Sorry - have to disagree. The problem started when Z decided to lecture Trump. A real diplomat does not insult the host, especially in front of TV cameras. Trump was in a "we're still negotiating" neutral but slightly positive tone, when Z started to negotiate. Yes Z has been an admirable and charismatic leader, but he should have known better than try to put Trump in a corner in front of the cameras. Your climate/energy stuff is good, but your TDS shows through here.
The war ends in one of four ways: Ukraine wins. Russia wins. Negotiated settlement. WWIII - everyone loses. Russia wins by conquering and demilitarizing annexing Ukraine. That is off the table - Russia can't do that. WWIII is also off the table, but still a risk. So, we have: Ukraine wins. Negotiated settlement.
Ukraine wins - how does this happen? Ukraine beats Russia (3X the size) in a war of attrition (which is what is happening). It punishes Russia to such an extent they would never consider invading Ukraine again. Ideally, there is no more Russia - it breaks up into a number of smaller and weaker countries. This solution carries with it a LOT of risk. An alternate pathway is Ukraine joins NATO and NATO (mostly American) force Russia out. Again, huge risks.
Negotiated settlement - we say some nice things about Putin to get him to the negotiating table and start talking. Likely give them Luhansk and Donestk provinces (which were always very Russian) and a neutral Crimea, in exchange for the return of Zaporozhe and Kherson. The U.S. arms Ukraine to the teeth, and Europe backstops Ukraine militarily. Russia may invade again.
Zelensky wants to win, the U.S. wants a negotiated settlement. That is the difference of opinion. But Ukraine CAN'T win without U.S. support. So, we have a de facto veto on the Ukraine wins scenario by the U.S.
I found fault mostly with Zelensky. Sorry - he was the supplicant in the scenario. He had multiple opportunities to shut down the disagreement, yet he kept going. My general view is he blew up the negotiations on purpose. The minerals deal was a backdoor security guarantee from the U.S. that Ukraine had proposed. It was the first step toward a negotiated settlement. Trump went along reluctantly (although in typical Trumpian fashion he made a big deal out of it). The mineral deal is worthless. Ukraine has no minerals worth exploiting. Ukraine put off signing the agreement twice and insisted on signing it in front of the cameras with Trump in Washington.
People in Ukraine want a negotiated settlement, Zelensky does not. The minerals deal was a negotiated settlement. Zelensky blew it up, to close off that option.
There is an old saying I'd modify - Europe will fight Russia to the last Ukranian soldier, and the last American dollar. So will Zelensky.
There is no reason, on paper, why Europe should be able to support Ukraine alone. On paper. In reality they are nowhere close to being able to do 1/10th of what the U.S. has done. There is a lot of posturing on this point, but the U.S. is the only thing that has allowed Ukraine to fight to a stalemate, not Europe. Trump is right - they'd have been overrun without the weapons supplied to them during the first Trump administration. People suggesting otherwise don't understand the nature of this war. Hence, Trump, right or wrong, feels like the U.S. should get a say in how the war ends. Ukraine, by the way, has a special psychological hangup about this idea - they have been chopped up by foreign powers many times in their history, and see a negotiated settlement as one more time they get the chop.
Anyhow, I've been to Ukraine, have friends there, and many Ukranian relatives. Even in Ukraine there are some huge divides on negotiation and victory. I, honestly, don't know what the best answer is. But I'm willing to admit both answers contain a lot of risk and reward.
There is a lot more going on here than most people understand.
Sorry - have to disagree. The problem started when Z decided to lecture Trump. A real diplomat does not insult the host, especially in front of TV cameras. Trump was in a "we're still negotiating" neutral but slightly positive tone, when Z started to negotiate. Yes Z has been an admirable and charismatic leader, but he should have known better than try to put Trump in a corner in front of the cameras. Your climate/energy stuff is good, but your TDS shows through here.
The war ends in one of four ways: Ukraine wins. Russia wins. Negotiated settlement. WWIII - everyone loses. Russia wins by conquering and demilitarizing annexing Ukraine. That is off the table - Russia can't do that. WWIII is also off the table, but still a risk. So, we have: Ukraine wins. Negotiated settlement.
Ukraine wins - how does this happen? Ukraine beats Russia (3X the size) in a war of attrition (which is what is happening). It punishes Russia to such an extent they would never consider invading Ukraine again. Ideally, there is no more Russia - it breaks up into a number of smaller and weaker countries. This solution carries with it a LOT of risk. An alternate pathway is Ukraine joins NATO and NATO (mostly American) force Russia out. Again, huge risks.
Negotiated settlement - we say some nice things about Putin to get him to the negotiating table and start talking. Likely give them Luhansk and Donestk provinces (which were always very Russian) and a neutral Crimea, in exchange for the return of Zaporozhe and Kherson. The U.S. arms Ukraine to the teeth, and Europe backstops Ukraine militarily. Russia may invade again.
Zelensky wants to win, the U.S. wants a negotiated settlement. That is the difference of opinion. But Ukraine CAN'T win without U.S. support. So, we have a de facto veto on the Ukraine wins scenario by the U.S.
I found fault mostly with Zelensky. Sorry - he was the supplicant in the scenario. He had multiple opportunities to shut down the disagreement, yet he kept going. My general view is he blew up the negotiations on purpose. The minerals deal was a backdoor security guarantee from the U.S. that Ukraine had proposed. It was the first step toward a negotiated settlement. Trump went along reluctantly (although in typical Trumpian fashion he made a big deal out of it). The mineral deal is worthless. Ukraine has no minerals worth exploiting. Ukraine put off signing the agreement twice and insisted on signing it in front of the cameras with Trump in Washington.
People in Ukraine want a negotiated settlement, Zelensky does not. The minerals deal was a negotiated settlement. Zelensky blew it up, to close off that option.
There is an old saying I'd modify - Europe will fight Russia to the last Ukranian soldier, and the last American dollar. So will Zelensky.
There is no reason, on paper, why Europe should be able to support Ukraine alone. On paper. In reality they are nowhere close to being able to do 1/10th of what the U.S. has done. There is a lot of posturing on this point, but the U.S. is the only thing that has allowed Ukraine to fight to a stalemate, not Europe. Trump is right - they'd have been overrun without the weapons supplied to them during the first Trump administration. People suggesting otherwise don't understand the nature of this war. Hence, Trump, right or wrong, feels like the U.S. should get a say in how the war ends. Ukraine, by the way, has a special psychological hangup about this idea - they have been chopped up by foreign powers many times in their history, and see a negotiated settlement as one more time they get the chop.
Anyhow, I've been to Ukraine, have friends there, and many Ukranian relatives. Even in Ukraine there are some huge divides on negotiation and victory. I, honestly, don't know what the best answer is. But I'm willing to admit both answers contain a lot of risk and reward.
There is a lot more going on here than most people understand.