Posted on 08/13/2025 12:40:15 PM PDT by karpov
...
In 2022, after eight years of intermittent fighting in Ukraine’s east, Russia initiated a full-scale invasion, with the aim of reducing a rump Ukraine to a satrapy. Putin has given no indication of renouncing that ambition or of abandoning his broader goal of restoring Moscow’s sway over much of the former Soviet or tsarist empires, including the Baltic states and other nations to Russia’s west.
Any “deal” between Trump and Putin (and the U.S. president, who has more recently referred to a “feel-out” meeting, is clearly downgrading expectations) will, given the Kremlin’s longer-term objectives, never be enough. The best that can be hoped for is an armistice with an underpinning firm enough to deter Russia from resuming its war when it is ready. That will mean reiterating Western support for Ukraine and stipulating that the U.S. will participate in that effort, even as Western Europe assumes — as it must — a greater share of responsibility for helping Ukraine out.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO and does not enjoy the benefit of any NATO guarantee, but simply abandoning Kyiv to its fate would not only reward Russian aggression (which would not go unnoticed in Beijing) but would also destabilize the Atlantic Alliance. Some NATO members, aware that Moscow’s ambitions do not end with Ukraine, would begin to wonder whether it was time to make nice with the Moscow-Beijing axis. Some already are. The president has been right to insist that NATO’s free riders should pay up (and his pressure is already yielding results), but he should also restate the U.S. commitment to NATO, an alliance that has served this country very well, in unambiguous terms.
Ukraine is not going to join NATO in the foreseeable future, and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Nevertheless, handing Russia a veto over Ukrainian membership of NATO is unacceptable. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, with the right — however theoretical — to make the alliances it wishes. Ukraine’s Western partners must also be free to continue to supply it with weaponry — a disarmed Ukraine is a doomed Ukraine — and to work toward Ukrainian membership in the EU.
The president has floated the possibility of some land swaps. These, if they were to occur, would probably amount to little more than some tidying up around the front line. It is no coincidence that the Russians have lately stepped up their progress in the Donbas, with some success. When it comes to the fine print of any deal, possession will be nine-tenths of the “law.”
Some local horse-trading apart, the U.S. should reject any attempt by Russia to extend its gains. Nor, in the absence of Ukraine’s agreement, should it extend de jure recognition to any of the territorial gains made by Russia at Ukraine’s expense. The U.S. refused to recognize the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states for half a century. If necessary, that is the precedent to follow. For its part, Ukraine must, however reluctantly and unfairly, accept that the existing front line will, absent fresh hostilities, be the de facto border with Russia. The armistice that ended the Korean War was signed in 1953. If any Russo-Ukrainian armistice lasts as long, Ukraine will flourish.
Some other provisions, such as prisoner exchanges and the return of stolen Ukrainian children, ought to be fairly straightforward. Further incentives for Russia to agree to a deal should involve a gradual lifting of some sanctions in exchange for good behavior, perhaps starting with secondary sanctions, especially those on India, which may even be counterproductive anyway. But any relaxation of sanctions, or tentative steps toward some kind of thaw, should be cautious and unillusioned: Russia’s long-term goals will not change.
Finally, the president needs to remember three things. The first, as he must surely know by now, is that Putin’s word is worth very little. The second is that if he comes to an understanding with Putin on terms that would not realistically or reasonably be acceptable to Ukraine, and which Ukraine then rejects, he will have fallen into Putin’s trap. The Kremlin would then portray Kyiv as warmongers, unworthy of U.S. support. The third comes from The Art of the Deal: “Know when to walk away from the table.”
Who are these “editors” and why do we care what they think is acceptable?
Public editorial masturbation is unbecoming of The National Review.
Maybe we can get them to throw Hunter Biden’s old job back in on a deal.
That will mean reiterating Western support for Ukraine and stipulating that the U.S. will participate in that effort, even as Western Europe assumes — as it must — a greater share of responsibility for helping Ukraine out.What part of 'no' don't these people understand?! Hegseth, Vance and Trump have all said 'no' but NATO's plans require the US to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, so that when NATO/Ukraine stage a false flag or provoke Putin, the US HAS TO FIGHT RUSSIA. No. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. When will they accept reality?
“ Who are these “editors” and why do we care what they think is acceptable?”
“ In 2022, after eight years of intermittent fighting in Ukraine’s east, Russia initiated a full-scale invasion, with the aim of reducing a rump Ukraine to a satrapy”
That has George Will’s name written all over it.
any peace deal between Ukraine and Russia would have to include the removal of Zelensky and his band of Obama/Hillary installed mob bosses ( remember not to fire the prosecutor this time if you want peace )
Judson Berger
Judson Berger is the managing editor of National Review Online.
Mark Antonio Wright
Mark Antonio Wright is the executive editor of National Review.
Luther Ray Abel
Luther Ray Abel is the Nights & Weekends Editor for National Review. A veteran of the U.S. Navy, Luther is a proud native of Sheboygan, Wis.
Robert VerBruggen
Robert VerBruggen is a contributing editor for National Review and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Philip Klein
Philip Klein is the editor of National Review Online.
David Pryce-Jones is a British author and commentator and a senior editor of National Review.
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Rich Lowry
Rich Lowry is the editor in chief of National Review.
Richard Brookhiser
Historian Richard Brookhiser is a senior editor of National Review and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.
Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.
Ross Douthat
Ross Douthat is a National Review contributing editor.
Charles C. W. Cooke
Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.
Shannen W. Coffin
Shannen W. Coffin, a contributing editor to National Review, practices appellate law in Washington, D.C.
Jack Butler
Jack Butler is submissions editor at National Review Online, a 2023–2024 Leonine Fellow, and a 2022–2023 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow at the Fund for American Studies.
Who are you, and why should anyone care what you think either?
Everyone has opinions. Whether those opinions have any value is dependent upon what they say, and what arguments they make, not whose opinion it is.
Never Trumpers at the National Review have no credibility.
The National Review is as conservative as Obama. Remember this?
Barack Obama, conservative Washington Post, 22 November 2019The whole game of the non-US NATO types is to corral President Trump into promising that "policing." And this nation paying the lion's share for it.
Ukraine declares itself neutral re organizes its armed forces along Swiss military lines & arms itself to the teeth
Ukraine declares itself neutral re organizes its armed forces along Swiss military lines & arms itself to the teeth
Yes. Our voices will be silenced and our opinions crushed sooner or later.
“In 2022, after eight years of intermittent fighting in Ukraine’s east, Russia initiated a full-scale invasion, with the aim of reducing a rump Ukraine to a satrapy”
Well, since Russia never mobilized or launched a “ full scale invasion” of Ukraine, no need to read beyond the first sentence about what these geniuses think the Russians are going to do.
But hey I Iearned a new scrabble word…satrapy!
Opinions are like National ReSpew editors - everyone has one.
They start off with a bad premise and run with it. Ukraine is losing the war. Like every other country that doesn’t want to be completely beaten, you make a deal and manage the loss as best you can.
Trying to dictate the terms when you got nothing to bargain with is stupid and expecting other countries to continue to fund your losing war on their dime is also stupid.
People pushing the idea that Ukraine can win if we just give them billions more in aid won’t be happy till all of the west is broke and all the Ukrainians are dead.
Stopping the war with some land lost is better than continuing to let your people, mostly men get killed off.
Paraguay had a meglomanic leader who continued to fight on in the War of the Triple Alliance convinced he could win also. 90% of all the men in the country died. Is this what Zelensky wants? Is this what the warpigs, neo-cons, and other uke supporters want?
Without other countries troops, this is what they can expect if they continue a war of attrition. Russia has too many more people than Ukraine. This is a fact that they seem to ignore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.