ROGER KIMBALL: Were Trump’s comments about Ukraine a gambit to bring about peace?
The fate of Ukraine is one of those subjects that seems automatically to induce moralistic posturing all around. A couple of points. One can acknowledge that Russia is an aggressor while still admitting that it has real and legitimate interests. Should we support the idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO? I think that Loyola is correct: “the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine, while it still claims sovereignty over Russia’s most important naval base in the world, is both preposterous and needlessly provocative.” Russia may, as Loyola notes, be a “malign force in the world.” But that does not mean that it is without genuine political interests and real grievances. It’s fun to denounce Vladimir Putin as a “war criminal” and all-round bad hat. It allows one to bask in the glow of one’s superior moral fiber. But as Henry Kissinger observed, “The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy, it is an alibi for the absence of one.”
The larger point, however, brings me back to the pot-stirrer in chief. Donald Trump’s comments about Ukraine and Zelensky sent the commentariat (and Zelensky himself) around the bend. But what if it was a gambit designed to bring about the peace he promised to bring to the region? And what if, despite the grumbling and grandstanding of the talking heads, it succeeds?
That happens a lot with stuff he says or does that is initially called crazy or dumb.
