J.D. Vance is wrong on Ukraine, but not completely wrong
J.D. Vance is wrong on Ukraine, but not completely wrong
The very inconvenient facts about Russia and Ukraine. Vance isn't completely wrong. He's just early.
Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance is being roundly criticized for what Eliot Wilson called an “insane” plan for Ukraine. Donald Trump said that he would solve the Ukraine war in one day, before he was even sworn in. Now we know how it would be done. Vance, on the Shawn Ryan Show podcast, said, “What it probably looks like is the current line of demarcation between Russia and Ukraine, that becomes like a demilitarized zone.” To buy Russia’s approval, Ukraine would also have to accede to abandoning membership in the E.U., or NATO. This “would be nothing short of a Russian veto on Ukrainian foreign policy,” Wilson wrote. “A nation that cannot choose its allies is a vassal state.”
It is wrong to abandon Ukraine to Russia’s will. After all the blood and treasure spent on defending Ukraine’s sovereignty, bending to Russia’s terms now would hand the whole place over to Vladimir Putin. We know that, like in 2014 after Minsk II, Russia would come up with some pretext to break any peace agreement regarding the Donbas. It would send “little green men” into neighboring Ukraine to foment unrest and rebellion. It would rebuild its Black Sea fleet to hold Ukrainian grain shipments hostage. It would disarm Ukraine in a way that makes any “peacekeeping” force nothing but what the UNIFIL is to keeping Hezbollah from arming southern Lebanon.
Without a doubt, the Trump-Vance plan would hand Kyiv to Putin. It would end Volodymyr Zelensky’s presidency (probably immediately). Russia would then support (install) a more Putin-friendly leader in his place, and possibly keep Ukraine as a vassal without further bloodshed. The world would soon forget how bad the war was, and within a few years, western goods would start creeping back into Moscow’s elite neighborhoods (as if they ever left).
Vance’s plan is wrong. It’s certainly wrong for Zelensky, whose political survival depends on it being wrong. Regarding Vance, Zelensky snapped back. “The idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine's expense is unacceptable,” he said.
Comparing Putin to Hitler: “Let Mr. Vance read up on the history of the Second World War, when a country was forced to give part of its territory to one particular person. What did that man do?” Zelensky continued. “Was he appeased or did he deal a devastating blow to the continent of Europe—to many nations, broadly, and to the Jewish nation in particular? Let him do some reading.”
All true. Appeasing Putin just encourages him.
Vice President Kamala Harris scored some cheap political points on this, standing with Zelensky. ABC News reported:
"We also know that other would-be aggressors around the world are watching to see what happens in Ukraine," Harris said. "If Putin is allowed to win, they will become emboldened, and history reminds us, and history is so clear in reminding us, the United States cannot and should not isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Isolation is not insulation."
Harris is right. But the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the Ukraine war has not lived up to her rhetoric.
An honest look at the war indicates that Ukraine, on its own, without the west lifting limits on the use of western (including U.S.) weapons to strike deep into Russia, cannot win back the Donbas. The war will continue as a war of attrition. And Putin, who is willing to suffer unbelievable losses of personnel and equipment to not lose the war, wins by default. Ukraine cannot wage war against the much larger Russia indefinitely, and it cannot win its territory back. So the war continues until it ends badly for Ukraine.
The reason Ukraine cannot win back the Donbas is that the U.S.—the Biden administration—took a too-little-too-late approach to the war. The goal of U.S. policy was for the war not to widen. It was never to win. And the war has not widened, despite Putin’s threats. If Ukraine ever joined NATO, the war would widen (Article 5), so without saying so, Harris concedes that Putin’s terms are basically acceptable if she follows Biden’s policy.
I haven’t heard Harris say that she’d lift the limits on use of American weapons. And when America gets to tell Ukraine how to fight their war, with Ukraine doing its best to innovate despite American limitations, who is the vassal state? Without U.S. and other western support, Ukraine would be lost—the whole of it. That nation is so dependent on western support that its sovereignty is basically limited to what we allow Kyiv to do. And our goal is to let the war go on indefinitely until the status quo is the only option, then pat ourselves on the back for getting out without having to accept Ukraine into NATO.
J.D. Vance is not completely wrong. He’s just early.
The Donbas is very densely mined—possibly the most dense landmine field in wartime history. The only way across the dead zone of mines, swamps and rivers is to clear a path in the minefields, while Russian massed artillery rains shells on the troops doing the clearing. Then to exploit this, under heavy fire and missile attacks, it takes a very high casualty count to retake a very small area of land. The only other way to break out would be a large-scale paratroop operation—which Ukraine cannot mount.
The third way is to pound Russian staging areas and production, deep behind Russian lines. The mini-invasion Ukraine has done into Russia has had a measurable, but small, effect on the Russian war effort. That is also unsustainable in the long term. It is merely a bargaining chip for the negotiations to end the war. To really win, Ukraine would need to beat Russia: that means beat their production and logistics in a strategic campaign. It is not possible without limits being lifted on western weapons.
And the Biden administration won’t lift limits, because that would widen the war.
Putin knows how to play this. He regularly issues nuclear war warnings over limits on western weapons. He is just fine with Ukraine being a western (U.S.) vassal state, as long as he isn’t losing the war. And as long as he has the Donbas along with Crimea, he’s not losing. Casualties are unimportant (I didn’t think Putin thought this way, but I was wrong). To Putin, not losing is winning, just at a later date.
The Biden administration has lengthened this war and made it fairly impossible for Ukraine to win back their territory. All the rhetoric about “unacceptable” is weak and useless in the face of the facts. Zelensky wants the limits removed—he wants his sovereignty. Putin threatens nukes. Biden yields to Putin.
Vance’s “plan” faces the reality, but it is politically inconvenient. It’s also a betrayal of our promise to stand against Russian aggression, and to support Western Europe. The signal Trump and Vance are sending is that Europe is on its own. This, instead of making the end of one war the beginning of peace, sparks the very real possibility of more war in Europe. The Poles, Germans, Baltic states, the Swedes and Finns won’t put up with Putin’s adventurism. They’ll continue to arm. The Russians will feel their oats and rebuild. War will come.
At some point, the reality will sink in, and Zelensky will “negotiate” what we all know must happen. Unless Putin agrees to withdraw from the Donbas, there will not be peace without the cost of that territory. And Putin will be back for another bite. Biden’s plan would keep Ukraine as a vassal state forever. I don’t think Trump’s plan is any better—and it is definitely immoral in the sense of broken promises.
As wrong as that is, Vance isn’t really wrong about the facts. Harris, as she does in all things, ignores the facts, and goes on vibes. If she becomes president, the vibes will end and the facts will catch up with her. I hope she knows it. Zelensky certainly does, as does Putin.
STORM! We’re all safe here in Atlanta after Helene came barreling through. Lots of rain, some wind, but we never lost power. Thank you all for your prayers and concern.
THE RACKET NEWS™ IS NOW ON THREADS: Our scheduling software now supports Threads so we are opening a page on that site. We also have an Instagram account that has been pretty inactive, but you may see us doing more there as well. Check us out at: https://www.threads.net/@theracketnews
SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS: You can follow us on social media at several different locations. Official Racket News pages include:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRacket
Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/NewsRacket
Mastodon: https://federated.press/@RacketNews
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@theracketnews
David: https://www.threads.net/@captainkudzu71
Steve: https://www.threads.net/@stevengberman
Our personal accounts on the platform formerly known as Twitter:
David: https://twitter.com/captainkudzu
Steve: https://twitter.com/stevengberman
Jay: https://twitter.com/curmudgeon_NH
Thanks again for subscribing! Don’t forget to share us with your friends!
This idea that Ukraine is a vassal state to the US doesn't really hold water.
The US isn't pushing Ukraine into resisting the Russian invasion - the Ukrainians are. If the Ukrainians decided that they'd rather join the Russian sphere of influence (and not the Western one), the US won't stop them.
The US isn't telling Ukrainians what they can and cannot do with weapons acquired elsewhere. It's just telling them that they won't sell them missiles that will be used to attack Moscow. Furthermore, the US isn't restricting Ukraine from finding or building armaments without the strings attached. Calling Ukraine a US vassal while we supply them as THEY hold off a foreign invader would be like declaring the UK a US vassal during the Lend-Lease Act era in WWII.
As for how the endgame will play out, I'd advise keeping your powder dry on that one. Who had Ukraine invading and successfully taking out Russian ammo depots on their 2024 Bingo card? For all we know, the endgame might be Ukraine surrendering the mine-infested Donbas to the Russians, severing the Kerch Bridge from Russia to Crimea, and letting the Russian Crimeans thirst to death. In exchange for the Donbas, is it outside the realm of consideration that Ukraine might annex a similar amount of Russian territory to make up for that loss?
I think part of the issue with the administration's handling of the conflict is due to the personnel that were in-place: they believed Kiev would fall, and Ukraine would be made a vassal of Russia. They were wrong, but they are still in-place - and their worldview is reliant on Russia being what they are and maintaining their position in the world. So "Russia losing" is not part of their acceptable outcomes. This isn't necessarily what Biden or Harris want, but likely why the "red lines" are such a concern.
They've also forgotten that the way to deal with nuclear sabre-rattling is M.A.D. During the Cold War we didn't surrender to such threats: we need to remember how to deal with them.