Such niceties as geopolitical diplomatic messaging elude him, being from a world where nothing matters other than getting the thing built and stiffing the contractors. So when Trump invited a man who was shunned by the rest of the free world, the democratic world as an invading pariah to come to the United States, which he occasionally misunderstood to still be Russia, it likely didn’t register that he gave away a key sanction for nothing.
Vladimir Putin, invading war criminal, was coming to the United States at the invitation of the President. Putin was being welcomed back into international society, embraced by that society’s matron. The red carpet will be rolled out for him. Hands will be shaken, not stirred. There will camaraderie with the comrade. Comrades.
According to President Trump, at least for a brief period yesterday afternoon, his purpose is to see what’s on Vlad’s mind.
President Trump set the lowest possible bar for his meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday, declaring that “probably in the first two minutes I’ll know exactly whether or not a deal can get done,” and insisting he was ready to walk away from the talks and let the two sides continue to fight it out.
It’s not that Trump has an excessive grasp of his own intuitive powers, but two minutes is about as long as Trump can stay on topic, if that. But then, having already welcomed Putin back into the international fold in the hope that Putin will finally stop treating Trump like an easily manipulated child, it’s not as if Putin has not already made clear his gambit. Turn over regions of another sovereign nation and Putin swears he won’t invade again. For now.
In describing the meeting, Mr. Trump told reporters that “I’m going to Russia on Friday,” and repeated a version of the same statement several minutes later. In fact, the meeting is set to take place in Alaska, which has not been part of Russia since 1867, when it was sold to the United States for $7.2 million.
Is Trump giving Alaska back too? Maybe he just forgot. Maybe he just got confused. He has so very much on his mind, you know. But at least Trump will have the opportunity to be the peacemaker he wants people to believe he is. Nobel Prize-worthy.
It was only a few weeks ago that he flipped on blaming Zelenskyy from being responsible for Putin invading his country. It was only a week ago that he shifted to blaming Putin, who he once swore wanted peace to not wanting peace and being subject to sanctions any day now, the day being pushed back again and again, with no sanctions forthcoming. It was only a week ago that Trump flip-flopped again, back to giving Putin a warm hug and castigating Zelenskyy. Trump knows how to end the war. Surrender.
And then Zelenskyy proves his recalcitrance by not merely refusing to give away regions of his nation to a foreign invader, but by raising the unthinkable. His Constitution.
In a rambling news conference, Mr. Trump reiterated that he planned to negotiate what he called “land swaps” and batted away the statements over the weekend by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, that his country’s Constitution prohibited him from giving away land to an invader.
Trump complained how Zelenskyy’s retort bothered him, given how Zelenskyy went to war without getting constitutional approval, just because his country got invaded. It’s not as if such petty hurdles like a Constitution ever stopped Trump from doing what he wanted to do.
But most importantly, this summit in Russia Alaska will take place only between Trump and Putin, because it’s not as if Zelenskyy or the Ukrainian people have any say in what will happen with Ukraine. After all, if the United States gives money or arms to Ukraine, it doesn’t do so as an ally or in support of democracy, but in exchange for control. It’s just another transaction, if one is inclined to believe everything is a transaction and there are no principles worthy of support.
Is this summit a good idea, or has Trump, yet again, allowed himself to be played as a fool on the world stage? Does Trump have the power to give away the territory of another sovereign nation against their will at the risk of losing the support needed to survive? Will Alaska remain part of the United States or will Trump give it back to Russia if Putin rubs his tummy?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Seems like Putin is just trying to buying more time by pretending to be interested in negotiating. And clearly it id working as Trump again pushed off sanctions. The unknown is whether Trump would have bothered to impose sanctions, and, if so, whether he would have done it in a meaningful way that would materially affect Russia or whether they would be all bark and no bite.
Trump is extemporaneous in extremis. He’ll say anything — throw out a million pieces of bait — to see what bites he gets. One problem with this — before long you run out of bait, and all you’ve got left is blabber.
That title. Really says it all.
I’m just hoping that Trump’s “land swap” doesn’t somehow result in giving Alaska back…
Scott, what would you suggest? How would you try to stop the killing without talking to Putin? I hear a lot of criticizing, but no constructive suggestions.
If you would not engage in attempts to communicate, is your notion that we allow another 1 million Ukrainians and Russians to die while we pursue sanctions, which history shows are close to feckless? And if we did that, would you stop criticizing actual efforts to enforce sanctions, like, for example, trying to use economic power to get India from being the chief avoidance mechanism for existing oil sanctions, or is that also terrible because Trump is trying to do it?
If you agree that refusing to communicate with the pariah is not a productive policy (as we’ve seen for 3 years now), why does it matter where the meeting occurs? Why do you buy into the idea that meeting in Alaska is deferential to Putin rather than forcing a symbolic concession from him, not to mention something both sides could agree on?
Why does your discussion ignore the fact that the Europeans, who are much more invested in putting an end to Russian expansion, are in favor of this meeting as a possible productive step?
With respect, it just seems to me that you are so focused nowadays on all the reasons Trump is a terrible person and President that you are forsaking a more thoughtful constructive discussion of a difficult issue in favor of using this as just another vehicle for bashing Trump, which seems out of sync with the historical Scott Greenfield way of addressing problems.
You don’t see a problem with the president inviting Putin to our country (giving him shelter from his war crimes warrant) just to “see what’s on his mind” in a half-baked attempt to negotiate peace with a partner state who is not present? …The day after the VP foreclosed future financial or military assistance to Ukraine? Is there a weaker position our country could have possibly taken? No, nothing to criticize about such a thoughtful plan for peace.
Putin is in the position of power here. He holds territory and has no reason to give it back. The only means of ejecting him would be vast sums of blood and treasure, neither of which Ukraine has much.
That’s it. Period. There is no negotiation that removes Russia. He is sanction proof.
So, then what. Don’t just navel gaze. Do we reach an odious peace settlement with an odious dictator? Or do we continue the bloodshed and expense?
There’s no nice answer here, and not answering is a clear vote for the status quo.
I hate to break it to you, but if the United States provided its full support behind Ukraine, a democracy, ally and the victim of Putin’s invasion, Putin would be in an untenable position. Three years in and Putin can’t beat a little country next door. What a massive failure for Russia, and that’s without real US support and what little support we’ve provided coming with strings attached that prevent Ukraine from fighting back.
There is no nice answer here, but the worst answer is to capitulate to the invader so that there is nothing to stop him from invading again and invading others and taking more and more territory from weaklings and fools like you. You don’t reward terrorist invaders by giving them what they want unless you want more and more terrorism and invasion.
And we are not powerless here either. Russia is sanction proof? Interest rates in Russia are hovering around 21%, oil and gas earnings are estimated down another 24-27% this year, ~$300 billion frozen with around 70% of assets in their banking system under sanction. Military expenditure is over 30% of their budget, manufacturing is taking huge hits in nearly every sector, and their commercial aviation industry is in shambles and continuing to deteriorate. To top it off, even without US aid, Russia isn’t making breakthroughs – they are stuck in an unsustainable position. They need out of this war almost as much as Ukraine does and we never even pushed hard when we still did have our fingers on the scale.
The proposed US plan is a heaping pile of shit and you know it is. The US recognizes all of Russia’s gains, Ukraine gives up 50% of mineral, oil, and gas rights, we make no security guarantees whatsoever, NATO comes off the table, and all Ukraine gets is frozen front-lines which haven’t significantly moved in years.
And Ukraine is supposed to just take this when the last time they froze their front-lines, Russia just invaded again 8 years later?
For starters, how about not inviting Putin to stand on US soil and meet in Qatar or UAE without the president until Ukraine is at the table? How about not taking all US aid off the table the day before announcing the meeting? How about providing real NATO-backed security guarantees to ensure the ceasefire lasts if the Ukrainians are forced to live without their occupied land? And why should we agree to recognize the land Russia stole through invasion at all?
I’m no diplomat, but US capitulation here doesn’t seem to be setting a very good precedent for our friends, for Russia, and for China. We may conveniently forget about the Stimson Doctrine when it’s our allies doing the invasion or when we benefit, but why should we break it now for an enemy and directly against our interests for the first time? We never even recognized Soviet incorporation of the Baltics for the entirety of their existence as Soviet states – so why now for Russia against our friends?
Who is allowing Ukrainians and Russians to die? If you don’t land on Putin, I don’t know what else there is to say. It isn’t Zelenskyy, not Trump, not European leaders. Putin alone.
“We do not negotiate with terrorists” used to be a principle to be upheld. Doing so with an invader likewise legitimizes the invasion and encourages further expansion. Appeasing a leader of nation who set on territorial acquisition by force is a foolish endeavor, if history indeed teaches.
That we should be doing more to support the invaded country in its righteous struggle is the primary dig at Putin’s buddy, Trump, at least in this particular context. Open the tap wide and let the weapons and material flow and then negotiations led by Ukraine can occur from a position of relative strength.
Scott, I’ll tell you the same thing I told people who freaked out that Obama would dare hold talks with Iran: it’s the nature of war and diplomacy that one makes peace with one’s enemies, not with one’s friends.
Often such talks come to naught. Sometimes they result in bad deals. But we shouldn’t criticize them solely on the basis that they invite our enemies to the table, and that our enemies are bad people.
It’s disappointing to me that someone who is able to competently navigate the legal system (and has won high-profile cases) and therefore cannot be an idiot, is spouting idiotic NYT talking points. It just goes to show the power of propaganda. I take little comfort from the fact that the NYT (along with the rest of the dinosaur media) is dying. The “alternative” media that is replacing it is just as bad if not worse; the only difference is that the propaganda methods it employs are more sophisticated.
The following is USA Today quoting Trump speaking recently, “But when I look at Chicago and I look at LA, if we didn’t go to LA three months ago, LA would be burning like the part that didn’t burn. If you would’ve allowed the water to come down, which I told them about in my first term, I said, ‘You’re going to have problems, let it come down’. We actually sent in our military to have the water come down into LA. They still didn’t want it to come down after the fires. But that was it, we have it coming down. But hopefully LA is watching. That mayor also, the city is burning, they lost like 25,000 homes. I went there the day after the fire, you were there, and I saw people standing in front of a burned-down home. Their homes were incinerated, they weren’t like, even the steel, literally it was all warped, literally disintegrated because of the winds and the flames like a blow torch. They were standing on this beautiful day, maybe a couple of days after, we gave it a little time because of what they had suffered. Almost 25,000 homes. And you see what’s happening now, they didn’t give their permits. I went to a town hall meeting I said we’re going to get you the federal permit, which are much harder.”
Do we really want this guy negotiating with Putin?!?
Now you’re just trolling to see which of the idiots will take the bait. And they have, as you knew they would, revealing themselves as simpletons who either have no grasp of reality or just too stupid to care. Very tricky, SHG.
And that is called paying the Dane geld and we’ve proved it again and again. No matter how trifling the cost.The end of that game is oppression and shame and the nation that plays it is lost.