The Russia-Ukraine War Continues
The Endgame Remains Unpredictable--Dangerously So
Since the last time (July 19th) I wrote about the Russia-Ukraine War, perhaps the biggest change has been to President Trump’s rhetoric. After being frustrated in his efforts to end the war (and perhaps win a Nobel Peace Prize to boot), Trump effectively washed his hands of the conflict. A Truth Social post was especially surprising, as the BBC reported on 9/24:
US President Donald Trump has said Kyiv can “win all of Ukraine back in its original form”, marking a major shift in his position on the war with Russia.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, he said Ukraine could get back “the original borders from where this war started” with the support of Europe and Nato, due to pressures on Russia’s economy …
Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to end the war, but has previously warned that process would likely involve Ukraine giving up some territory, an outcome Zelensky has consistently rejected.
In his post, Trump added Ukraine could “maybe even go further than that”, but did not specify what he was referring to.
Exactly how Ukraine is going to win back all the land captured by Russia is unclear. Also less than clear is the role of the EU and NATO in this. Trump appears to have said it’s up to the EU and NATO to support Ukraine (as if NATO is not commanded and controlled by America), with the U.S. more than willing to sell weapons to EU and NATO countries to support Ukraine’s efforts.
Trump’s gambit is this: If Ukraine wins, he takes credit for continuing to supply weaponry and for his new vote of confidence. If Ukraine loses, Trump shifts the blame to the EU and possibly to Ukraine and Zelensky too.
It’s a cynical policy—but these are cynical times.
An undeniable truth is that the war grinds on with no end in sight. U.S. aid to Ukraine will soon reach $200 billion. Meanwhile, front lines have stagnated, counteroffensives have stalled, and Ukrainians themselves have grown increasingly weary of war.
Observers in the West point to a weakening Russian economy and high battlefield losses as signs Russia itself may be nearing a tipping point that could lead to collapse and defeat. Both a heavily damaged Ukraine and a destabilized Russia might be the fruits of “victory,” leading to chaos and possible nuclear escalation.
Again, no matter what Trump says, a total victory for Ukraine looks remote. Russia controls about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory, including the industrial Donbas and much of the south. Ukraine’s economy is weakened (as is Russia’s), its army is depleted, and its demographics are unfavorable to success (millions of Ukrainians have sought sanctuary abroad).
The Media’s Role in Perpetuating Illusion
The mainstream media in the U.S. has been partisan since day one. The MSM framed the conflict as a morality play: a heroic democracy versus an evil autocrat.
Meanwhile, the MSM overhyped U.S. weapons as “decisive” and Ukrainian counteroffensives in 2023 as “war-winning.” Media hype distorted expectations and contributed to public fatigue.
Most strikingly, the press has consistently downplayed the risks of escalation with a nuclear power. Ukraine’s use of long-range Western missiles to strike inside Russia carries serious dangers. That Putin will tolerate further provocations without escalating himself is a dangerous bet.
The Case for Diplomacy
Ukraine, no matter Trump’s new faith, cannot win this war in the maximalist sense of regaining all occupied territories and forcing Russia’s surrender. The longer the war continues, the more Ukraine will suffer—physically, economically, and politically.
Wars feed autocracy. Already, Ukraine has postponed elections, banned several opposition parties, and restricted media outlets. These measures may be understandable in wartime, but they belie the notion that Ukraine is a flourishing democracy.
A negotiated settlement is not capitulation. It is recognition of limits. The alternative is indefinite conflict—one that may bleed Ukraine dry even as it edges the world closer to catastrophe.
Dangerous Assumptions
Some policymakers argue a prolonged war will weaken Russia to the point of collapse. But a weakened Russia is not necessarily a safer one. If the Russian state disintegrates, who controls its nuclear arsenal? What if chaos in Moscow produces a more radical, vengeful leader? What if a desperate Kremlin lashes out, or if fighting spills into a NATO country like Poland?
Conversely, what if Ukraine, drained by endless war and reliant on foreign arms, slides toward authoritarianism? Wars have a way of transforming republics into garrison states. The longer the conflict lasts, the greater the risk that Ukraine’s democracy will become a casualty of its own “great patriotic war.”
The Limits of Analogy
Too often, the war is discussed through lazy historical analogies. Putin is Hitler; Zelensky is Churchill; negotiations are “another Munich.” Such framing flatters Western moral vanity but obscures strategic reality. This is not 1938. Putin is not on the verge of conquering Europe, and diplomats are not appeasing him by seeking peace.
Putin may be ruthless, but he is not suicidal. He knows that attacking a NATO member would invite his own destruction. Nuclear deterrence remains real. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in a fever-dream of perpetual conflict, one that justifies limitless military spending and forecloses diplomacy.
The American Connection
For most Americans, the Russia–Ukraine War remains distant and impersonal. We are not threatened by Russian artillery; the war is thousands of miles away. Yet we are paying for it—literally. Every artillery shell, every tank, every missile financed through our taxes contributes to death and destruction abroad. Some justify this as moral duty: helping Ukraine defend freedom. But morality also demands an accounting of consequences.
How many Americans know that 69 percent of Ukrainians report being weary of the war, or that their own government has suspended elections? How many realize that each dollar spent on war is a dollar not spent on schools, infrastructure, or healthcare at home?
We are told the U.S. can afford virtually limitless weapons for Ukraine, but when it comes to social programs, we always hear the same question: How are you going to pay for that? Apparently, there’s always money for war, never for peaceful pursuits.
A Broader Reckoning
The Russia–Ukraine War has become a mirror reflecting America’s own pathologies: our addiction to militarism, our aversion to diplomacy, our willingness to spend without scrutiny when the cause is war, and our moral complacency about the human cost of conflict.
We have turned foreign policy into a morality play, where compromise is dismissed as cowardice and negotiation is treated as akin to sin. Yet history teaches the opposite: the greatest statesmen are not those who glorify war but those who end it.
The Russia–Ukraine War continues, and so does the silence around the most basic of questions: What is America’s endgame? If the answer is “as long as it takes,” we should ask: takes for what? For Ukraine’s victory—or for its ruin? For democracy’s defense—or for another endless war?
It is time to demand accountability, restraint, and above all, diplomacy. Supporting Ukraine should not mean subsidizing endless cycles of death and destruction. How many more must die before this war is finally ended?
Another outstanding analysis and explanation, Bill. It covered a lot of territory with lots to dig into further. Another one for THE BEST OF BV. Permit me a couple of points... :
~ You wrote: “...the war grinds on with no end in sight. U.S. aid to Ukraine will soon reach $200 billion.” Let us pause, reflect on, and remember that virtually all of that $200 Billion has gone and goes directly or indirectly into the pockets of America’s MICIMATTT.
~ And what’s different about “the mainstream media in the U.S. [having] been partisan since day one,” framing “the conflict as a morality play: a heroic democracy versus an evil autocrat”? Wasn’t that exactly how the MSM handled DESERT STORM back in 1991, and the Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Etc after 9/11?
~ You noted that “the Russia–Ukraine War remains distant and impersonal...the war is thousands of miles away. Yet we are paying for it—literally. Every artillery shell, every tank, every missile FINANCED THROUGH OUR TAXES contributes to death and destruction abroad [EMPHASIS added].” Which of those shells, tanks, and missiles are financed thru our taxes as opposed to it being paid for by putting it on Uncle Sam’s tab and adding to the National, Sovereign Debt, now at $37.8 TRILLION and counting [see https://www.usdebtclock.org/ for details].
~ And Bill: Has not Every War America has perpetrated and perpetuated since the end of World War II not merely “reflected” but openly and overtly manifested those “pathologies: addiction..., aversion..., willingness..., and complacency...”?
~ Also, just curious: Can You cite any “great statesmen” who have ended any War over the last, say, 3.500 years? That would be an interesting study: How many Wars in the last 3,500 years have been ended by diplomacy, and not military victory? And even more interesting would be: How many Wars in the last 3,500 years have been PREVENTED by diplomacy?
~ And finally, You concluded: “It is time to demand accountability, restraint, and above all, diplomacy.” And exactly WHO are we to demand that “accountability” of, to WHOM are we to demand it, and HOW are we to actually go about actually doing that, and succeeding?
When is the last time this Government has in any way been accountable to the American Peoples? About Anything?
But especially when it comes to matters of War?
Another Great Thought-Provoker, Bill, Thankee for sharing Your insights and conclusions.
Thanks for the update on the Ukraine war.
Once a US secretary of state was of great importance to the president, chosen for vast experience in foreign affairs and on speaking terms with many foreign ministers. The president would be the decider, but the secretary was intimately involved with other countries and had views that the president valued and took into consideration when making decisions, even to the point of deferring to the view of the secretary. Like other cabinet members, the secretary took much weight off the shoulders of the president.
Now, I'm not sure what Marco Rubio is doing. He issues hawkish statements, but he has no experience in foreign affairs. He shows no wisdom or any depth to his thinking. His delivery is full of scarcely disguised anger. As for his views, I think Trump would say of something Rubio came up with the same thing Trump said about Tulsi Gabbard's opinion, "I don't care what she said"
I say all this because I have no expectation that the Ukraine War is being handled with any expertise. Policy depends on what Trump feels like saying on one day or another. We have scarcely controlled chaos in Washington on everything foreign or domestic. The ship has no rudder. Storms threaten from every side, but the captain doesn't believe in weather prediction.
Absolutely anything could happen tomorrow with no logic, far less any wisdom, behind it. The one thing certain is that we the people are far removed from any influence on our government, a government obsessed with calling out enemies among fellow Americans and then punishing them through any means regardless of law.
Civility in DC is gone. Congressional hearings are verbal insult sessions with no respect shown and absolutely nothing is learned or revealed. There is no authority of office except that of the president. There used to be mock government sessions in high schools. If, in these sessions, students were to behave as we see our "leaders" behaving today, the school authorities would have called off the exercise as being out of control.
Our government is out of control except in backing Israel.