Maybe I misread your column, but it seems that Trump is simply reinstating spheres of influence. He wants to deal with Russia and China by letting them have what they want (Ukraine, maybe more, Taiwan, maybe more) in exchange for Greenland, Panama, etc. So he is not risking their expansion, he is encouraging it. And he isn't being a madman, he is trying to make a deal. Of course, it is both disgraceful and stupid, but that perhaps goes without saying.
There is one scenario you don't mention that is out there to explain what Trump is doing: he is going to pull off "Nixon goes to China" by bringing Russia on-side in a brilliant realpolitik move. In this scenario, he continues to work hard to deter China, using the new leverage of having released Russia from its quagmire in Ukraine so that it can help us contain China. There are many problems with this strategy, but if Trump is motivated by glory he could actually think he can pull this off. Would like to see you dissect this idea.
To say "there are many problems with this strategy" is the equivalent of saying that Lincoln's visit to Ford's Theater had a few hiccups. It's like asking me if I've considered what would happen if gravity ceased to exist. From a third-image perspective, there is zero chance Russia pivots back to the West no matter what Trump proffers, because the United States is now a far less trustworthy ally than China has been. From a first-image perspective, Putin and Xi appear to have established a genuine partnership, and I can't see Putin abandoning that for a U.S. president that is mercurial at best. This also assumes that China does nothing in response, and the China of 2025 is far more agile than the Brezhnev-era USSR.
Ramaswamy proposed the war end under these terms: They keep the Donbas, they exit their alliance with China, We keep Ukraine out of NATO. Is this a possible scenario?
Drezner already pointed out why Russia is not going to break with China.
The United States cannot end the war; that’s up to Russia and Ukraine. The United States has leverage--sanctions on Russia and aid to Ukraine--but so far that hasn’t ended the war.
Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity when it signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, so any promise made by Russia not to invade Ukraine in the future is meaningless. A deal where a reduced size Ukraine got NATO membership would be stable, but Ramaswamy rules that out. So Ramaswamy’s proposal, as you describe it, is for Ukraine to renounce its claim to Donbas in exchange for a ceasefire. It won’t end the war. Ukraine could use the pause in fighting to build up its military, but Russia will be doing the same, so I doubt Ukraine will go for it.
Guess I'm not seeing where Dr. Drezner says why Russia is not going to break with China. If it's in their interest (getting what they want with the Donbas, NATO, trade) why not? There's no love lost, as I understand it.
To say the US can't end the war is, respectfully, naive. Without our support there the war is over. If Europe was going to step up, they would have.
No, we can't trust Russia. But they are having a hard enough time holding the Donbas, and that's Russia-friendly. They could never conquer and hold the rest of Ukraine. Giving up the Donbas will indeed end the war. That's what they wanted. They took it, and they are never giving it back. They will never abandon the Russia-friendly population, a matter of national pride, even national survival.
I think the Ramaswamy scenario will happen. Either I'm right, or you are. We'll see.
The US is not upholding rules or offering a positive domestic example (or even pretending to). What is the US deterring now? We are a transactional superpower. Russia and China are transactional powers. The US is not in danger of invasion by a traditional nation state. US interests in the greater world are . . . getting mineral and beach access at discount rates? Maybe the US gets fleeced in deals, maybe not -- but can you argue that US power is a moral force above China or Russia?
Critics, whether political or entertainment or whatever...but critics are the worst of the worst. They bitch piss and moan and are incapable of providing any solutions. Mr. Drezner, you are the king of political criticism. Academics are very good at telling all what's wrong but cannot provide a solution. All their expertise is discovered in their cubical. Real life escapes them. Get a real job.
The war stops when Russia leaves. They have shown themselves to be a third rate military.
The fall of the Roman Empire took a long time, but one of the factors was corruption.
The rise of the Nazi party, a criminal enterprise that also rapidly destroyed the checks and balances of government, was expedited by the opposition failing to respond in kind.
Re: the murderous war of conquest started by Russia … If the US or UK were in the same situation as 🇺🇦, both would keep fighting.
Europe will, reluctantly, too slowly and painfully, step up and fully back Ukraine in their battle for survival.
The alternative is likely to be general conflagration across Europe.
It's not up to trump to continue the war. That is up to Putin. He can withdraw and spare his country more wasteful losses, or he can continue to bleed through the mouth, which he is going to do until his forces withdraw, regardless of what trump does. But it would have been nice for America to remain on the right side of history. What can you expect from a rapist, fraud and convicted felon? Put a criminal in charge, don't be surprised by criminal behavior, like making nice with the worst war criminal of the century.
"regardless of what Trump does" I don't think so. We withdraw support, this thing is over. They get the Donbas, and everyone goes home.
It's time for negotiation, and Russian concessions. A demilitarized or UN-policed Donbas. We promise not to expand NATO. They break with China. This is realistic and doable.
BTW, are you unable to engage without going off? Your head's like a popcorn machine.
First of all, I don't care if he's an "expert". That doesn't make him any more or less right. Classic appeal to authority fallacy. Second, this article doesn't address any of my points. It's about money. Thanks for nothing.
The deterrence now is “what do you have on Trump” or how much you’ll pay him.
Other than that he doesn’t want to be bothered.
Xi could give him some shiny beads to invade Taiwan or - and Trump would turn his back on Taiwan, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, maybe even Hawaii.
The fact that most of the Western Democracies in Europe would destroy the Russian Army is the deterrent there.
Russia’s awful military performance in Ukraine has been a real eye opener.
It is for Americans to undo what they have done by appointing a criminal fraudster to the office of POTUS.
If one side fails to abide by the rule of law - it is an interesting choice for those that oppose a dictatorship to limit their options 🤷♂️🚨
Maybe I misread your column, but it seems that Trump is simply reinstating spheres of influence. He wants to deal with Russia and China by letting them have what they want (Ukraine, maybe more, Taiwan, maybe more) in exchange for Greenland, Panama, etc. So he is not risking their expansion, he is encouraging it. And he isn't being a madman, he is trying to make a deal. Of course, it is both disgraceful and stupid, but that perhaps goes without saying.
There is one scenario you don't mention that is out there to explain what Trump is doing: he is going to pull off "Nixon goes to China" by bringing Russia on-side in a brilliant realpolitik move. In this scenario, he continues to work hard to deter China, using the new leverage of having released Russia from its quagmire in Ukraine so that it can help us contain China. There are many problems with this strategy, but if Trump is motivated by glory he could actually think he can pull this off. Would like to see you dissect this idea.
To say "there are many problems with this strategy" is the equivalent of saying that Lincoln's visit to Ford's Theater had a few hiccups. It's like asking me if I've considered what would happen if gravity ceased to exist. From a third-image perspective, there is zero chance Russia pivots back to the West no matter what Trump proffers, because the United States is now a far less trustworthy ally than China has been. From a first-image perspective, Putin and Xi appear to have established a genuine partnership, and I can't see Putin abandoning that for a U.S. president that is mercurial at best. This also assumes that China does nothing in response, and the China of 2025 is far more agile than the Brezhnev-era USSR.
Ramaswamy proposed the war end under these terms: They keep the Donbas, they exit their alliance with China, We keep Ukraine out of NATO. Is this a possible scenario?
Drezner already pointed out why Russia is not going to break with China.
The United States cannot end the war; that’s up to Russia and Ukraine. The United States has leverage--sanctions on Russia and aid to Ukraine--but so far that hasn’t ended the war.
Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity when it signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, so any promise made by Russia not to invade Ukraine in the future is meaningless. A deal where a reduced size Ukraine got NATO membership would be stable, but Ramaswamy rules that out. So Ramaswamy’s proposal, as you describe it, is for Ukraine to renounce its claim to Donbas in exchange for a ceasefire. It won’t end the war. Ukraine could use the pause in fighting to build up its military, but Russia will be doing the same, so I doubt Ukraine will go for it.
Guess I'm not seeing where Dr. Drezner says why Russia is not going to break with China. If it's in their interest (getting what they want with the Donbas, NATO, trade) why not? There's no love lost, as I understand it.
To say the US can't end the war is, respectfully, naive. Without our support there the war is over. If Europe was going to step up, they would have.
No, we can't trust Russia. But they are having a hard enough time holding the Donbas, and that's Russia-friendly. They could never conquer and hold the rest of Ukraine. Giving up the Donbas will indeed end the war. That's what they wanted. They took it, and they are never giving it back. They will never abandon the Russia-friendly population, a matter of national pride, even national survival.
I think the Ramaswamy scenario will happen. Either I'm right, or you are. We'll see.
Sorry, but those ideas are absurd. Do you really trust anything Putin would say?
The US is not upholding rules or offering a positive domestic example (or even pretending to). What is the US deterring now? We are a transactional superpower. Russia and China are transactional powers. The US is not in danger of invasion by a traditional nation state. US interests in the greater world are . . . getting mineral and beach access at discount rates? Maybe the US gets fleeced in deals, maybe not -- but can you argue that US power is a moral force above China or Russia?
But they (P&X) may encourage T further to ensure A's strategic implosion.
Critics, whether political or entertainment or whatever...but critics are the worst of the worst. They bitch piss and moan and are incapable of providing any solutions. Mr. Drezner, you are the king of political criticism. Academics are very good at telling all what's wrong but cannot provide a solution. All their expertise is discovered in their cubical. Real life escapes them. Get a real job.
A lot of people say Trump's doing the wrong thing in The Ukraine. But what should he do?
The war stops when Russia leaves. They have shown themselves to be a third rate military.
The fall of the Roman Empire took a long time, but one of the factors was corruption.
The rise of the Nazi party, a criminal enterprise that also rapidly destroyed the checks and balances of government, was expedited by the opposition failing to respond in kind.
Re: the murderous war of conquest started by Russia … If the US or UK were in the same situation as 🇺🇦, both would keep fighting.
Europe will, reluctantly, too slowly and painfully, step up and fully back Ukraine in their battle for survival.
The alternative is likely to be general conflagration across Europe.
So Trump should continue the war. Got it.
It's not up to trump to continue the war. That is up to Putin. He can withdraw and spare his country more wasteful losses, or he can continue to bleed through the mouth, which he is going to do until his forces withdraw, regardless of what trump does. But it would have been nice for America to remain on the right side of history. What can you expect from a rapist, fraud and convicted felon? Put a criminal in charge, don't be surprised by criminal behavior, like making nice with the worst war criminal of the century.
"regardless of what Trump does" I don't think so. We withdraw support, this thing is over. They get the Donbas, and everyone goes home.
It's time for negotiation, and Russian concessions. A demilitarized or UN-policed Donbas. We promise not to expand NATO. They break with China. This is realistic and doable.
BTW, are you unable to engage without going off? Your head's like a popcorn machine.
Please educate yourself on the situation by reading an expert historian on Russia and Ukraine.
https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/recoup-the-costs?r=rgdr7&utm_medium=ios
First of all, I don't care if he's an "expert". That doesn't make him any more or less right. Classic appeal to authority fallacy. Second, this article doesn't address any of my points. It's about money. Thanks for nothing.
… and there was me thinking we were having a sensible conversation 🙄🤦🏻♂️
You should have known better. Now you've paid the troll, I mean toll.....
You either continue or stop. Was there a third way I missed?
1. Not blame the persecuted for their persecution.
2. Stop trying to rape a country at war
3. Bottom line - if Trump had an ounce of integrity - he’d have served his country during the Vietnam war.
4. Can’t put in writing what he should do, for fear of being banned from this platform.
I agree. He should stop. But stopping these doesn't end the war. What is the next step?
All ConOLD has to do is further strengthen Ukraine while weakening Russia.