A “Neutral” Ukraine Is a Nonstarter, Jacoby Says
Putin is playing Trump for a fool
[“America has a positive role to play in advancing freedom and democracy in the rest of the world,” is one of the themes here at The Editors. How that will evolve in Ukraine has been a question at the top of the news lately. To understand it better, I’ve been reporting it out by soliciting, from a variety of thoughtful voices, answers to this prompt:
Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine. Is there any way for him to do it without severely setting back American interests? How? If not, what’s your proposed alternative and what are the advantages and risks or costs involved?
Today’s response—we’re working our way ahead in alphabetical order by last name—comes from Tamar Jacoby, who is the Kyiv-based director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s New Ukraine Project.—Ira Stoll]
Donald Trump has one thing right about the war in Ukraine: the sooner the killing stops, the better. Done right — a fair and lasting peace — this would be good for Ukraine, the U.S., our allies in Europe and ordinary Russians, if not Vladimir Putin and his murderous circle. But that doesn’t mean we should seek peace at any price.
What Trump doesn’t seem to understand: just how cunning and aggressive an adversary he’s facing. In fact, it’s not clear he understands Putin is an adversary, intent on exalting and expanding Russia at the expense of the West, which he views as an implacable enemy, to be vanquished by any means necessary, including not only brutal conquest but treachery, deceit and all the other underhanded tactics he perfected as a career KGB agent. It’s also apparently lost on Trump that Putin is playing him for a fool, flattering, manipulating and pretending he wants to be America’s friend.
So what is the best approach to ending the war?
The first question is timing. Trump is forcing talks when Moscow has the advantage — its troops are gaining on the ground, albeit slowly and at great cost. Ukrainians are exhausted, but they say Russians are too, and many think that with continued Western help, they could force an enemy collapse, perhaps by the end of the year. Whether or not to go on fighting is an agonizing choice — every week brings horrific casualties. But it should be Ukraine’s choice.
On the question of territorial concessions, most Ukrainians grasp they’re unlikely to drive the Russians back to prewar boundaries. But they see a critical distinction between formal and informal acceptance of the status quo, and Kyiv should not be pressed to go beyond informal recognition of land actually under Russian control.
Moscow’s principal demand — for a neutral Ukraine, with a vestigial army of just 50,000 soldiers — is a nonstarter that must be resisted at all costs.
So is Putin’s insistence on replacing Volodymyr Zelensky. Not only does the Ukrainian constitution ban elections during wartime, but how could a vote that excludes a quarter of the population — refugees in Europe, soldiers under arms and residents of the occupied territories — be considered legitimate? A just peace should stipulate free and fair elections, closely watched by Western observers, after the lifting of martial law.
Finally and most important, whether Ukraine joins NATO should be a decision for Ukraine and the 32 members of NATO — not Putin. And if for some reason Kyiv cannot be admitted when the fighting stops, then Europe, with American backing, should be free to provide whatever security guarantees it can muster to protect Ukraine and ultimately itself from further Russian aggression. Under what principle other than naked “might is right” should Russia have any say in whether Ukraine joins the West?
Trump mocks Biden for losing Afghanistan. Does he not see how much worse it would be to betray a free, democratic ally and all but invite Putin to have his way with Europe?
Other, earlier answers: Ukraine Is Lost. But NATO Can Rebuild and Recover, Goldman Says, by David P. Goldman.
“Partitioned, Neutral Ukraine” Could Draw Russia Away From China, Green Says, by Dominic Green.