Forum Topic

Trump adviser says Ukraine focus must be peace, not territory

A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling the country to gain back territory occupied by Russia.Bryan Lanza, a Republican party strategist, told the BBC the Trump administration would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his version of a "realistic vision for peace"."And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said. "Crimea is gone."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxrwr078v7oI suspected this was Trump's "I will end the war immediately"...

Ivonne Holliday ● 47d36 Comments

Tump also refused to give the US military the go ahead for an retaliation attack on Iran, who downed a US drone that was possibly in Iranian air space, after asking basic questions:Was anyone killed? How many people will be killed in the retaliation?Common sense proportionality or possibly not the sort of Christian values people are looking for??

Ed Robinson ● 44d

Trump is one of the few world politicians that have expressed concern about the number of casualties in this war.He doesn't believe the US should fund it. Possibly missed it but I haven't heard him mention about getting any return.I have however heard such language from others, one example below:David Cameron: Ukraine war is ‘good value for money’https://unherd.com/newsroom/david-cameron-ukraine-war-good-value-for-money-us/

Ed Robinson ● 44d

Certainly, although I think that this may be an error:-""Both of our countries—Ukraine and Israel—are fighting a battle for our survival," Erdan said, as he touted 100 million tons of humanitarian aid Israel provided to Kyiv in the early weeks of the war."100 million tons? I think that "million" has crept in.

David Ainsworth ● 44d

Thanks, Jonathan. Yes, interesting that hasn't been more widely publicised. However,  with the Iran supplying weapons to Russia as well as supporting middle eastern terrorist groups and also directly attacking Israel with missiles it makes sense that Ukraine and Israel have common interests.

Michael Ixer ● 44d

For the sake of completeness I should add this link https://www.newsweek.com/israel-defense-aid-ukraine-russia-putin-united-nations-1874095 which reports on Israel's military and humanitarian support for Ukraine.  I'm surprised it hasn't been more widely reported.  Anyway, very good to see.

Jonathan Callaway ● 45d

Mike, thanks for this. All hail Wikipedia. Perhaps I should have checked this out first!

Jonathan Callaway ● 45d

I believe Putin was a friend of Netanyahu's predecessor, Naftali Bennet, who did not join in the general condemnation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But Putin is certainly no friend of Netanyahu, having compared Israel's occupation of  Gaza to the Nazis' siege of Leningrad.

Steven Rose ● 45d

I took the following from Wikipedia. It appears Iron Dome may not be suitable for the Ukraine conflict, and I suspect as well as an enormous cost - set up and operational; who would pay? - the time to manufacture, install and setup may not be compatible with the immediate needs (refences are in the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome):《The Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov has explained the flaws in Iron Dome, if deployed to Ukraine: "We all know the example of Israel, which protects the sky quite well. We all know the name Iron Dome, but even it does not give 100% protection. In fact, I've been to Israel and talked to their manufacturers and state enterprises. Iron Dome was built [for protection] against slow, low-altitude, low-impact missiles that were basically made in garages. Iron Dome does not protect against cruise and ballistic missiles."
During a hearing before the US Senate's Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John F. Plumb was asked about why an Iron Dome system had not been deployed to Ukraine, given that the US has contributed some $2.6 billion to its development. Secretary Plumb explained that Ukraine has been supplied with "things we can supply from our own stock", such as the Patriot missile system. US Army Space and Missile Defense commander, Lt.-Gen. Daniel Karbler, further explained that the US only has two systems, one of which is being used for testing. According to Secretary Plumb the second can be deployed to Ukraine: "the army does have one [Iron Dome battery] available for deployment if we get a request from it".
Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov noted that the system doesn't protect "against cruise and ballistic missiles." Further there is an estimated 10 batteries protecting Israel and this is still not enough to protect the country.
Amir Peretz, the Israeli Defense Minister who pushed through the implementation of Iron Dome, told The Washington Post that the system is no more than a stopgap measure, and that "In the end, the only thing that will bring true quiet is a diplomatic solution."》

Michael Ixer ● 45d

How Ukraine could use an Iron Dome missile defence system. Perhaps Trump can persuade his pal Bibi to provide it. Israel has provided zero military aid so far and nobody seems to be able to explain that, other than suggesting Putin and Netanyahu are rather closer than we had assumed.

Jonathan Callaway ● 45d

"The West’s plan at the moment is to give Ukraine enough aid to hold back the advancing Russian forces while avoiding direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. The hope is that Putin will eventually find the stalemate too costly, both in blood and treasure, and will be forced to negotiate on terms more favourable to Ukraine than could be obtained now."I wonder if Putin will find it too costly.  He receives help from China, now soldiers from North Korea.  But will Putin stop at Ukraine?"Everything now depends on Trump. America has so far spent  over $100 billion on military assistance to Ukraine since the invasion. Trump clearly wants to see some return for the money other than a hope that at some point in the future Putin will be forced to negotiate."It would not surprise me that Trump wants a return for the money spent.  I have no doubt that his idea of "return" is one that will not prove popular with many countries.I strongly believe that Putin should not be rewarded for the invasion - ooops, sorry, the special military operation to safeguard Russia from NATO aggression.Neither should Putin be allowed to determine what Ukraine can or cannot do now and in the future.

Ivonne Holliday ● 45d

It is entirely understandable that Zelensky should want to expel the Russians from the areas of his country which they have occupied. Unfortunately Ukraine has neither the manpower nor the weaponry to achieve this aim, so it is dependent on Western, which is to say American, aid.The West’s plan at the moment is to give Ukraine enough aid to hold back the advancing Russian forces while avoiding direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. The hope is that Putin will eventually find the stalemate too costly, both in blood and treasure, and will be forced to negotiate on terms more favourable to Ukraine than could be obtained now.There is some logic to this approach. The cost of the war to the Russian economy has been enormous, up to $200 billion. Russian casualties have been extremely high, around half a million killed or wounded. Once Putin has run out of released criminals and poor Siberians to throw into the meat grinder and starts having to recruit the sons of the elite in Moscow and St Petersburg, there will be pressure on him to negotiate, so the argument runs.Unfortunately there is no evidence that this approach is working. Russia is still managing to sell enough oil to finance the war. And enough Russians are prepared to fight, either because they see the army as a way out of poverty or because they view it as their patriotic duty, convinced by the propaganda which paints Russia as the victim of NATO aggression. In the meantime over 100 000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. Everything now depends on Trump. America has so far spent  over $100 billion on military assistance to Ukraine since the invasion. Trump clearly wants to see some return for the money other than a hope that at some point in the future Putin will be forced to negotiate.

Steven Rose ● 45d

By Sue's logic Churchill was "intractable"

Michael Brigo ● 46d

"Trum(p), I believe, would seek to extract concessions from Putin."Such as?

Michael Brigo ● 46d

Hello Sue,Do you blame Zelensky for defending his country? It was invaded after all.I do not think I would use the word intractable in his case.

Ivonne Holliday ● 46d

It seems to me that that negotiations are going to be difficult. Remember, it was Putin who started the current military action; presumably thinking, mistakenly, that Russian troops would just walk in to a quick victory. In my opinion, I think it would be wrong to punish the Russian people for Putin's mistake - one can understand why many backed him following the collapse of communism and the way the west was happy to let the Russian economy collapse meaning many Russians suffered great hardship whole the oligarchs (many ex communists) prospered with - from I've been led to believe - support from the west.The question is, can a way be found to protect the Russian people and Ukrainian while not letter Putin prosper from his murderous attacks on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure?

Michael Ixer ● 46d

Yes Jonathan, Ukraine must be involved in the negotiations, but I fear Zelensky will be intractable.

Sue Hammond ● 46d

I certainly agree that Ukraine must be involved in any peace settlement.

Steven Rose ● 46d

Any negotiations must include Ukraine. They never asked to be invaded and after all the death and destruction they had to suffer it seems unconscionable that they might be forced to hand over vast chunks of territory without cast iron guarantees of peace, reparations and a secure future they themselves can determine.  Who trusts Putin?

Jonathan Callaway ● 46d

The big issue is one of trust. If Ukraine gives up land the Putin must also yield something; Ukraine's immediate entry to NATO and/or the EU? Just a ceasefire is meaningless. Putin lied initially - he denied he was going to attack Ukraine - although it was fairly obvious that was his attention. Putin is just as likely to find a reason to restart the war without something holding him back; let's hope Trump is some good ideas? Perhaps build a Trump tower in Moscow?

Michael Ixer ● 46d

Appeasement means making unilateral concessions in order to avoid conflict without getting anything in return. Trum, I believe, would seek to extract concessions from Putin. The most important  thing is to safeguard Ukraine's sovereignty, which, given Putin's untrustworthiness, can only be assured by placing NATO troops in Ukraine.  But if this country or the EU is opposed to Trump's policy, they must be prepared to increase their support for Ukraine. It's rather hypocritical to accuse Trump of appeasement if you are not willing to help Zelensky  to fight.

Steven Rose ● 46d

It isn't appeasement, it would be a negotiated settlement.

Sue Hammond ● 46d

That's appeasement - had Biden or Starmer suggested it you would be up in arms.

Michael Brigo ● 46d

"The mood in Ukraine, as I understand it, is still one of grim determination.."Zelenskyy was elected as the peace candidate in May 2019 for a five year term, they are now operating under martial law.With no new elections and the borders sealed so no one can flee (unless influential) it would be brave of anyone to second guess what a new election/referendum results would be. We can't even get the US elections right.Whatever happens humanitarian aid is going to be needed for decades. I hope this is not another Afghanistan as the US priorities the middle-east and Taiwan.The only interesting factor in the recent talks was Elon Musk.Ursula Von war has announced that Europe should cease buying Russian LNG and switch to US sources. Hungary, Slovakia & Austria still receive Russian gas. More demand for US gas is likely to mean higher bills especially for countries like the UK that are so reliant on gas. Then there is the whole Indian oil which seems fine as they pretend it's Indian."Central Europe struggling to kick its Russian energy habit"https://www.dw.com/en/central-europe-struggling-to-kick-its-russian-energy-habit/a-70642702

Ed Robinson ● 46d

Trump’s slogan is ‘America First’. He doesn’t see why America should be the world’s policeman, protecting the weak from the strong, and have to pay billions of dollars for the privilege. But that doesn’t mean he will adopt an entirely isolationist policy. It is not in America’s interest to allow Russia or China to expand their sphere of influence, so it is unlikely that he would simply abandon Ukraine or Taiwan to their fate.I don’t see Trump as a ‘surrender monkey’ either. He would not want to mark his presidency with a limp surrender to Putin’s aggression as his first act, which would hardly be compatible with his policy to ‘Make America Great Again’. In any case Trump is notoriously transactional. So if he made concessions to Putin over Ukraine he would expect something in return.  Trump clearly does not wish to continue Biden’s policy of supplying Ukraine with an unending flow of armaments, costing billions of dollars, in the hope of eventually weakening Putin’s resolve and forcing the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine. However attractive such an objective might be, it is unattainable. Putin cannot afford to withdraw from Ukraine. He would not be able to survive such a humiliating defeat. So some other solution has to be found to end the bloodshed. One possible scenario might be that Russia keeps Crimea, the Donbas region remains in Ukraine but attains some degree of autonomy, the kidnapped children and captured prisoners are returned, Ukraine  stays out of NATO but small numbers of NATO troops, including Americans, are stationed in Ukraine to deter any further aggression.

Steven Rose ● 46d

Another idea in the Trump camp is a stay in place cease fire, a significant demilitarised zone, a promise not to join NATO for 20 years all coupled with continuing US armaments.  Not great but better than  some of the alternatives being promoted. The first key question is have they consulted the Ukrainians??The second one is can anyone trust a Putin promise?  The Ukrainians certainly don’t. The mood in Ukraine, as I understand it, is still one of grim determination to continue to resist Russian military aggression and push them back. It would be a bitter pill indeed for them to have to swallow a peace plan that rewards Russian aggression with the Ukrainian territory they currently occupy. The Ukrainian ambulance charity I have been supported has now delivered 81 ambulances with another convoy of five more heading off this morning from Putney and Wimbledon. If the war stopped tomorrow more medical and humanitarian aid would be needed for years to come. Over 800 hospitals in Ukraine have been damaged or destroyed by Russian missiles. Surely such targeted terrorising of the civilian population cannot be condoned.

Jonathan Callaway ● 46d

Incorrect David. The deal is not as good as previous deals.Also hundred of thousands not tens - of Ukrainians are dead.You have to count the dead Ukrainians on both sides of the conflict.

Ed Robinson ● 46d

Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on arms to help Ukraine. And the result will be much the same, territorially, as if we hadn't? Apart from the tens of thousands of Ukrainian dead. And the profits for the arms industry?-----------------------------"Donald Trump held Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Joe Biden responsible for the Russia-Ukraine war in an interview — but made no reference to Vladimir Putin.Two and a half years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump pinned the blame squarely on Zelensky and Biden for the conflict during an interview with podcaster Patrick Bet-David, which aired Thursday.“I think Zelensky is one of the greatest salesmen I’ve ever seen,” Trump said, grumbling about how much aid the US has given Ukraine."Independent, October 19th, 2024

David Ainsworth ● 46d

What would you suggest he do Michael?

Ed Robinson ● 46d

He's a McDonalds eating surrender monkey. What happened to the 'strong man'?

Michael Brigo ● 46d

The Palestinians are unlikely to get their land back either.War is hell as they say!Remembrance Day is to remember the dead of the first world war and subsequent wars.Most all those that fought in WWI didn't have the vote. Some would have to wait decades.https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/case-study-the-right-to-vote/the-right-to-vote/birmingham-and-the-equal-franchise/1918-representation-of-the-people-act/

Ed Robinson ● 47d

I agree with you, just as we are about to celebrate Rememberance Day we hear the US saying that Ukraine should seek peace and forget land it has lost to Russia. Sadly, as you said, your proposal is perhaps too much of an "oink, flap".Trump and Putin like and respect each other too much to contemplate a condition that Putin steps down and Russia holds free elections for a new President.  Also, Putin loves power too much to agree to step down.

Ivonne Holliday ● 47d

Just reflecting on a Facebook post from a friend who's been remembering members of his family who died in war: seems sad that just before Rememberence Day that there's a possibility of appeasing another land grabbing, bullying dictator. I'm all for peace but only if it's lasting and dictators understand they pay a price for their belligerent. Perhaps if Ukraine is prepared to give up land, a condition should be that Putin steps down and Russia holds free elections for a new President? Or is that too much of an "oink, flap" moment?

Michael Ixer ● 47d

It will at least resolve the UK's double standards between Israel (Palestine/Lebanon/Syria) & Russia(Ukraine).

Ed Robinson ● 47d

Exactly, Michael, very frightening.

Ivonne Holliday ● 47d

Where is next: Georgia, Moldova, the Baltic states ...

Michael Ixer ● 47d

It doesn't matter who is in power in the US.At the end of the day a deal has to be done or the worse case as in Afghanistan a withdrawal.There is a possibility that the Europeans may continue to fund it but with the German economy and political situation that is unlikely to last long.Any deal is likely to be worse than Minsk and subsequent deals that were on the table.

Ed Robinson ● 47d