Glenn K. Beaton is a writer and columnist living in Colorado. He has been a contributor to The Wall Street Journal, RealClearPolitics, Powerline, Instapundit, Citizen Free Press, American Thinker, Fox News, The Federalist, and numerous other print, radio and television outlets. His most recent book is "High Attitude — How Woke Liberals Ruined Aspen"
President Trump and NATO leaders at the White House, Aug. 18, and President Biden and NATO leaders at G7 summit in 2024
Vladimir Putin confirmed last week at their Alaska summit that if Donald Trump had been president three years ago, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.
It was probably an attempt at flattery (which Trump did not acknowledge) but, still, it’s probably true. Even if it’s pure flattery, I cannot imagine Putin bothering to bestow such flattery on Trump’s predecessor.
At this same summit, Trump ordered a flyby of a B2 bomber – the ones that recently made a significant impression on the world, on Iran, and on Iran’s desert nuke factories.
After the summit, the leaders of NATO rushed to the White House to meet with the President. Seems the tariff imbroglio is all forgiven. Ukrainian President Zelenski showed up wearing something suit-ish. Trump called out “Emmanuel!” to French President Emmanuel Macron, who answered “Mr. President?”
Speaking with one voice – Trump’s – the leaders of the free world declared a desire for peace but made clear that they would not toss Ukraine under the Russian tanks. In fact, they hinted at NATO membership for Ukraine.
Sure, Russia will get some potato farms in Eastern Ukraine, and Putin will save face with his people (after slaughtering a quarter million of them) but Ukraine will survive, NATO will thrive, Europe will be strong, and America . . .
The White House event “Trump and Zelensky Meeting Staged for Media” somehow turned into “Trump v. Zelensky Cage Match.”
How did that happen? My theory is that it wasn’t exactly an accident, but it didn’t play out the way either side intended.
Bear in mind that both leaders are experienced actors – Trump as a reality TV host and Zelensky as a stand-up comedian. (Yes, Trump really was a reality TV host!) Both saw the meeting as a stage. They intended to communicate not with one another – that could have been done better in private – but with millions of viewers.
Trump is eager to end the Ukraine war. So too is Zelensky. However, they obviously differ on the terms of peace. Trump wants more Ukrainian concessions than Zelensky wants to give.
That’s particularly true in the real estate department. To a guy like Trump with some knowledge of real estate, the path to peace is simple: Ukraine should give up some potato fields, beneath which are more land mines than potatoes at this point.
To Zelensky, those potato fields are Ukrainian, and he’ll be damned if he’ll give a single potato to the Huns from the east. Those potatoes are owned by Huns from Ukraine, by golly.
Trump’s team (probably with J.D. Vance in a lead role) arranged this meeting not to achieve a meeting of the minds. They don’t care to meet Zelensky’s mind, and, even if they did, why make a reality show out of it?
The reason for the public meeting was to lock Zelensky into a deal, sort of. Everyone would make nice. Trump would suggest a vague peace-for-land exchange. Zelensky would nod – noncommittally, but he’d still nod. After all, the real estate of war-torn eastern Ukraine is not exactly Mar-a-Lago.
The end result would be a step toward peace where Ukraine gives up some land, Russia goes home, mostly, and Trump takes credit.
“Mr. President, the Nobel Prize Committee in on line four!”
Zelensky had probably been briefed on the outlines of this show. He had time to get truly outraged, and time to script some faux outrage as well.
By the way, who shows up for a televised meeting in the White House with what we used to call The Leader of the Free World wearing a sweatshirt?
Someone who is pretty full of himself, that’s who. When asked by a reporter (reporters are known for their sartorial splendor, you see) whether he even owns a suit, Zelensky replied that he would wear one when the war is over. At the rate he’s winning, his post-war suit might be Captain Kirk’s old one.
In fairness, this Zelensky guy is under some stress these days. That stress showed in the meeting. Zelenski was having none of the peace-for-land deal, and he made that more than clear.
Fine, that land is Ukrainian (though there are a lot of ethnic Russians on it).
Zelensky’s mistake was to get a little too strident. Belligerent, even. He’d apparently been warned in advance not to get into a tussle with Trump, and especially not to get into a televised Trumpian tussle, but he did anyway.
Trump tussled right back, and also tag-teamed to his trusty televised Trumpian tussler, J.D. Vance.
And the cameras rolled.
When Zelensky got really pouty, Trump threw him out. I mean that figuratively (or literally, as the illiterates would say these days).
The losers in this misplayed reality show are Zelensky, the Ukrainian people, and Trump, in that order.
Zelensky and Ukraine lose because they have no options. Europe is not willing to defend Europe to the extent America has – with weapons, money and intel. Without America, Ukraine is borscht.
As for Trump, he lost the Nobel Prize that day, but the Nobel Committee will never give it to him anyway. He also lost some negotiation leverage with Vladimir Putin, but the deal he’s negotiating isn’t his. It’s Ukraine’s, so who cares?
He knows Zelensky will be back, and might even be wearing a suit this time. Meanwhile, he perhaps turned American public opinion harder against the sweatshirt-wearing little comedian with no sense of humor.
There will be a land-for-peace cramdown on Ukraine because that’s the only peace that Putin will accept. After three years of ugly war, Putin has shown he might not be able to conduct much of a war, but he’s very patient.
Zelensky’s belligerence served to increase the amount of Ukrainian land that will be given up, and decrease the amount of peace that it will be given up for. Ironically, in making a bad deal worse, he made it all the easier for Trump to sell it to a war-story-weary American public.
The White House event “Trump and Zelensky Meeting Staged for Media” somehow turned into “Trump v. Zelensky Cage Match.”
How did that happen? My theory is that it wasn’t exactly an accident, but it didn’t play out the way either side intended.
Bear in mind that both leaders are experienced actors – Trump as a reality TV host and Zelensky as a stand-up comedian. (Yes, Trump really was a reality TV host!) Both saw the meeting as a stage. They intended to communicate not with one another – that could have been done better in private – but with millions of viewers.
Trump is eager to end the Ukraine war. So too is Zelensky. However, they obviously differ on the terms of peace. Trump wants more Ukrainian concessions than Zelensky wants to give.
That’s particularly true in the real estate department. To a guy like Trump with some knowledge of real estate, the path to peace is simple: Ukraine should give up some potato fields, beneath which are more land mines than potatoes at this point.
To Zelensky, those potato fields are Ukrainian, and he’ll be damned if he’ll give a single potato to the Huns from the east. Those potatoes are owned by Huns from Ukraine, by golly.
Trump’s team (probably with J.D. Vance in a lead role) arranged this meeting not to achieve a meeting of the minds. They don’t care to meet Zelensky’s mind, and, even if they did, why make a reality show out of it?
The reason for the public meeting was to lock Zelensky into a deal, sort of. Everyone would make nice. Trump would suggest a vague peace-for-land exchange. Zelensky would nod – noncommittally, but he’d still nod. After all, the real estate of war-torn eastern Ukraine is not exactly Mar-a-Lago.
The end result would be a step toward peace where Ukraine gives up some land, Russia goes home, mostly, and Trump takes credit.
“Mr. President, the Nobel Prize Committee in on line four!”
Zelensky had probably been briefed on the outlines of this show. He had time to get truly outraged, and time to script some faux outrage as well.
By the way, who shows up for a televised meeting in the White House with what we used to call The Leader of the Free World wearing a sweatshirt?
Someone who is pretty full of himself, that’s who. When asked by a reporter (reporters are known for their sartorial splendor, you see) whether he even owns a suit, Zelensky replied that he would wear one when the war is over. At the rate he’s winning, his post-war suit might be Captain Kirk’s old one.
In fairness, this Zelensky guy is under some stress these days. That stress showed in the meeting. Zelenski was having none of the peace-for-land deal, and he made that more than clear.
Fine, that land is Ukrainian (though there are a lot of ethnic Russians on it).
Zelensky’s mistake was to get a little too strident. Belligerent, even. He’d apparently been warned in advance not to get into a tussle with Trump, and especially not to get into a televised Trumpian tussle, but he did anyway.
Trump tussled right back, and also tag-teamed to his trusty televised Trumpian tussler, J.D. Vance.
And the cameras rolled.
When Zelensky got really pouty, Trump threw him out. I mean that figuratively (or literally, as the illiterates would say these days).
The losers in this misplayed reality show are Zelensky, the Ukrainian people, and Trump, in that order.
Zelensky and Ukraine lose because they have no options. Europe is not willing to defend Europe to the extent America has – with weapons, money and intel. Without America, Ukraine is borscht.
As for Trump, he lost the Nobel Prize that day, but the Nobel Committee will never give it to him anyway. He also lost some negotiation leverage with Vladimir Putin, but the deal he’s negotiating isn’t his. It’s Ukraine’s, so who cares?
He knows Zelensky will be back, and might even be wearing a suit this time. Meanwhile, he perhaps turned American public opinion harder against the sweatshirt-wearing little comedian with no sense of humor.
There will be a land-for-peace cramdown on Ukraine because that’s the only peace that Putin will accept. After three years of ugly war, Putin has shown he might not be able to conduct much of a war, but he’s very patient.
Zelensky’s belligerence served to increase the amount of Ukrainian land that will be given up, and decrease the amount of peace that it will be given up for. Ironically, in making a bad deal worse, he made it all the easier for Trump to sell it to a war-story-weary American public.
Inside the box, and the Beltway, the thinking all along has been that we must draw a line at Ukraine, else Putin and the barbarians will soon be on the steps of Warsaw and then Berlin and Paris.
Besides, Russian aggression and aggressors are morally bad. We owe it to posterity and civilization not to crumble before them.
Those are valid points. On the other hand:
We are where we are. Where we are, is Vladimir Putin make some understandable miscalculations.
One, he miscalculated America’s willingness to support foreign countries. After all, he had witnessed Joe Biden’s Afghanistan surrender debacle.
Second, he underestimated the Europeans. After seeing them under-commit to military defense for generations, he reasonably assumed they would not stand in the way of his little conquest.
Imagine his shock that they and the Americans did. Consider his awe that his little adventure served to increase the military expenditures of NATO nations, and drove into NAT0 two new members, Sweden and Finland (which shares an 830-mile border with Russia).
Third, Putin underestimated the skill, resources and resolve of Ukraine itself. Again, that’s understandable. When Russia took over the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine six years earlier, Ukraine offered little resistance, while Barack Obama and NATO offered none at all.
Fourth, Putin overestimated the skill, resources and resolve of his own military. Russia’s historical strength militarily has been sheer manpower, but manpower alone is not enough in modern wars. A war that Russia was supposed to win in weeks has turned into a three-year standoff where Putin is resorting to cannon fodder in the form of untrained conscripts, prison inmates and North Korean mercenaries.
Stalin beat the Nazis faster than Putin has beat the Ukrainians.
So that’s where we are. Ukraine cannot win, simply because they lack the military to invade and subdue Russia.
However, Russia could lose, in theory. If the war stands unchanged for another three years and another million casualties, you can call it a loss for Russia, even though it won’t be much of a win for Ukraine.
But I doubt Ukraine can hold on for another three years. Moreover, I doubt that Putin is willing to let another three years pass in the present status quo.
To change the stalemate, Putin has four options. The first three are (1) just go home, which he won’t do, (2) up the ante with even more men and machines, which will sacrifice more lives and treasure on both sides, and (3) go ballistic.
The ballistic option is meant literally. The Russian military might be inept in conventional warfare, but they do have a full nuclear arsenal including both nuclear bombs and “dirty” nuclear weapons. Russia has already hinted at “dirty” nukes in bombing the containment structure of Chernobyl, site of the worst nuclear radiation accident in history.
Ukraine is helpless against Russian nukes. They can only hope that a retaliatory strike by NATO against Russia would deter Putin.
But Putin has shown himself to be a gambler. He might gamble that there would be hell to pay – a soft hell in the form of sanctions – but no retaliatory nuclear strike.
He’s probably right about that. After all, Ukraine is not even a NATO member. NATO would probably not risk ending the world over Ukraine.
The inside-the-box thinking, unfortunately, is still focusing on winning the last war – the initial war of invasion. But the way to win that war was to make sure it was never fought – by making clear to Russia that NATO had the commitment, resources and power to make an invasion a fool’s errand.
The West failed to make that clear. Before the first shot was fired, Obama, Biden and the pusillanimous Europeans lost the war of invasion – even though Russia has still failed to win it.
The current Ukrainian war is the war of attrition. It’s a stalemate that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars, euros and rubles, and millions of casualties.
This war of attrition won’t last forever, because Putin has his Option (3). Namely, the next Ukrainian war – the nuclear war.
So that leaves Option (4). Isn’t it in everyone’s interest to negotiate a compromise where Ukraine gives up some real estate and regroups, while the Russians mostly go home saving face?
There’s an amount of real estate in appropriate locations that should be acceptable. The areas now controlled by Russia are populated with people who already tilt toward Russia in comparison to the rest of Ukraine. And this isn’t Mar-a-Lago; the real estate of Ukraine is mostly cheap farmland.
Ukraine has plenty of it. It’s bigger than France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Poland. Apart from Russia, it’s the biggest country in Europe. It sounds crass, but Ukraine can afford to pay for peace with a little of their own real estate.
Does that mean it’s morally right that they do? Of course not. But we’re being pragmatic about the world as it is. We’re thinking outside the box, right?
OK, you say, but there’s another issue related to the moral repugnance of a peace-for-property deal. It rewards Putin for his foreign aggression, thereby encouraging more such aggression. See, Hitler, Poland 1939.
That’s a valid criticism. On the other hand, in contrast to Hitler in Poland, Putin in Ukraine has paid an exorbitant price in money, lives, prestige, and geopolitical power. He never would have agreed in advance to this price, and it’s unlikely he’ll be willing to pay a similar price next time.
If a sliver of Ukraine is Putin’s conquest, he can’t afford another. And he knows it. Putin has been taught his lesson. Now, he’s a cornered Russian bear.
There are some things to admire about firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene, sometimes dubbed “MTG.” After earning a Business degree from the University of Georgia, she and her then-husband took over her father’s contracting business. She quit in a few years and began serious CrossFit training and co-founded a CrossFit gym. After becoming interested in politics, she won a seat in the House of Representatives.
It goes downhill from there. She ran for Congress as a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, and won, but he didn’t return the favor; he did not endorse her.
Along the way, she has falsely claimed that AOC is not a legitimate Representative because she was sworn in on the Quran; she took a couple hundred thousand dollars in COVID money for her little contractor company; she says the Jan. 6 rioters were actually Antifa agents in disguise – even as she expressed support for them.
She has questioned whether school shootings were staged; she refers to her critics as “Pharisees”; she said “I don’t believe in evolution, I believe in God” as if people who believe in one cannot believe in the other.
She suggested that the California wildfires may have been caused by “what looked like lasers or beams of blue light” that were delivered by “solar space generators” involving a conspiracy of Jewish companies. She thinks mass immigration to Europe from Muslim countries is being orchestrated by “Zionists” to undermine Western culture.
In amusing malapropisms, she has referred to Capitol policemen as the “Gazpacho”, and referred to a petri dish as a “peach tree dish.”
She was censured by her own party for calling fellow conservative Representative Lauren Boebert “a little bitch.” (Her evolution-denying “God” could not be reached for comment on that tidbit.)
It’s not just her assault on decorum and language.
It’s that her histrionics get in the way of her job. That job is to govern. She’s the antithesis of governance. She is unable to govern even herself or her mouth.
She was instrumental is forcing out House Speaker Kevin McCarthy for daring to get real legislation accomplished by – shudder! – making political compromises with the other side. This is in the House where Republicans hold a majority of only a few seats. Then she was a ring leader in the ensuing circus to replace him.
Now she has made a motion to oust McCarthy’s replacement for the same sin of compromising with the Democrats to get things done that need to get done. She does these things not quietly behind closed doors where she might find common ground with those she disagrees with, but in front of cameras and bright lights.
The latest is her loud opposition to foreign aid bills for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. She insists that any aid be tied to money to secure the southern border.
To be sure, aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan are debatable policies. I personally favor all three, but I tend to come from the peace-through-strength camp and not the isolationist camp. But the isolationist camp has a legitimate case. That’s why we debate such things.
And I certainly favor securing the border. Illegal immigration is inhuman to the immigrants and destructive to America.
But tying money for securing the border, to foreign aid, is wrong for at least two reasons.
First, they have very little to do with one another. The people who seek to tie them together say “we should secure our own border before helping other countries secure theirs.” That’s catchy but they might just as well say, “We should secure the border before we send out Social Security checks” or “We should secure the border before we spend another dime on soldier salaries.
We can do all those things. It’s not one or the other. Holding one hostage to another is not constructive. It simply thwarts both – we wind up with an unsecure border and betraying our allies.
It’s like saying “I’ll hold my breath and shut down government unless I get my way 100%. It’s government by temper tantrum.
The second reason that tying foreign aid to securing the border is foolish is that the unsecure border has little to do with Congressional funding and everything to do with Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled immigration apparatus. Congress could appropriate a trillion dollars to secure the border, but nothing will change until we have a president who will take the necessary actions – most of which would not cost money, but save money.
(The Admiral refrained from laughing out loud. He instead paused and replied dryly “We don’t anticipate that.” Such self-control is why he’s an Admiral and his questioner was just a Congressman.)
Then there’s the Senator who challenged a person testifying at hearing to “stand your butt up” for the purpose of, apparently, a fistfight (or maybe to dance The Bump).
MTG falls closer to the Guam-tipper and the stand-your-butt-up Bump guy than to that Admiral. In fact, I’ll bet she dances a mean Bump.
Since this story has now taken us to the dance floor, I suggest that it’s time for yet another career change. MTG should go to MTV. She could call herself MTG/V and make music videos. Her career change might get her the attention she craves, and might get us a replacement representative to work on the governing we need.
Ukraine reports that it has killed about 26,000 invading Russian soldiers. Ukraine’s reports of Russian losses – unlike Russia’s own reports – have been fairly reliable, say observers, though NATO estimates a somewhat lower number. As for Ukraine’s own dead, they appear to be significantly fewer than Russia’s even after including the civilians that Russia has murdered.
Ukraine’s figures are not inconsistent with a report from the U.K. that over one-fourth of Russia’s 150,000-man army attacking Ukraine, amounting to perhaps 40,000, has been rendered “combat ineffective.” That means they’re dead or wounded badly enough that they can’t fight.
Russian deaths amount to about 400/day. They truck the corpses back to Russia at nighttime to conceal the carnage.
Put that into the context of modern warfare. The United States lost about 2,400 soldiers in 20 years in Afghanistan. We lost about 6,800 soldiers in the war for Iraq over the course of 14 years. The Soviets lost only about 14,000 soldiers in the ten years they fought in Afghanistan – a number they’ve far exceeded in ten weeks in Ukraine.
World War I was no picnic for the Germans. About two million German soldiers were killed and countless others were crippled. The Austro-Hungarian Empire on the side of the Germans lost another million and a half.
The loss of life on the side of the Allies was similar, with about two million dead amongst France, UK, Italy and Romania, in that order. The American dead were a fraction of that, a little over 100,000.
The Allied country suffering the greatest number of dead was Russia, where life has always been cheap. Two million Russians were killed, matching the combined total of the other Allies. This proved a presage; the Russian dead in the next world war totaled over 20 million.
To the victorious Allies of WWI went the spoils. In the Treaty of Versailles, they confiscated about 10% of German territory and imposed punitive reparations of about $270 billion in today’s dollars. They prohibited the rebuilding of the German military (we know how well that worked over the next two decades) and stripped Germany of its overseas colonies.
Most humiliatingly, the Allies required Germany to acknowledge that the war had been all its fault. If WWI had been a football game, the Allies would have been flagged for end zone taunting.
The terms of the Treaty of Versailles were undoubtedly satisfying to the Allies, and perhaps gave them a measure of comfort that the Huns would not be at their doorstep again for a long, long time.
I explained a month ago that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a disaster for Russia in today’s global economy. Russia would be financially crippled by sanctions and would alienate its European oil and gas customers.
Moreover, I explained, the Ukrainians are not defenseless, and would probably put up a spirited fight. The Russians had little to gain in an invasion and much to lose. I confidently concluded that Vladimir Putin was not foolish enough to invade.
Events have proved me right in every respect except my conclusion. It turns out that Putin was indeed foolish enough to invade.
His invasion has not gone well. The Ukrainians have destroyed hundreds of Russian tanks, aircraft and artillery. They’ve killed four Russian generals. They’ve blunted the Russian attack and are now counterattacking.
Last August, Joe Biden abandoned Afghanistan to 13th century barbarians. The result was and is an ongoing bloodbath. Getting out of Afghanistan may or may not have been a good move, but the way Biden did it was destructive and disgraceful.
Biden’s generals told the press that they recommended to Biden a more orderly approach. Biden denied that. He essentially said his generals are liars.
Paradoxically, Biden simultaneously contended that his cut-and-run was “an extraordinary success.” If he believes that, then why doesn’t he say, “Yeah, the generals recommended a more measured withdrawal, but I was smart enough to override them in order to obtain this extraordinary success.”
Lawyers call this “pleading in the alternative.” There’s an old lawyers’ joke where the accused murderer says, “I didn’t kill him and if I did it was in self-defense.” In Biden’s case, he says, “It was an extraordinary success for which I’m responsible but if it wasn’t then it’s the generals who are responsible and they’re lying if they say they aren’t.”
Vladimir Putin is not afraid of Joe Biden, the newly-woke U.S. military, the Keystone Kops at the NSA, CIA or sundry other alphabet organizations right down to BIPOC and LGBTQ, or his speechwriter “doctor” Jill, or the yes-men (er, persons) in the White House. The Kamala Kackle gives him pause, but he has people to handle her.
No, Putin is not afraid of any of them. In fact, it’s that collection of nitwits that tempts him.
Here’s what he’s afraid of, for good reasons.
First, war is semi-obsolete in today’s global economy. Just as China doesn’t want war with the United States, which is its biggest manufactured goods customer, Russia doesn’t want war with western or even eastern Europe, which are its biggest oil and gas customers.
Say what you will about the perils of globalization, but it does discourage war. Bombing your customer or even your customer’s neighbor is bad for business.
the Aspen beat 