By Judson Berger
Friday, August 22, 2025
You know who was notably quiet during this week’s White
House gaggle with Volodymyr Zelensky? Vice President JD Vance.
The veep’s subdued presence before the cameras as
compared with his active role escalating a diplomatic blow-up back in February
was one sign that, just maybe, the Trump administration is indeed committed to
seeking a peace deal that doesn’t leave Ukraine to the wolves (or bear).
Among the many big questions is what kind of security
guarantees President Trump is entertaining, realistically.
“Would Trump really now dangle such a significant change
in his position — the change that is most coveted by the Ukrainians — in order
to get them to agree to land swaps with Russia and a cease-fire?” Mark Wright asks. “The devil will be in the details of
course.”
Special envoy Steve Witkoff has described what’s now being discussed as
including “Article 5-like language” covering a security guarantee, which
would be . . . significant. At the same time, by the morning after the Zelensky
meeting, Trump was insisting to Fox News that there won’t be boots on
the ground in Ukraine: “You have my assurance.”
National Review’s editorial calls talk of a
NATO-like guarantee a “pipe dream” (Noah Rothman voices other concerns), describing any plan as
likely to involve an offer of some sort of air support, short of Americans on
the ground. Trump nevertheless appears serious about a deal, judging by the
presence in Washington on Monday of top European leaders — and the push for future meetings with Zelensky and Vladimir
Putin, and eventually Trump.
Jim Geraghty puts the developments of the past week in perspective; on the
security guarantees, he writes:
If this comes to pass, it will be
one of the biggest game-changers to the region imaginable, an outcome that is
not just good enough for the remaining 80 percent of Ukraine that is
independent, but one that would effectively shut off the possibility of further
Russian aggression in the long term. In fact, because this is such a huge win
for Ukraine, it’s fair to wonder if it will come to pass, or what the catch is.
There was, in fact, a catch. It now turns out that Russia
says it wants veto power over any such support (“a bit like
the criminal saying he will abide by the law if he can be his own judge,” Gregory W. Slayton writes). Still, Jim challenges the
received wisdom that Russia can endure endless casualties, and wonders “if Putin is looking
for a way to end the war and spin it as a glorious victory.”
Much (more) can yet go wrong. The Russian leader did
appear to emerge from the initial Anchorage summit with more spring in his step
than Trump, as Mark observed at the time. And, of course, it is far
from clear whether all parties can agree to terms, or want to. NR’s editorial, with the last words:
There is now talk of three-way
talks between Trump, Zelensky, and Putin, but would they, by themselves, be
enough to persuade Putin to push the pause button on a war of attrition he
believes he can win? It seems unlikely.
In the end, while the closer
understanding between the U.S. on the one side and Ukraine and Europe on the
other is a relief, we have yet to see how it will hold up when the extent of
the chasm between Russia and Ukraine again becomes apparent to an American
president still chasing the will-o’-the-wisp of a quick peace.
Trump’s efforts to come to a deal
are welcome, and should be pursued, but the best hope of bringing a halt to the
fighting on an even remotely acceptable basis is for Putin to be convinced that
victory, or even significant additional territorial gains, are beyond his grasp
for now — at least at a cost that he is prepared to pay. For that to happen,
sanctions will have to be tightened further, and Europe and the U.S. will have
to keep supplying Ukraine with the support it needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment