Main Edition
US
FR
November 14, 2024 - 5:00pm
It is not unusual for a defeated politician packing up their office to leave an unpleasant parting gift for their successor. In Joe Biden’s case, the Wall Street Journal this week accused the outgoing US President of handing over a “Ukraine mess” to Donald Trump. One of the errors leading to such a calamity was, according to the WSJ, Biden having limited the supply and use of US military aid, thereby damaging Kyiv’s ability to go on the offensive against Moscow’s forces and setting the stage for a “bloody stalemate”.
Biden is not done putting the finishing touches on that “gift” either. Worried that President-elect Trump may halt supplies of weaponry to Ukraine, Secretary of State Antony Blinken yesterday pledged to “shore up everything we’re doing for Ukraine” so that it can either fight effectively through 2025 or negotiate from a position of strength. That will involve expediting a remaining $6 billion in military aid to Kyiv, while the exigencies of the situation and Biden’s own desire to preserve his legacy will likely overcome his past reluctance on permitting Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into Russia. Both moves are positives for Ukraine, but will ensure that the Kremlin is occupied by an infuriated Vladimir Putin just as Trump moves into the Oval Office.
The conflict itself will grow messier before Trump’s inauguration as Russia — bolstered by North Korean troops — rushes to seize Ukrainian-held areas of Kursk in a bid to deprive Kyiv of that particular bargaining chip before the new president tries to kick off negotiations. Recent drone barrages testify to the increased tension on both sides following the election, as Kyiv strives to achieve whatever victories it can before it potentially loses vital US assistance.
In that context, having promised to end the war within a day, the man who prides himself on being the ultimate dealmaker has the weight of the world — or, at least, a significant part of it — on his shoulders. So what should Trump do? An equitable agreement would require first persuading Moscow to come to the negotiating table. But the issue is that, as it makes battlefield progress in Donetsk, Russia has little incentive to compromise.
One option for the President-elect would be threatening increased military aid to Ukraine and fewer restrictions on its use. Yet that would entail alienating a significant portion of his MAGA base. It would additionally mean handling Ukraine-weary Republican lawmakers, with US House Speaker Mike Johnson complaining last month that he has no “appetite for further Ukraine funding” and hopes Trump will “bring that conflict to a close”.
Adding to Trump’s woes is the constant speculation about his ties with Russia, which Moscow can reignite whenever it wishes to antagonise him. One need only look at the media attention garnered by Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev’s claim that “to achieve success in the elections, Donald Trump relied on certain forces” to whom he is now “obliged to fulfil […] corresponding obligations”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHere’s my simple plan to end the Ukraine conflict. For what it’s worth:
https://www.grahamstull.com/2024/11/13/a-simple-plan-to-stop-the-killing-in-europe/
Thats not a terrible plan Graham, but I don’t see the Russians giving up one inch of land, so its not going to happen
How come that link makes my security software go nuts?
Never mind. Worked around it. However, you lost me at “de-nazification rules”.
I don’t know. This just started happening. It’s just my blog. I’ll look into it.
Sorry about that.
Oh I see now, it’s the https:// bit that’s messing things up. Use this link instead:
http://www.grahamstull.com/2024/11/13/a-simple-plan-to-stop-the-killing-in-europe/
Biden’s legacy lies in the ruins of last week’s election result. There will be no ‘legacy’, only the disdain of future historians, not just for Sleepy Joe himself but for those who kept him propped in his saddle like a latter-day El Cid.
How Trump deals with Ukraine will indeed be one of the defining issues of the first weeks and months of his second term. Trying to forecast what will happen is a fool’s game. This article sets out a few of the options but the result could be something else entirely.
Biden’s legacy will be one of the worst president’s in modern history.
Remember Obama!
Trump may fail to get a peace deal right away, but at least he wants one. Biden and his stooges in Europe could have negotiated a peace deal within months of the war starting.
The fact that Putin is bringing in soldiers from North Korea underscores his weakness right now. He doesn’t have unlimited bodies to throw at the war either.
The reports say there are 10K North Koreans, who knows the real numbers, in any case there are more Russians joining the Russian army every month aprox 20K
The Koreans are not really as significant as the media wants you to think, but don’t let that stop you
Yeah, but look at how much Putin has to pay Russians to join up. That is not sustainable.
Trump will increase the ante on Putin, there are many options from increased military aid, to lifting restrictions on targets within Russia.
Both sides are war weary, struggling to put men on the front line.
Trump has a good opportunity to end this war in 2025, and save the US $billions, freeing them up to concentrate on resolving the Israel / Iran problem.
That’s right, its not a Palestinian problem, its very much an Iran problem, a rogue state clinging on by its finger nails.
“and save the US $billions”
Genuine question. Is the US spending billions or loaning billions? I think we (the U.K.) have only just finished paying off our WW1 &2 debt. I’m sure the US taxpayer is currently paying the munitions factories but is the US govt really gifting the output. I genuinely don’t know the answer but can hazard a guess.
The UK hasn’t repaid the WW1 debt; it remains outstanding.
It was paid off in 2015
No it wasn’t. A War Loan issue was paid off. Unfortunately Osborne lied…
Does Trump really have to grasp the Ukraine nettle during his first hundred days? It’s my impression most Americans are tired of foreign military entanglements and would rather a new administration focus on the US homeland.
Trump might, for example, announce he expects the Europeans, who are generally pro-Ukraine, to foot more of the bill and ship more weapons. Of course the Europeans would struggle to do that which would trigger much discussion about who should bear the burden. In essence, Trump can kick this can down the road and let Europe either carry more of the burden or start pressing both sides for negotiations.
Of course Trump doesn’t have a plan. He’ll just do whatever his boss in Moscow tells him to do.
Author implies what most suspect – Trump doesn’t really have a coherent plan, but he’ll be driven by ego. That in itself may not be a bad thing here as Author indicates. Being a Loser, confirming all the worst theories about his subservience to Putin, and aiding Iran, N Korea and China in the process not of great appeal to the arch deal maker. The question though is will he trust Putin in any deal or get rolled?
Given the contradictions in his economic policy, and the clowns he’s appointing to specific roles where an eventual unravelling inevitable, it may well be that the decisions Trump makes on Ukraine define his historical legacy more than anything else.
“Will he trust Putin…”? Surely the true question is whether Putin and Russia will trust the West?
NATO advanced eastwards despite the promise not to advance “one inch”.
The West via Merkel confirmed that the Minsk Agreements were in bad faith in order to arm Ukraine and pave its entry into NATO.
But the question is whether Putin can be trusted? Really? Whatever agreement is reached won’t be fulfilled by the West and Russia would be foolish to expect that it would.
Right, so we’re criticising Tulsi Gabbard for thinking it’s not that smart to be poking the Russian bear too hard, but then going into the final months of the Biden presidency with the expectation that Biden might – in trying to shore up his non-existent legacy – do things that antagonise Russia and make the starting situation at the negotiation table (and therefore for Ukraine) worse?
Right…
Listening to Tulsi Gabbard over the last few months, what I’ve heard is a woman who has been on the battleground and who understands that hawkish politicians in Washington can easily throw around words and threats of war but then don’t have to deal with the real-world consequences on the ground.
I think she’s from a new generation of US politician that understands US citizens are tired of war, tired of soldiers coming home in coffins and being burned up in interventions like Afghanistan where, in the end, you have zero to show for it.
It’s a multipolar world now where America needs to think more carefully, act smarter rather than just hammering the table with its fist. If the Senate is stuffed with Boomers then of course they won’t get that, they come from another era.
Yes, the MSM keep peddling the “Tulsi Gabbard” is a Putin puppet nonsense. In fact she seems to be one of the few realists in US public life.