Because 1) no one else has a plan, 2) Trump’s plan is likely to work, 3) the EU would screw it up.
Handling Ukraine is one of the things I was confident that Trump would get right. So far, it’s going very well.
Armchair Generals
Eurointelligence has some comments along those lines in its post Another Munich? Really?
The trouble with the armchair generals that have been leading the commentary in the Ukraine war in the western media, is the reduction to moral posturing. At no point have those who supported weapons deliveries for Ukraine present a costed plan of how to achieve victory. They were hiding behind red lines and the empty slogan that we would help Ukraine for as long as it takes. Not only was there no plan for victory. There was also no plan for second-best outcomes.
The armchair generals include the vast majority of people who attend the Munich Security Conference today, and who hyperventilate about issues whether Europeans should sit at the table. The absurdity of Europe’s position on Ukraine was underlined once again by [German Chancellor] Olaf Scholz when he said that he would reject a peace by diktat. And then he added in the next sentence, that policy goals must always be for Germany not to be engaged in a war. He is having his war, and eating it.
It is logical that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin settle this because there would be no settlement if Kaja Kallas [European Commission Vice President] sits at the table. The criticism by the Europeans that Trump gave too much away at the outset is also difficult to take seriously. It was Germany, along with the US, that persistently vetoed Ukraine’s accession to NATO. It is a bit rich for the German defense minister to claim that this issue should have been on the table. And of course, Ukraine will lose land as part of the settlement. Peace deals reflect the military situation on the grounds.
Angela Merkel already said it in 2017 that Europe needed to take its security in its own hands. As ever when confronted with a hard and a soft option, the Europeans chose the soft one. Europeans are the geopolitical equivalent of the righteous welfare recipient, always making demands, and hiding behind others.
Vance on Ukraine
The Wall Street Journal comments Vance Wields Threat of Sanctions, Military Action to Push Putin Into Ukraine Deal
“There are economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the U.S. could use against Putin, Vance said. “There’s a whole host of things that we could do. But fundamentally, I think the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with Zelensky.”
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal hours after Trump said he would start negotiating with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, Vance said: “I think there is a deal that is going to come out of this that’s going to shock a lot of people.”
On Thursday, Trump told reporters that Ukraine would be a party to talks with Russia, a key demand of Zelensky’s. But Trump also said that Russia should be allowed back into the Group of Seven club of wealthy countries and that membership for Ukraine in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was something Russia couldn’t allow.
On Ukraine, Vance said it was too early to say how much of the country’s territory would remain in Russian hands or what security guarantees the U.S. and other Western allies could offer Kyiv. He said those details would need to be worked out in the peace talks.
WSJ Editorial Board Comments
The WSJ editorial board gets it wrong with Peace Through Weakness in Ukraine?
President Trump has begun his promised effort to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, and the initial signs are discouraging. He’s making concessions to Vladimir Putin without anything in return, and he’s informing Ukraine after the fact. Does Mr. Trump want to negotiate peace with honor that will last, or peace through weakness that will reward the Kremlin?
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that Ukraine couldn’t join NATO and that returning to its borders before Russia’s first invasion in 2014 is “unrealistic.” Mr. Hegseth walked back his NATO point on Thursday, saying Mr. Trump would decide the question. But the President then said he liked Mr. Hegseth’s original statement.
Mr. Hegseth tried to reassure Europe by saying “a durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again.” But then he put the onus on “capable European and non-European troops,” with no U.S. troops. Where those non-European troops would come from is a mystery, and perhaps a mirage.
The risk here is that deterrence isn’t divisible. Mr. Trump is wrong if he thinks letting Russia dominate Ukraine will result in less U.S. involvement in Europe or enhance deterrence in the Pacific. The U.S. will end up spending far more on defense and deploying more troops in Europe to defend Poland, the Baltic states, and NATO commitments. If he abandons Ukraine, he’ll soon find that China is even more emboldened to take Taiwan.
Mercy!
The WSJ editorial board would fund Ukraine forever, risking WW III.
And since the WSJ understands correctly that Europe won’t do a thing, the mystery is why the WSJ cannot see that means everything would fall on the shoulders of US.
The WSJ is consistent, wanting more money for Ukraine, and tax cuts that don’t pay for themselves, while howling about the need for a balanced budget, without ever giving a serious proposal on how to get there.
European Emergency Summit
In response to the US proposals, European Leaders Will Hold Emergency Summit on Ukraine
The continent has been scrambling to respond after US President Donald Trump announced negotiations would begin “immediately” on ending the conflict following a phone call with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and Trump’s Russia-Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg saying Europe would not be involved.
The summit was confirmed by the Elysée Palace, which said French President Emmanuel Macron would hold an “informal” meeting Monday with “the heads of government of Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the Secretary General of NATO.”
The European diplomatic efforts come after new US Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth, speaking in Brussels on Wednesday, said it was unrealistic that Kyiv should join NATO or return to its pre-2014 sovereign borders – an apparent break with Washington’s previous stance and one that critics said gave key concessions to Putin before talks even began.
A day later, Hegseth hedged on those comments, saying “everything is on the table” in negotiations between the two countries. US Vice President JD Vance also warned Thursday the US could hit Russia with economic and military “tools of leverage” if Moscow doesn’t negotiate a peace deal in good faith.
Kellogg said in Munich that Ukraine would be at the table for peace negotiations. But while other European governments’ positions would be taken into consideration, Kellogg said, they would not be participants.
Trump’s call with Putin and the push to work with Russia have also raised Ukrainian fears of being excluded from talks deciding the fate of their own country. Zelensky in recent days lamented that the US president spoke with Putin before him.
Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on stage at the Munich Security Conference, Zelensky conceded that he was “not happy” that Trump’s first call was with Putin. The Ukrainian leader warned that it would be even “more dangerous” however if Trump meets in person with the Russian president before him.
Europe Deserves to Be Excluded
Europe has no plan, offers no money and no troops. Eurointelligence summed up everything nicely in a single sentence: It is logical that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin settle this because there would be no settlement if Kaja Kallas [European Commission Vice President] sits at the table.
Bear in mind, Eurointelligence is very pro-Europe. So it’s telling when they come up with a statement like that.
All Europe would do is side with Ukraine while demanding the US pay the bill.
In short, it would be counterproductive for Europe to be at the table. Trump is smart enough to realize this.
One Option for Zelensky
Zelensky has one option. That option is to go along with whatever Trump and Putin come up with as fair.
If Zelensky disagrees, the US will stop sending money and weapons to Ukraine. Then it would be up to Europe to stop Ukraine.
Related Posts
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.
February 12, 2025: Senate Confirms Tulsi Gabbard as Head of Intelligence With McConnell Voting No
Tulsi is a good choice. We should all wish her well. Looking ahead, I have some interesting ideas.
February 14, 2025: German Elections Feb 23 – Only One Coalition Makes Sense (But No One Wants It)
All of the other parties have ruled out working with AfD. But no other coalition makes any sense. Disaster looms.
Reflections on Vance
Vance is an excellent speaker and is not afraid to tell Europe how it is.
I had strong reservations on Vance as VP, and no doubt I will disagree on many things, especially tariffs.
But in handling Europe, Vance has been amazing. Well done. The EU nannycrats desperately needed shock therapy, and Vance delivered.
For discussion, please consider Vance Shocks Europe by Supporting AfD and Blasting EU’s Lack of Free Speech
Vice President J.D. Vance took off the gloves in Europe. Many European leaders are shocked. Good!