“If supporters of Ukraine – and I enroll in them – want to win the battle for hearts and minds in the United States, in no circumstances they can allow them to be considered as a “Party of War”, while Donald Trump and its movement Maga are claiming a mantle of peace. UA.News publishes a complete translation of the material of the News”, – WRITE ON: ua.news
If supporters of Ukraine – and I enroll in them – want to win the battle for hearts and minds in the United States, in no circumstances they can allow them to be considered as a “Party of War”, while Donald Trump and its movement Maga are claiming a mantle of peace. Edition Ua.news publishes a complete translation of the material of the observer The New York Times David French.
Despite the fact that Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, and the war would end tomorrow if Putin just went, just those of us who support Ukraine, call war.
In the Narrative Maga we throw away – as JD Vance – “Moralist debris” argued. Trumpists, on the contrary, consider themselves as “realist”, ready to tell the public a number of difficult truths – in particular that the defense of Ukraine is collapsing even with the support of America that Ukraine cannot win a war and that it has to conclude an agreement before it is rubbed.
The answer to this argument is not just to refute individual points, but to provide an alternative, truly realistic vision of peace on much better conditions than Trump’s administration tries to impose on the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky. It is far from fire to war, but those who support Ukraine seek a strong peace.
The plan for the end of the war in Ukraine was found at the other end of the world, in South Korea. The Korean War ended with a truce, more or less along existing lines of conflict, but with US troops on Earth to guarantee the safety of South Korea.
The Ukrainian ceasefire may look quite similar. To stop the conflict mainly on existing grounds and then to deploy Western troops to restrain Russia. But this scenario on Earth will not be American boots, but rather French and British. Both countries have already proposed to deploy their own strength to support peace.
This answer is obviously not ideal (South Korea and North Korea are still in a frozen conflict), but it is achievable, and it will retain both Ukrainian independence and Ukrainian security.
Before we delve in the detail let’s talk a little about “realism” in the war in Ukraine. I discovered that realists describe very well in detail (and sometimes exaggerate) the scale of Ukraine’s military difficulties, silenced significant problems in Russia. However, when you cross this limit, it becomes propaganda, not realism.
First, it is important to understand that the hourglass ends for both sides. The weaknesses of Ukraine are well known. This is much less than Russia with a much smaller industrial base. It faces a lack of labor. In the absence of Western aid, it will not be able to ahead the Russian economy. As a result, it is slowly rejected from the defensive borders in eastern Ukraine.
But Russian successes got a terrible price. According to the Ukrainian military, only in 2024, Russia lost about 150,000 soldiers killed. For comparison, this number is almost three times higher than the total number of US servicemen who died during the whole war in Vietnam.
Russia will have extraordinary difficulties in compensation for losses at such a speed if it does not start a lot of mobilization that Putin did not want to do. The North Korean troops aimed at reinforcing Russian troops suffered such serious losses that they were removed from the front line.
It also loses armored vehicles much faster than it can replace it. Russia has lost about half of its pre -war tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, and many tanks left in warehouses are extremely old and unsuitable. According to the Institute of War Study, “some analysts predict that Russia has exhausted its reserves of Soviet technology by the end of 2025 or in 2026.” In addition, the Russian economy is fighting under the burden of high interest rates and increasing inflation.
So, although any side can reach individual victories-for example, Ukraine surprised Russia by capturing a small part of the Russian Kursk region last year, it is difficult to imagine a breakthrough for either side. Ukraine may hope that it will somehow return the lost territory in the Donbass, but the failure of its counter -offensive in 2023 showed the complexity of punching Russian defense lines.
In military plan, no side came up with how to restore the mobility or ability to maneuver on the battlefield. The combination of artillery and unmanned aerial vehicles is incredibly complicated by the accumulation of the required number of people and equipment to punch large holes in the line of defense of both sides.
As both sides of the conflict face crises, Trump’s approach to the end of the war is to try to break Ukraine.
He suspended vital American help. He limited intelligence that the United States is shared with Ukraine. It wages a verbal war against Ukraine, which reduces the support of Ukraine in the United States and even causes Putin’s sympathy. Americans are still supporting Ukraine more than Russia, but supporting further assistance to Ukraine is weaker, especially among Republicans.
But if we are talking about realism, how realistic it is that Russia’s victory in Ukraine is in line with the long -term interests of the United States, and even more so long -term interests of peace?
Putin began aggressive wars in Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine (twice). He intervened to support the Assad government in Syria. His pattern is unmistakable. He will continue to be an expansionist and aggressive until his army is stopped – and this is especially true in Ukraine, which, according to Putin, should not even exist.
In his speech in 2023, he said: “There was no Ukraine in the Russian Empire,” and argued that the country was only a fiction of Vladimir Lenin and the Soviet Union.
Even if Putin agrees to peace, how realistic it is that he will fulfill any of his promises? The conversation that led to an outbreak in the oval office between Zelensky, Trump and Vance began with the attempts of Zelensky to explain that diplomacy and international agreements mean nothing to Putin in the absence of specific security guarantees.
In other words, surrender is the path to further conflict.
But history gives us another alternative – the continuation of resistance until Russia understands that its attacks are incapable. Ukraine has proved that he has the will to stand and fight. He proved that he could cause catastrophic losses to Russian troops. Russia should understand that it is unable to dictate peace conditions.
And do not listen to any Trump official who says we cannot afford to help Ukraine. Trump administration proposes to cut taxes that increase The deficit to the order is greater than the total US expenses for Ukraine.
It is difficult to accept fiscal claims for approximately $ 120 billion that the United States spent, helping Ukraine to protect itself when Trump proposes to add $ 2.8 trillion additional debt through its tax plan.
There are times when the United States really has to rely on their allies. In 1953, South Korea rejected the truce agreement. It wanted to continue the struggle for reunification. We still agreed to a truce with China and North Korea, but we also gave South Korea the most ardent security guarantee – US military presence. In fact, about 28,000 soldiers remain in South Korea today.
I felt this American affection in my own experience. In 2010 – when I was an officer of JAG in the army – I was sent to South Korea to participate in the operation of “The Key of Resolv” – military exercises that included the simulation of the attack of North Korea. I saw a close relationship between the US and South Korean forces, and I could see that the north had no hope of winning the south until our Alliance remains unbreakable.
The results speak for themselves. In South Korea, peace has reigned for decades. It has become one of the most successful and most powerful democracies in the world. America is stronger and safer because our South Korean ally has become more powerful.
In Ukraine, there is an even better agreement (for Americans) on the table. Britain and France were intensified and offered to guarantee peace with their own military. Both of these countries have nuclear weapons, and the presence of their armed forces will be a powerful restraining factor for any future Russian attack.
If Ukraine wanted to continue the war, even if Russia was offering a ceasefire, and Britain and France are ready to introduce troops to guarantee peace, then it would be advisable to rely on the Zelensky government.
But I doubt it will be needed. In fact, in an interview with Fox News in 2024, Zelensky said that he “did not recognize the legally occupied territory of Ukraine in Russian.” The keyword here is “legitimate”. To agree to stop hostilities, it is not necessary to legally agree to Russia’s annexation.
The ceasefire with European security guarantees corresponds to America’s long -standing desire to “return to Asia” to direct more power to the Pacific. In the end, China is more dangerous than Russia (it has a smaller nuclear arsenal, but a much larger economy and much greater ordinary forces), and European countries (which increase their own military expenditures) can restrain Russia, even if we focus more in the Far East.
It will be difficult to agree on peace. It is likely that neither side simply will be inferior in the near future. Ukraine will reject any “peace”, which will refuse its freedom and independence, and Putin does not want to allow the military placement of allies on Ukrainian land. But the failure of military force eventually forced such malicious people as Chinese Mao Jesed and North Korean Kim Il Il, agree to a truce in the Korean War. There is no reason (so far) to assume that Putin is more unyielding than the two worst dictators of the 20th century. By supporting Ukraine, we give a real chance of peace.
