Ukraine, Trump, and Europe: what in the world?
I have a very uneasy feeling about world events. Of course, I wouldn’t exactly call that a new phenomenon. The Biden administration featured errors and weakness of such magnitude that aggressors felt emboldened and acted on it. Biden was certainly not the only factor, but I believe his presidency was an important element in at least three disasters (to a much greater extent in the first two compared to the third): the Taliban takeover when the US withdrew from Afghanistan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Hamas attack on Israel.
Trump made many promises during his campaign. One of them that seemed absurd to me was that if elected he would end the Ukraine war in one day. It was Trumpian hyperbole on steroids.
Did he actually believe he’d do it? Trump has a massive ego and in some ways it’s justified, but this claim always seemed divorced from reality and events have certainly not proven him correct. At the moment, we’ve “paused” military aid to Ukraine as well as intelligence-sharing (or some intelligence-sharing; I’ve read differing reports about that), and Putin is probably chuckling to himself – as the war continues.
Of course, Trump might get the last laugh in the end. I realize all these actions are designed to “persuade” Zelensky to cooperate, but it’s nerve-wracking to watch and I don’t have some sort of blind faith in Trump. On the other hand here’s what Trump’s Ukraine envoy says (and by the way, “Trump’s Ukraine envoy” is not a job I’d covet):
Asked what Ukraine will have to do to turn intelligence sharing and flow of military aid back on, Kellogg pointed to the proposed minerals deal between the US and Ukraine.
“The reason he came to the White House was to sign a document that was going to say this is us going forward — it’s not signed,” Kellogg said of Zelensky. “My point would be, and my personal belief would be, you don’t move forward until you get a signed document. Period.”
“But he’s offering is offering to do it,” Brennan said. “He is offering publicly at least to do it.”
“There’s a difference between offering to do it and doing it,” Kellogg replied.
Indeed. Not only did Zelensky offer to do it earlier, but he came to the White House to do it and then, with the cameras rolling, explained why he wasn’t going to do it. No wonder Kellogg is pointing out the difference. Kellogg added:
“When I was in Kyiv two weeks ago, I was very clear to President Zelensky the outcome if we didn’t have a signed agreement,” Kellogg later added. “I was absolutely— I was blunt, and clear, that this was a thing that could have happened.” …
“We’re going to end this war, and this is one way to make sure you understand we’re serious about it,” Kellogg said Thursday. “So is it hard, of course it is, but it’s not like they didn’t know this was coming. They got fair warning it was coming.”
Meanwhile, Macron gets into the act with this:
European leaders showed a cautiously receptive ear to President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to debate extending the French nuclear umbrella to Europe on Thursday, though some were reluctant to draw a line under years of U.S. protection.
In an address to the nation on Wednesday, Macron said he would launch a strategic dialogue over extending the protection offered by France’s nuclear arsenal to its European partners, seizing on comments from future German leader Friedrich Merz.
Although both France and Britain are nuclear powers, most European countries’ primary nuclear deterrence comes from the United States, a decades-old symbol of trans-Atlantic solidarity.
But the radical shift engineered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s new administration, which has made overtures to Russia, pressured Ukraine to make peace with Moscow, and adopted a more aggressive stance towards traditional allies, has focused minds.
Trump definitely wants NATO nations to pay more, and he doesn’t want to be the sole protection for Europe, but has he threatened to withdraw Europe’s nuclear protection? If so, I missed it. Is Macron trying to scare or pressure Trump? Does Macron include Ukraine in his definition of “European partners,” or is he just talking about NATO or EU nations?
Sites such as Foreign Policy are no help. For example:
A deep sense of powerlessness and outright panic has beset Europe. Leaders seem shell-shocked by the speed of Washington’s pivot to Russia, the relentless steps toward a trans-Atlantic divorce, and U.S. President Donald Trump’s comprehensive adoption of the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine and much else. Should the United States continue on this path, it will have existential consequences not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe itself—including an increasingly likely next war that it will have to fight without help from the United States. Trump’s public blow-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last Friday and the U.S. decision to halt weapons shipments to Ukraine have reinforced fears that the struggle against Russia may already be lost.
The first sentence seems on point to me, but after that it seems like typical anti-Trump leftist talking points. A “trans-Atlantic divorce“? More like a cooling of ardor. “Comprehensive adoption of the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine”? Stopping the war with the ceding of some land Russia already has held for quite some time and is unlikely to lose if the war continues, and establishing an American business presence in Ukraine in order to deter future invasion – is adopting the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine? I think Putin has much greater aims for a Ukraine takeover than that. And what is the “much else” in terms of point of view that Trump shares with Russia? Does the author have any idea what the “blow-up” with Zelensky was actually about, and about Zelensky’s part in it? And yes, I believe “the struggle” with Russia is already lost and has been for quite some time – if you define “winning” as regaining all the land Ukraine had prior to Russia’s invasion.
I won’t even try to make a prediction here.
@ Neo > “I won’t even try to make a prediction here.”
Sounds like a good plan!
I’m curious to know what is covered under “intelligence sharing”. Have we actually been doing the weapons targeting for Ukraine? According to WaPo, for what that’s worth:
There’s a thing in business mergers & acquisitions called the Winner’s Curse…it happens when a company (or at least a key decision-maker in that company) is so committed to getting a particular deal that he gives away way too much.
Happens especially if the deal is being negotiated by a Business Development exec who can congratulate himself on the deal, put it on his resume, and move on to bigger and better things before it turns out several years later that the deal..with the terms he negotiated,,was not a good one,
”Not only did Zelensky offer to do it earlier, but he came to the White House to do it and then, with the cameras rolling, explained why he wasn’t going to do it.”
No, that’s not at all what happened. In the week leading up to the meeting in the White House Zelensky stated publicly at least three times that he would not sign such a lopsided agreement and that boots-on-the-ground security guarantees were necessary. This included on Thursday just hours before he got on the plane to Washington, when he again said he would not sign such a lopsided agreement but was prepared to meet Trump in person to discuss it.
His insistence on security guarantees goes back to at least last spring. Zelensky has been very transparent the whole time, and he did what he said he was going to do. It’s now obvious that Trump and Vance set up the ambush in an effort to browbeat Zelensky into signing an agreement that sells out Ukraine. Zelensky was wise not to succumb to the pressure.
”…he doesn’t want to be the sole protection for Europe…”
America is not now, nor has it ever been, the sole protector of Europe.
”…but has he threatened to withdraw Europe’s nuclear protection?”
He has threatened to withdraw all US forces from Europe. That would include the nuclear forces.
”Leaders seem shell-shocked by the speed of Washington’s pivot to Russia, the relentless steps toward a trans-Atlantic divorce, and U.S. President Donald Trump’s comprehensive adoption of the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine and much else.”
I don’t think you Trumpers realize just how much damage he has done to America’s place in the world, nor how many thousands — probably millions and possibly billions — of people will die as a result. The whole world now is barreling toward war, and our president is siding with our enemies.
You can gloat. You can cheer. You can revel in the sight of your “alpha male.” It will all end in tears, many of them American.
What a loon.
mkent:
You are not privy to what he told Rubio and Kellogg and others when they spoke privately. They said he said he would sign and that’s the only reason they agreed to the Oval Office photo-op.
The “tell” for where you’re coming from is “you Trumpers.” Gloating on this blog? I don’t see it.
As for Europe, Europe has had contempt for US Republican presidents for many decades. I’ve been around a long time and I think the last one they liked was Ike. I went to Europe in 1978 and people I met there had no reluctance to bash the US to my face. And that was when Carter was president.
So we’re at the ‘keep sending money or we’re going to kill ourselves stage’?
The peace deal Trump envisioned exchanging parts of eastern Ukraine will be hard to negotiate, even if it were just a return to the post 2014 borders where Lukansk, Donetsk ahd Crimea were ceded to Russia and Russia gave up the two additional oblasts they annexed.
The United States is broke and we’re acting as irrationally as Ukraine is in many respects.
Take the $200 billion (likely higher) we’ve already spent on the Ukraine war. At 5% interest we will be paying $10 billion a year with no prospects of paying down the original amount.
I asked om how much should we continue to send Ukraine and for how many years. I ask mkent the same question. We’ve spent more than $60 billion a year on Ukraine for the last three years.
It is Europe, not the United States that is playing a dangerous game of escalation. President Trump is trying to prevent WWIII.
@mkent
This is very much a case of “who do you believe? Me or your lying eyes?”
We have access to the full video of the incident, at least once the cameras started rolling. We also have differing transcripts from people with different bents. Our host has commented on them here.
https://thenewneo.com/more-on-yesterdays-zelensky-trump-vance-blowup-what-about-europe/#comment-2790688
Which was one reason for why there was so much negotiation and a couple different versions of the deal even before there was any talk of going to Washington and the Oval Office.
Which is very blatantly not what he told Kellogg and co. How do I know? Because that is not coherent with what was said on the opening statement, and also not coherent with what we had in the pre-camera rolling briefing. Which we can guess the contents of.
https://www.dailynews.com/2025/02/23/zelenskyy-says-he-may-be-forced-to-sign-mineral-agreement-with-u-s-in-exchange-for-continued-aid/
He was nowhere near as consistent as you want to make him out to be, and if he had been he and the diplomatic staff can and should have never scheduled the meeting in the first place, and if that was still not solved before then cancelled if it was.
In this case it’s the case of the Dog that Didn’t Bark at Night, to paraphrase some Sherlock Holmes.
I fault Trump more for this failure than I do Zelenskyy, at least given the Oval Office, since while Zelenskyy was apparently the one to start this fight I blame Trump more for poisoning the immediate leadup to it, regardless of who “caused” the overall spat (which probably goes at least as far back as the Shokin-Burisma spat). But your narrative doesn’t hold water, and is frankly downright insulting to not just Trump and Vance but *ALSO* the reporters that pointed this out AND the Ukrainian Diplomatic Staff.
Which is admirable and one place where I agree with him vis a vis Trump. But he also admitted several times he might not get it. Which you are overlooking.
No, no he provably has not been. Which is why we see such conflicting statements from the news and diplomatic staff on both sides.
That much is probably true, but it still speaks to poor judgement even if so at the direct expense of his ambassador.
That copium must be incredibly high grade. Can I source where you’re getting it?
This is absurd on multiple levels. Firstly: If Trump and Vance wanted to “browbeat Zelenskyy” the best place to do it would be in person, behind the scenes. Not in a photo op in the Oval Office. This goes doubly for a generally hostile to Trump press. Secondly: This is the exact situation that diplomatic staff is meant to protect against, and your accusations are that the Ukrainian Ambassador and her entire staff fucked this up and allowed their President to walk into an “Ambush” on grounds they knew would not be accepted.
That doesn’t wash. It also can’t be coherently blamed on Trump and Vance like many other things can be.
Thirdly: This ignores the fact that far from “ambushing” Zelenskyy, the meeting went fairly well for dozens of minutes – including Trump speaking well of Zelenskyy and even defending his choice of dress – before it spiraled out of control.
Your argument makes no sense. Especially when put in context. It also involves ignoring the Dog That Didn’t Bark issues, and in particular how your interpretation doesn’t just shit on Vance and Trump but also the diplomatic staff on BOTH Sides plus the Media. And while I’m normally not inclined to pass up a chance to diss the media and reporters, I owe them the truth.
Perhaps, but it absolutely has been primary provider.
According to who?
Because while He has threatened to withdraw troops, I have yet to see any indication or attribution he threatened to withdraw ALL Troops. And we also have express, explicit REPUDIATION of this from the Polish Government.
https://tass.com/world/1915419
https://www.thetimes.com/article/well-host-troops-youre-pulling-out-of-germany-poland-tells-us-kfgqztnr7
(Imagine being so rash that freaking TASS is better at getting the transcripts and records than you are.)
The truth is bad enough, and I vigorously oppose the idea of withdrawing troops from the Baltics – 20,000!!! – for obvious reasons. But being bad and disagreeable does not give you license to exaggerate.
I don’t think you realize, especially given the provably false things you claim.
Breaking news from 2009.
Again, breaking news from 2009.
Oh wait, you mean with Trump?
I object to many of the things Trump has done, including with this. I have criticized him heavily for what he has done or claimed he might do, including in this very thread and this very comment. But I’m tired of the Chicken Little Sky is Falling bullshit like what you are peddling. Especially when it is nakedly illogical.
It’s continuing in tears aplenty. You should know that since you’ve been around here when we talked about the Afghanistan pullout debacle and a host of others.
@BrianE
Arguably they have been for a while.
And to be fair to the Ukrainians, given what they have seen from the Kremlin’s actions and rhetoric as well as that of many of their mouthpieces it is likely they conclude that if they do not keep fighting they’ll get wiped out or killed anyway. In that context I might paraphrase Churchill:
(The cynic in me might wonder if there is a different argument; after all most Eastern Europeans alive today are the descendants of Slaves in one flavor or another, especially Serfs. But then even that assumes the enemy would be willing to enslave you rather than wipe you out, and those fearing for that could point to the wonderful words of obscure figures like Dima Medvedev, Neo-Nazi and Vice President of Russia.)
There was never “borders” there per se, just supposed places where the ceasefire lines were drawn. Moreover, Zelenskyy tried to negotiate such a deal and the Kremlin rejected it.
I mean there was never formal cession, and moreover the Kremlin gave up those claims because they never held control of those other oblasts. In much the same way they did not control all of Luhansk or Donetsk.
The entire world is broke, and acting irrational. I’d point that Putin’s Russia engaging in this costly war during a financial crisis and above all a demographic collapse is at least as much.
To which I’d argue: depends. That may be a cop out but that’s also because we’d need to see what it would be spent on. Which is why I have generally talked about a sort of Yugoslav situation where we talked heavily with the Bosniaks and Croats about military modernization and what it would take.
Indeed, he is, and I admire him for that at least for there. But I believe the deal he is trying to cut will not be tenable and that it will likely make the overall risks of WWIII more rather than less.
1. Z’s demand for security guarantees, meaning boots on the ground, will never happen, and Z should know that.
2. France has the capability to deliver nukes?
3. Do you really think the France and the UK will put boots on the ground too? and Germany?
4. Yep, Trump lost his cool, but Z was sandbagging him in the Oval Office. Z made a serious mistake believing he could force Trump to make a security guarantee there in public. Congress would erupt.
5. Z’s position that all of Ukrainian territory will be returned is ludicrous. The Crimea will stay Russian.
6. Trump is no one’s stooge, especially Putin’s. Trump getting Z to the table, then having Putin say Nyet, would mean that Trump could give a lot more support to Z, short of boots on the ground.
My plug nickels worth.
1. Z’s demand for security guarantees, meaning boots on the ground, will never happen, and Z should know that.
2. France has the capability to deliver nukes?
3. Do you really think the France and the UK will put boots on the ground too? and Germany?
4. Yep, Trump lost his cool, but Z was sandbagging him in the Oval Office. Z made a serious mistake believing he could force Trump to make a security guarantee there in public. Congress would erupt.
5. Z’s position that all of Ukrainian territory will be returned is ludicrous. The Crimea will stay Russian.
6. Trump is no one’s stooge, especially Putin’s. Trump getting Z to the table, then having Putin say Nyet, would mean that Trump could give a lot more support to Z, short of boots on the ground.
@SHIREHOME:France has the capability to deliver nukes?
Indeed they have, several hundred nuclear weapons and several nuclear submarines, one of which is always out in the Atlantic. They have the fourth-largest stockpile after the US, Russia, and China. They have land-, sea-, and air-based delivery.
@SHIREHOME
I’m not so sure. The Minerals Deal from Trump talked about US troops on the ground to protect the rare earths sites, even if they weren’t there formally to protect Ukraine they are still boots on the ground. And in any case the Ukrainians have incentive to push for security guarantees at least as strong as Budapest. In any case “security” troops could and would be a stepping stone to a more formal security guarantee.
That it does, but they are focused on defending France (or at least were) and are badly outnumbered by the stated Russian arsenal.
Could sure. Will is another question and that I do not know. The Poles might be even more eager.
Agreed.
Couple points.
A: That position from Zelenskyy is the default Ukrainian position.
B: Zelenskyy adopted that position only after the outbreak of open Russian invasion. And he did it after the Kremlin basically gave him the silent treatment after he swore not to try and regain Crimea by violence (just negotiations) and offered a plebiscite to split the Donbas.
C: I’m not so sure it is “ludicrous”. I’m sure the idea that Croatia – let alone Bosnia-Herzegovina – would regain all their territory from Serbia and Montenegro must have looked very remote in 1994. But they did. Issue is it would require a lot more fighting a and massive, concentrated, and largely open ended military support, which Trump and co seem to be saying is not something the US will agree to.
And finally agreed on 6.