There’s no official word but I remain optimistic for a deal.
Please consider the WSJ article Ukraine Holds a Weak Hand by Walter Russell Mead.
It is in the wake of a disastrous meeting in which Trump expected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to sign a deal with Ukraine over mineral rights. In return, Trump would hammer out a peace deal with Putin.
Instead of a glorious signing, the meeting blew up when Zelensky pressured Trump for troops on the ground to preserve peace.
Mead writes …
Mr. Trump went into the meeting with the hope that he had found a path forward. He believes that Moscow is ready to accept a compromise peace that leaves Ukraine smaller, weakened and out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but still viable as a country. He thinks that the minerals deal, which Mr. Zelensky’s White House visit was to celebrate, offers him a way to satisfy key constituencies while bringing the war to an end. The minerals deal can be packaged as an “America first” win for the MAGA crowd, and it differentiates the Trump Ukraine policy from Joe Biden’s feckless approach.
MAGA happy, Ukraine rescued, normal relations with Moscow restored as a first step in pulling Russia and China apart, and the outside chance of a Nobel Peace Prize—for Mr. Trump, this looks like a winner all around.
Kyiv understandably wants more. Burned by the failure of the Budapest Memorandum to offer protection when Russia invaded in 2014, and burned again when the West’s response to the February 2022 attack proved insufficient, Kyiv wants Article 5-style security guarantees enshrined in treaties, ideally as part of NATO membership. It wants American and other NATO boots on the ground. It refuses to accept permanent cessions of territory to Russia as part of a final peace agreement.
Ukraine’s concerns are well founded, but with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, most of Kyiv’s goals are unobtainable. Mr. Zelensky knows he must choose whether to work within the framework the Americans have offered him or to fight on with diminished and perhaps vanishing American assistance, relying on European economic and military aid together with the fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people to force Russia to agree to better terms. With European leaders urging him to consider a one-month cease-fire, the prospects for meaningful as opposed to theatrical European support seem slim.
After the Oval Office meltdown, the question for Mr. Zelensky is simple: Is Ukraine better off accepting the Trump framework and trying to push for more favorable terms inside the process, or is it better off rejecting the framework up front in hopes of forcing Mr. Trump to offer something more appealing?
Like many Americans, your Global View columnist regrets the failure of successive U.S. presidents to offer more support for Ukraine over the years. But given Mr. Trump’s oft-repeated views, Mr. Zelensky would be wise to accept the minerals agreement and to let negotiations proceed. Sadly, no better offers are coming his way.
Almost
This isn’t a case of weak hand, it’s a case of no cards at all.
I can overlook that, but Mead ruins a brilliant essay with mush about militarily supporting Ukraine.
And like the Journal editorial board, Mead fails to address the West’s repeatedly broken responses about NATO moving east.
Mead’s conclusion is sensible “Sadly, no better offers are coming his way.” Some may wish to remove the word sadly.
History Lesson for the WSJ
Flashback March 12, 2014: McCain Heads to Ukraine with Seven Other Senators; Let’s Hope They All Stay; Ugly is Beautiful
Here’s the question of the day: What can senators John McCain (R-Az), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) do for Ukraine?
The answer of course is simple: Nothing.
So, why is that group of eight senators wasting money going there? The only possible answer is some combination of arrogance, political foolishness, and support for warmongering.
How Ugly Can it Get?
Inquiring minds just may be wondering “How ugly can this get?”
That’s a good question. I bring it up because Secretary of State John Kerry stated “[This] can get ugly fast if the wrong choices are made, and it can get ugly in multiple directions“.
Mercy! John Kerry made an accurate statement. I suspect however, we do not see eye-to-eye regarding “wrong choices”
History Lesson Part II
Flashback February 24, 2022 What’s the Real Background Story Behind Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine?
What Happened in Ukraine?
The mess today in Ukraine has its roots in the 2014 when democratically elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych was toppled in a US-backed coup.
Sen. John McCain (R‑AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right-wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.
Q: Why did the US want to get rid of Yanukovych?
A: Because he was against Ukraine joining NATO.
The current comedian president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, repeated two days ago his desire to join NATO. I use the term comedian because he literally is a comedian who ran for office and won.
McCain dined with Svoboda Party leader Oleg Tyagnibok. The Svoboda Party is a group of neo-Nazis.
The citizens of Ukraine were used as pawns in yet another US mission that backfired.
And that’s the rest of the story US media will not discuss.
This no way absolves Putin, but US meddling backfires again, and again, and again.
History Lesson Part III
February 12, 2025: Trump Will Talk with Putin on a Peace Deal, No NATO for Ukraine
By applying pressure on both sides, I expect Trump will succeed on a good deal.
The WSJ and Europe were shocked that Trump and vice-president J.D. Vance took NATO off the table.
However, it was Ukraine’s crossing Russia’s red line on NATO that started the war. The US and Ukraine both understood Russia’s red line.
When Trump says Zelensky started the war, that is what he meant.
To repeat, that does not excuse Russia. However, war was the expected result once Zelensky foolishly insisted Ukraine should join NATO.
The WSJ editorial board has been a disaster from the beginning on Ukraine. In contrast, I believe I got things right.
Drivel Over Yanukovych
In response to the above I received pushback drivel and denial that the US had a hand in the toppling of Yanukovych.
It’s moot. The unquestionable fact is Zelensky pledged to join the EU and NATO. Then Putin invaded.
So, who’s fault is the war?
Sensible people, there aren’t many, see this as little different than President Kennedy demand Russia not put missiles in Cuba.
Zelensky flagrantly violated a Putin red line with consequences. Then he demanded more protection from Trump, so the meeting blew up.
Ukraine Already Lost the War But the EU Hasn’t Figured That Out
On February 24, I commented Ukraine Already Lost the War But the EU Hasn’t Figured That Out
A negotiated settlement, land for peace is what I said in 2022. Terms now include mineral rights.
Mish Flashbacks
August 27, 2022: Ukraine Violent Stalemate Sets In, How Long Can It Last?
Ultimately, this will end in a negotiated settlement.
How long can Ukraine deal with 60% inflation? EU with energy costs? Russia with difficulty in getting parts and losing military equipment?
November 20, 2023: Is a NATO Backing a Negotiated Deal Between Ukraine and Russia?
A Tweet from NATO appears to back a negotiated peace in Ukraine. That was followed hours later by an official denial.
What’s Guaranteed to Happen?
I have written about this many times before. There is going to be a negotiated settlement that is not going to fully please anyone.
When? It will happen after both sides have had enough of destruction and lives lost, likely accelerated by political events in the US.
Zelensky drove for a bargain that neither the US nor Russia would accept. In short, Russia would not sign a deal if it involved US or NATO enforcement of the border.
Trump understands Putin’s red line. Zelensky failed miserably twice. That’s really all there is to this.
WSJ Editorial Board Nonsense
As expected, the WSJ editorial board is 100 percent in favor of prolonging the war. Today, it writes The Kremlin Keeps Escalating
President Trump assures Americans that Vladimir Putin wants “peace” in Ukraine, but the key question is what kind of peace? The answer seems to be a peace of subjugation in which Ukraine is left to defend itself with no outside help until Russia decides to invade again.
That’s the implication of Thursday’s comments from Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, that the Kremlin won’t tolerate Western European troops on Ukrainian soil. “We see no room for compromise,” Mr. Lavrov told reporters Thursday at a press conference in Moscow. The presence of European forces in Ukraine would mean the “undisguised involvement of NATO countries in a war against the Russian Federation. It’s impossible to allow this.”
This is no surprise, as Russia responds to Mr. Trump’s pressure on Ukraine by increasing its demands as part of any agreement with Ukraine. Mr. Trump has already conceded to Mr. Putin’s demand that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO after the war ends. Now Russia is rejecting the French-British Plan B, which would put some of their troops in Ukraine after the war, though not under NATO auspices.
And Paul Wolfowitz write for the WSJ Trump’s Choice in Ukraine: Chamberlain or Eisenhower?
Mr. Zelensky faces comparable pressure. He will likely need to compromise on the open-ended promise, often voiced by the Biden administration, to fight for “as long as it takes.” Convincing the Ukrainian people to accept a compromise armistice that leaves Russia occupying significant portions of eastern Ukraine won’t be easy. But it will likely be necessary to achieve an enduring end to the, war, since there is little chance that Mr. Putin will agree to full restoration of the Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which Russia promised to respect when it signed the Clinton administration’s 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
To gain public support for an unpopular compromise, Mr. Zelensky will need firm assurances of continued arms supplies to deter Russian aggression, along with a European military presence on the ground, backed by the U.S.
From the outside, we can’t know whether Mr. Trump is following the Chamberlain pattern. If he is, he has time to change course.
Wolfowitz was deputy defense secretary (2001-05). Good riddance.
He is a discredited Neocon nutcase that supported the disastrous second war in Iraq that destabilized the region and led to ISIS.
The fact is Russia is so damn weak it is not expanding war anywhere.
Returning to reality ..
On February 28, I commented Trump-Zelensky Meeting Implodes, Trump Says “Come Back When You Want Peace”
Put a minerals’ deal with Ukraine temporarily on hold, but Zelensky “has no cards”.
On March 4, I commented Zelensky Seeks Deal One Day After Trump Cancels All Aid to Ukraine
Yesterday, Trump paused all military aid to Ukraine after a disastrous meeting with Zelensky last Friday. Now what?
Meanwhile, Zelensky made matters worse for himself. Russian troops are regaining ground.
The irony is Ukraine’s Rare Earth Mineral Reserve Is More Hype Than Reality
Ponder the implications of the headline and note the obvious bluffs.
Russia did not increase its demands. It has steadily said Ukraine will not be in NATO. By implication, there should be no NATO troops defending Ukraine. This is a red line that neocons cannot see (or refuse to see because they seek perpetual war). Which is it?
Nonetheless, I am optimistic about a deal because Trump wants this settled and there is no other way forward.
Wolfowitz and the WSJ editorial board would risk WWIII. I suggest we send them all to the front line along with Senator Lindsey Graham to Lead the Charge.