What Ukraine Has to Contend With
Trump is spouting Russian talking points.
I recognize that at some point, Zelenskyy will have to treat Putin in a way that will likely make his skin crawl. And maybe that means toning down some of his current rhetoric. But I am trying to imagine a scenario in which the US was invaded in an unprovoked attack and then had to refrain from saying true things about the invader.
It is hard to find a good analogy, as the last time we were really invaded was the War of 1812. But what if someone had told us to stop saying mean things about Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks?
See, also, this.
If the goal for the Trump administration is really a brokered peace, they kind of have to take into account what Russia did and why Ukraine would be angry. However, if the goal is simply to kowtow to Russia, they are doing a great job of it. All of this makes me think that no matter what Zelenskyy did yesterday, he was going to lose.
It should be noted that this isn’t about Zelenskyy’s anger (or Ukrainian feelings in general), but about recognizing Russia’s explicitly stated war aims, namely that Ukraine and Ukrainian culture should not exist.
For the Ukrainians, the conflict is existential in the literal sense of the word.
Which made yesterday’s spectacle even more shameful (and also why pretending that this about the Europeans spending more on defense borders on the tacit support of genocide – both sides, amirite?).
Oy, gevalt! Or, for the gentiles, Jesus Fucking Christ. What is it going to take for people to realize that Putin owns Trump? Does Trump have to sing the Internationale and drink a gallon of borscht on live TV?
Trump is dismantling the entire national security apparatus of the United States and deliberately leaving us even more vulnerable to Russian disinformation, and Russian aggression against our betrayed allies. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it’s a goddam duck.
I bet the Vichy regime did not criticize or say mean things about Elon.
@Michael Reynolds: I am aware of your theory.
It strikes me as just a possible that he admires Putin and wants to be like him.
I am not sure why Putin has to be blackmailing Trump for Trump to behave like this.
And how is my response, which you deride, supposed to be different if, in fact, Putin owns Trump?
You are doing that thing where you are certain of the superiority of your position but without really saying why it matters/what it is you think the rest of us should do once we are onboard with your view.
@Steven L. Taylor:
100% this. That’s why trying to come up with a theory to explain why something is happen really doesn’t actually matter.
@Michael Reynolds:
@Steven L. Taylor:
@mattbernius:
Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Kathy’s take: it’s terrible if the rapist is acting subservient to Mad Vlad out of kompromat. If there is no kompromat, it’s much, much worse.
@drj: Hey! Don’t be throwing around the “g” word here. 50,000 dead is a small fraction of the total population and those people know what they need to do to solve this.
(But, no, I have no problem at all with thinking Trump would support genocide. And not just in Ukraine, either.)
Obviously Trump is going to do everything he can to hand Ukraine to Putin. Trump loves Putin. Trump loves Putin the was Swifties love Taylor Swift.
The question isn’t whether Zelenskyy loses America — that was decided when we elected Trump. The question is whether he loses Europe. NATO has always been dominated by the US, and that’s the framework for European defense.
Ukraine benefits from a break between the US and NATO, at least when the alternative is NATO following the US’s lead in giving Ukraine to Putin. Skimming the reactions of European leaders, with the exception of Hungary’s Orban, they’re appalled with Trump.
I think Zelenskyy “won” as much as he could for the moment. The jury is out on whether that will be enough, and whether Europe will come to his aid.
——
Meanwhile all the people who have been saying “we can’t afford to help Ukraine when we have X, Y and Z problems at home” should get off their asses and solve X, Y and Z. Homeless vets was a common refrain.
There is this increasing tone that Ukraine has lost and Putin has won.
And yet I see a Russia weakened as never before. (They’re using donkeys to haul supplies to the frontlines for crying out loud!). The EU is rallying in the wake of Trump’s pivot. And the US (*) is likely headed on an economic downslope.
The EU industrial output is many times that of Russia’s. China shows no sign of abandoning tge EU marketplace.
Yes, it would have been hugely beneficial if somehow Trump saw his way clear to a win-win deal with Zelensky, but that never was realistic given all the details. Zelensky has the EU, and the EU could have Ukraine as a 40 million strong partner on the cutting edge of evolving war technology, with significant agricultural output and natural resources. An invaluable buffer against a Putin who has made clear his abhorrence of liberal democracy and the EU collective.
There’s plenty of means and motive to keep Ukraine in the fight and the promise of Putin’s regime incapacitation to the point of irrelevance. It surely doesn’t help to talk ourselves out of the possibility of success.
* A sidenote to US situation and prospects under the Trump “pivot” that needs further consideration:
EU countries have placed orders for F-35 fighter jets. Europe is a major customer for the US defense industry. How secure are those nations going to feel dependent upon the US for their defense purchases if the US pivots to a strategic relationship with Russia, and forsakes its traditional alliances? The US becomes an unreliable security and unreliable trading partner under Trump.
The impact of the US economy could be immense. The impact on the EU economy and defense industries could be favorable.
In which case, who will buy enough of those F-35s to keep Lockheed and vendors
out of trouble? Surely not the smaller nations of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Israel. Even India would not make up the shortfall. Our military technological might depends on cutting edge development funded in part through military industrial sales to our partners.
Does the US then open our military industrial production capacity to Russia itself? Boy, that would be a turn of events. But Russia is in desperate need of rearmament.
Seems unreasonable now perhaps. But did threatening military action Denmark over Greenland or Canada over something or another seem reasonable 4 years ago?
And just one step further into the bizarre possibilities Trump’s unreasonableness elicits: how many US employees in those American defense industries would be willing to work on military products destined for export to our former adversaries? A Trumpian world of “crazy Ivan” possibilities exist to contemplate.
@Michael Reynolds:
And, for the bonus round, China and Russia are apparently trying to recruit pissed-off fired federal employees. Bonus-bonus round are all of our computer systems are probably vulnerable to hacks now that Elon set up a separate server so he could send his OPM-ALL emails.
@Rob1:
Europe has a robust aerospace industry (see Airbus), and a hasty look tells me the French fly mostly their own planes (Rafale and Mirage 2000 mainly), while the British and German air forces rely more on the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Where they fly more US design is when it comes to tankers, radar sentry planes, and some transports and helicopters. Over 8 decades of a close alliance leaves a lot of interdependency.
I wonder how able will Mad Vlad be to pay for F-35s and E-7s
EEEWWWW!!!
Not that I don’t see your point, but EEEEEWWWWWWW!!!! all the same.
@Kathy: It looks like UK, Germany, Italy, Denmark, and Norway operate or have orders for the F-35. Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Poland, Romania, Switzerland have shown interest.
I think the Swedish Viggen with its short runway capability (think streets) would be a good fit for Ukraine with some upgrades.
Europe has the capacity to stand up to Russia as things stand. It is in their best interest (and ours) to help Russia bleed out. On the other hand it would be a big threat if Russia captures Ukrainian landmass, military capacity (including experience and technological ingenuity), Ukrainian resources and regains full access to the Black Sea.
Any American leader that holds the best interests of the United States in uppermost priority would see this, and give full throated support for our continued support for both Ukraine and Europe.
All others flat out betray us. It’s that straightforward.
@Kathy:
Precisely. If it’s Kompromat that’s guiding Trump’s decisions there would be hope he would find a way to defeat it and then seek vengeance for having his arm twisted. If Trump is a useful idiot that hope does not exist. Kompromat is not needed on useful idiots, it’s actually counterproductive.
@Rob1: I agree with the whole “Russia is weak”. They have pretty much spent everything they have to make gains before the US election, hoping for a Trump win and a favorable settlement.
They got the Trump win. They have spent most of the manpower reserves, and most of the ammunition stockpiles. Maybe they have gone through most of their tanks. Their best asset now is all those trenches they’ve dug.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
I still find myself pondering the inherent irony in Vance and Trump going after Zelenskyy like he was the unruly 7-year-old at the family dinner and they were the responsible adults.
There’s another image that just makes ME say EWWWWWWWW
@Rob1:
I get the impression the F-35s in Europe are few as yet, and may take years to replace existing stock.
What Europe does lack is long range strategic/heavy bombers like the B-2 or even the B-52. NI odea how useful they’d be for dee strikes against an opponent with good air defences.
@Gustopher:
The European problem is going to be when Trump announces that any European nation continuing to aid Ukraine is no longer going to be covered by NATO Article 5, as far as the US is concerned.
And quite possibly cutting off LNG shipments.
Also, ends US servicing of UK Trident missiles, etc.
I remember some years ago, saying that that the UK could rely on the US, therefore the cost of going for a separate European 5G fighter, and AA/ABM systems was not worth it.
What a fool I was.
Never again.
@Kathy:
We have no need for intercontinental range bombers.
(Well, apart from the possible need for a strike capability against the US.)
A modern iteration of the Vulcan/Victor type should suffice for Russian use-cases.
Combined with a longer range versions of the current cruise missiles: current European versions are about 500 miles range. A 1000 mile version should be achievable readily enough.
@Rob1:
The current Swedish version is the Gripen.
A useful short range fighter, but note “short”.
It lacks the range/warload and radar/networked sensors to be really effective.
Perhaps the best thing would be to copy the F-35, re-do the code, and tell Lockheed to eat it.
Until the current European 6G fighters can be built.
Those projects need to be combined and accelerated.
As in: build now, even if not finalised, work out the problems in version 2.
@Flat Earth Luddite:
I have a suspicion that if Vance had spoken to Zelensky in that fashion in private, he’d likely have ended up eating his teeth.
Trump actually said that he and Putin had been through a lot with the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax. That is how he thinks of Ukraine: as an accessory to his unfair treatment by the Deep State and the media. Zelenskyy wouldn’t even do him the simple favor he asked for, opening a criminal investigation into the Bidens. President Putin, on the other hand, has always shown appropriate respect to Mr Trump and tried to help him.
Then to cap it all off, Zelenskyy turned up at the White House dressed the same way he always dresses. Couldn’t even wear a suit and tie! Obviously a personal insult to Trump.
This is how Trump thinks and acts. The whole MAGA world has been reduced to a high school playground where Trump the class bully picks fights with anyone who has upset him. Which sooner or later is everybody.
@Ken_L:
This.
Trump hates Zelensky because he wouldn’t “do him a solid” re Biden.
The whole Trump rant on this makes it so obvious:
@JohnSF: Yep, Gripen. I was scratching to retrieve that name from the recesses. Yes , it is a shorter range fighter, but likely theaters of battle are very close. And it’s short takeoff capability allows for a distributed deployment that would aid in protection this asset.
And this was my early take. Trump and Vance set Zelenskyy up to achieve either public humiliation or a beat down deal on minerals.
@Rob1:
I’ve talked to RAF guys on this: Gripen was a useful thing for Sweden, in its day.
But in current war conditions?
Nope.
It’s radar/E-linkage is just not sufficient; nor its warload, or range, or “stealth”.
Typhoon or Rafale are far more adept; and also capable of short runway ops, if you reduce the load.
F-35 is even more capable; for a whole bunch of reasons.
Unfortunately, European planners decided to skip F-35 type 5G for the 6G projects.
Oops.
But 4G Typhoon/Rafale types should be sufficient to outmatch Russia.
We just need to re-open the production lines.
@JohnSF:
There’s this :
And the Gripen E model provides upgrades to its EW.
But as you point out, there may be better choices for Europe to focus on. That they have homegrown choices is my point. They would be smart to pursue them. Yesterday.