Russia’s sphere of interest, they recognize ours in Latin America, the Gulf of Whatever especially. Then, if a little trust and respect have been established, we start talking about joint action regarding our true common foes: Islamic militancy and China.
Well said!
NATO has zero history as an expansionist power. Not one time has NATO invaded a country. Membership is NATO is 100% voluntary.
Tell that to Belgrade. Or ask Jared Kushner. Yeah, tell that to Belgrade
Excellent! Some logic there. I was about to throw in the towel.
The overthrow of the duly elected Ukrainian government by our “beloved” Victoria Nuland and the CIA, the continued expansion of nato eastward, the buildup of bioweapons factories along the Russian border…..not to mention the shelling of ethnic Russians for 10 years.
Gee, its all Putin’s fault.
Why in the world would he want to defend Russia?
I have to admit disappointment in Mr Hanson. He sounds like a good democrat, Orange man bad!
Russia, backwards and bad.
I was intrigued by VDH’s brief comment regarding China’s territorial ambitions in Siberia. I have thought since 2022, that China was going to let the Russian military be depleted by the war in Ukraine, and then simply walk across the border to take control of the oil, mineral, and water resources of the Russian Far East. Who in the West would oppose them and come to Putin’s rescue? Nobody! I think this is the long game that we need to be preparing for, perhaps even more than the CCP’s saber-rattling over Taiwan. I would be interested in VDH’s thoughts on how this may play out.
Interesting thoughts. Agree somewhat. I’d really like to know the VDH position on China’s attempt to gather the BIRCs nations together and make the yuan the dominant international currency, thereby crushing not only the dollar, but America.
It seems this is an overriding issue, and one that must be answered with abject haste. If our dollar falls, China gets everything, and America has absolutely no influence, hence no deterrence
Agree with Victor here as he lays out what western media portrayed Zelinsky as a rock star and continued to support… “Overlooking entirely that Zelensky had all but canceled habeas corpus, most opposition parties and media, and postponed scheduled elections. In other words, was our once rock star becoming a “benevolent” wartime autocrat amid the apparent corruption of US and NATO aid?” Also, while many continue to say Russia invaded if one would watch the older recorded video of Putin laying out pre-invasion of Ukraine and what I consider important is the eight year war as Ukraine kept poking the bear – this is not protrayed in western media, the Ukraine assault of Russia. Both sides share the burden of this war.
These two observations are flawed: 1) Zelensky’s resistance to Russia will collapse if U.S. military aid is even modestly cut back; 2) Zelensky is no longer the pop star of 2022 who saved Kyiv in what was naively then thought to be a short, quick victory for Ukraine. 1) no, it will not, it will continue with European aid and with increased use of Drones (terrestrial, airborne, and maritime) to counterbalance Russian manpower advantage, which looks increasingly fragile given Russia’s need to use North Korean troops (see ISW fact sheet of this month); 2) Zelensky previous status as a pop star is irrelevant, and not worth mentioning. what matters is that he continues to be the respected leader of the UKR resistance to the quasi-genocidal war unleashed by Putin, and the one trusted by the majority of UKR citizens to get the best cease-fire and post-cease-fire arrangement for their future.
Yes. VDH leaves out that Russia’s economy is teetering even now. The right moves by the west could bring Putin down by very unhappy oligarchs.
The Russians will counter with drones. Zelensky should be admired for his courage, patriotism, and unschooled efforts at diplomacy. But he is an apprentice. His success in that regard has come from empathy, not experience with his western counterparts. He would be unbelievably effective under Hanson’s tutelage.
Zelenskyy gas done a good job playing Crazy Horse, but it is time for Red Cloud to take over.
I don’t get why we are Russian apologists. It is also frustrating that this argument about NATO expanding was somehow our fault and the countries who wanted to join NATO lacked all independent agency for their decisions. As if we made them join to isolate Russia, and now Estonia as a NATO member is some kind of big offensive threat to Russia. Isn’t it just possible these countries looked around and evaluated the best option for their future and decided for themselves to pursue a closer relationship with the West because what Russia offered was so much less attractive? Do they know something about Russia we fail to realize? To me, our soft power won. Russia’s soft power lost. Now we enable Russia to “win” significant gains by force of arms…that appeasement, and we are losers.
I do agree that since we allowed our hard power to decline in Europe over the last 35 years, that we opened the door to Putin. Heck, every President since HW drew down US forces in Europe until the last several years. But that is no reason to kowtow to Russia now.
It’s not kowtowing. It is an unwinnable war and European nations have a habit of blaming one another, quibbling, and not making a unified effort.
Nothing has been “won.” That is the point of Hanson’s essay. Soft power got us into this mess. It always does when faced with a dictator. NATO is good as envisioned immediately after the Second World War. But members of the EU have skated. Its function with regard to Eastern European countries is to treat them as colonies. I felt it daily while living in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Albania.
Trump kowtows to no one. And that is the not so hidden message in his essay. Historical and cultural patterns tell us what Russia will do. And it’s not pretty. Give them Crimea and the Donbas. and follow every other step that Hanson recommends, and things will settle down, lives will be saved, new patterns will be created, and Putin will die.
Yes, in agreement with Rick. Well stated.
It is true that nobody made any former Warsaw Pact countries join NATO. But the USA could have told them that they couldn’t. particularly after everyone in NATO at the time told the Russians repeatedly back in 1990 and 1991 that they *wouldn’t*. Yes, NATO is voluntary, but it also requires unanimity. *Any* member of NATO could have kept those promises to Russia. None of them did. That’s what people are talking about when they refer to an “expansionist” NATO.
I absolutely, 100% understand, why those countries wanted to tie themselves to the USA and NATO militarily. In their shoes I’d want to do the exact same thing. It also made absolutely no geopolitical sense whatsoever for the USA to tie ourselves to *them* militarily. And as an American, I’m wearing American shoes on this.
None of that is “apologizing” for the Russians. It’s a recognition of the fact that over the last 30+ years, neocons have pushed a lot of policies that were not at all in the best interests of the United States, or the world at large.
Cut a deal for the rare earth minerals to reimburse U.S. taxpayers for this abortion, and let Europeans police the remains. Besides, Crimea was always Russia’s southern naval base. Putin will cooperate because the Chinese must be eyeing his Siberian oil fields suppling China, once Chinese territory.
Correct.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the mainstream media touched on some of these important points rather than play arm chair quarterback of virtue all the damn time.
The young people on both side of the slaughter are cheering for DJT to end this war. Any life saved by a peace deal is a gift of life with exponential rewards.
Agreed
Trump has to play his strong hand while he has the opposition in a current weakness. Strike a deal that limits US involvement, forces EU to support an end to this stalemate and keep moving forward with the next phase to get our economy growing. Trump’s political opposition is waiting for the Trump agenda to stall to give them mid term election momentum.
Victor I think that you have presented an admirably thoughtful and restrained article about an extremely upsetting situation, in which Trump’s intemperate language (which you adeptly characterized as trolling) did much to gratuitously ratchet up the nastiness. It’s natural that Zelensky would not want to be sold down the river, and of course he pushed back on not being invited to the preliminary talks. Trump saying “you should have never started it’ and calling Zelensky a dictator (when he was democratically elected but had to cancel elections during the war of survival according to Ukrainian law) was truly abusive language leveled at a war victim. Trump did not show a good side of himself in that exchange. However, hopefully your judicious advice will be followed. Thank you for your article.
I agree with Jeff. Dr. Hanson’s analyses are always very insightful.
That said, I hoped we were emerging from government sanctioned lies. Trump’s comments were lies and damaged future US credibility at home and abroad. Free people must avoid dealing in lies at all costs.
Dr. Hanson hasn’t mentioned the war crimes committed by the Russians in the past three years, e.g. Bucha and other places. How should such crimes affect future relations with the Russians?
Yes indeed.
Trump always undercuts half his clout with his exaggerations, that are the same as lies. Wish he would learn. He would be so much more powerful in effect. Ugh. .
Listen to Marci Rubio’s description of the pre-meeting understanding between parties as to what was agreed upon would occur, and then Zelenskyy walked away from immediately once in front of the press.
Very well said!
Simple. Russia invaded a sovereign nation, Ukraine. Putin is a ruthless killer. Ukraine is not in NATO. Putin is an opportunist who took the chance during a weak US President.. I believe, if Trump was in office as Russia was sending massive troops on Ukraine border, Trump would have quickly warned Russia that US troops or NATO would be be placed as a deterrent. Possibly, just a warning would have prevented the horrific amounts of lives of Ukrainians and Russians.
Victor David Hansen, I would be so honored to met you and your brilliant mind.
Putler is ruthless and bent on cementing his megalomanic legacy plus he’s a liar.
Trump’s Letting him save face by pretending Putin was provoked and had no other option but to invade and demolish his neighbor (who is blood related to more than half of Russia) is not credible, since Trump is mistaken if he thinks this is the 20’s when you could appeal to dictators pride.
Give Russia back Chernobyl which stupid Commies set up for failure, if they want more land, and give Ukraine back Donbas and Luhansk. Relocate the so called Russian speakers back to Russia if that’s what they want and ban and disappear Russia from Odessa. Ukraine deserves more public acknowledgement of their vulnerable Position birthed in the double cross at Budapest by another Democrat POTUS, Clinton.
The Leftists are remarkably cold hearted and stupid.
Greetings from Australia. Always appreciate VDH’s thoughts.
Agree with critiques of previous policies, Europeans, etc.
Couple of things I would want to hear a bit more about:
1. Some of the criticism of Zelensky seems misplaced, because as I understand it the UKR constitution is what forbids elections during wartime. Is this not relevant?
2. Agree that a deal that takes Russia back to pre Feb 2022 invasion land would be good, but haven’t seen any sign that is on the table. Didn’t Putin write the 4 annexed regions (which he still doesn’t fully control) into the Russian constitution in September 2022?
Apologies if these were written about somewhere else. Overall happy if the US President can get a good settlement, but very concerned about a bad one.
Best regards,
Great article. Should be required reading in History classes everywhere!
I just hope that, as the confusion resolves, we don’t see appeasement.
Unfortunately, there will be many who see anything short of continued war as appeasement.
Dazzle them with brilliance, or baffle them with bullshit.
I’m for any agreement that doesn’t reward Russia with any of their post-2021 gains. Ukraine has my sympathies concerning Crimea and the Donbass but realistically, those were lost 10 years ago and Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to take them back. without massive losses. One of the lessons of this war is “whoever goes on offense, hemorhages soldiers.”
I don’t think you went back far enough. How about Clinton’s plan to isolate Russia with newly minted NATO countries?