A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
OPINION:
President Trump’s political opponents castigate him for his recent Euro-Ukrainian summit’s inability to achieve a ceasefire proposal. However, their criticism speaks more about their inadequate strategic awareness than any shortcomings on his part.
In seven months, Mr. Trump has achieved something his predecessor couldn’t do in two years: get the ceasefire process started. That a long and tough road lies ahead is not Mr. Trump’s fault. Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s intransigence on territorial issues is based on his calculation that the Europeans lack the will to take effective action and his belief that Mr. Trump’s opponents will impede American efforts to enforce any guarantees that follow, particularly if the Republicans lose their congressional majority after 2026.
Contrary to most American media commentary, Mr. Zelenskyy, like Mr. Putin, has studied the past 30 years of history among the West, including America, Russia and Ukraine and come to a similar conclusion. As the leader of a nation facing exhaustion from more than three years of heavy fighting against a powerful invader, he wants to end the fighting. In contrast with his American critics, though, he cannot end this war by signing a poison-pill agreement that sets the stage for future Russian conquest.
The other reality is that diplomacy is a slow and often tedious process, complicated in this case by memories of past European and American miscues. President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin “recognized” Ukraine’s territorial integrity twice in 1994, and Mr. Clinton assured Ukrainian leaders that America would protect that integrity after Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons. Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia created friction with America, but Mr. Putin interpreted the Obama administration’s response — a promise to restore good relations after the 2008 presidential election — as a clear signal that any security guarantees in Europe outside NATO territory were secondary to maintaining good relations with Russia.
To paraphrase Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, America had to choose between Georgia and good relations with Russia. The choice was clear. Europe’s leaders also heard that message and responded accordingly.
President Obama sent only nonlethal aid when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, seized Crimea and separated the Donbas and Donetsk from Ukraine. The European Union sent a strong letter of protest, and NATO followed America’s tepid lead. The fighting continued, albeit at a much lower level as the 2010s advanced. Western media lost interest, and so did much of official Washington.
Mr. Trump sent military aid and training teams to Ukraine, marking slightly stronger support for Ukraine. He also warned Europe about the Russian threat and the dangers of its growing reliance on Russian liquefied natural gas. European leaders and American Democrats reacted with laughter, well aware that increasing American LNG production ran counter to the Democrats’ anti-fossil-fuel goals.
In 2022, President Biden opened the door for the current invasion by rapidly withdrawing all American presence from Ukraine. The Europeans followed by spending more on Russian LNG than they did on aid to Ukraine. So much for sanctions and a strong unified response to Russian aggression. Mr. Zelenskyy is influenced more by that history than by any concerns he might have about Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump’s political opponents and their media allies blame him for Mr. Zelenskyy’s reluctance to trade defensible terrain for a ceasefire, but as the leader of a nation invaded, Mr. Zelenskyy is focused more on that aforementioned 30-year history than on anything Mr. Trump has said or done. Mr. Zelenskyy may not like Mr. Trump’s personal commentary and/or seemingly chaotic approach to foreign policy, but he knows that once Mr. Trump decides on a course of action, he takes it forcefully.
Other than almost meaningless symbolic action, the same cannot be said for the Europeans.
However, Mr. Zelenskyy faces a bigger problem: His country is nearing exhaustion. French President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt at building a European security force for Ukraine exposed the limitations of any European commitment to helping the country. Europe’s atrophied militaries lacked the forces to provide the required troop strength, and Britain and France were the only countries willing to station their troops within 125 miles of the front lines.
Aware of European rules of engagement in Afghanistan, where many NATO units were prohibited from doing more than protecting their specifically assigned bases, Mr. Zelenskyy can’t have much confidence in their reaction to a post-ceasefire invasion.
Perhaps more important, each new American president in the past 30 years has abandoned the commitments of his predecessor. Mr. Clinton, for example, abandoned President George H.W. Bush’s promise of aid to post-Soviet Afghanistan and of income compensation to Turkey for the closure of the Kirkuk-Ceyhan Pipeline during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
Unlike America’s professional political and media elites, Mr. Zelenskyy sees history as more than the events that have transpired since the last American election or press conference. He knows that Mr. Putin has the same view of history. Mr. Zelenskyy has a nation to protect and preserve, not just during his time in office but also far beyond. He knows that Mr. Putin wants to gain Ukraine’s last line of defensible terrain in hopes of conquering his country once Western attention has shifted elsewhere.
Unlike Saigon in 1973, Mr. Zelenskyy has no desire to have his country swallow a poison pill for today’s political expediency.
• Carl O. Schuster is a retired U.S. Navy captain.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.