We have a raft of spicy reactions to recent developments. First up is Kevin D. Williamson who brings us the recipe for Tacos Kiev.
Before his meeting with Russian caudillo Vladimir Putin in Alaska, American caudillo Donald Trump said the top item on his agenda was a ceasefire and warned that there would be “severe consequences” if one were not secured. After the meeting, Trump did his best impersonation of a scalded dog: “It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement,” he wrote on social media. Trump has spent his life pretending to be Don Corleone, but he is, always has been, and always will be Fredo. Putin presumably gave the president of these United States the same answer Michael Corleone gave that corrupt senator shaking him down for a bribe: “My offer is this: nothing.”
As they say on Wall Street, “Trump Always Chickens Out.” It’s the “TACO trade,” and it is as good a bet in Washington—or Anchorage, or Moscow—as it is on the trading desk. The closest Trump gets to “severe consequences” vis-à-vis Putin is one of his little social-media tantrums. There’s a bipartisan Russia-sanctions bill sitting there in the Senate—with 81 co-sponsors—waiting for Sen. John Thune to let it advance. What is Thune waiting for? Trump.
And what is Trump waiting for? Who knows? Christmas, maybe. Or maybe a visit from the Testicles Fairy. He is about to turn 80—his balls may get lower, but they aren’t going to get bigger without supernatural intervention.
KDW regrettably confuses his culinary cultures by dragging in the Corleones, but I can imagine Putin telling his flunkies to "Leave the gun, take the cannoli. Also, the tacos."
George Will holds out some hope for an alternate path, and … hey, is that a fish TACO? Now it is the Old World’s turn to rescue the United States. (WaPo gifted link)
As flaccid as a boned fish, Donald Trump crumpled quicker than even Vladimir Putin probably anticipated. The former KGB agent currently indicted for war crimes felt no need to negotiate with the man-child. The president’s thunderous demands — a 50-day deadline, a 10-day deadline, “severe consequences,” a ceasefire before negotiations — all were just noise.
As Mark Twain said, thunder is impressive but lightning does the work. Into Trump’s post-Alaska vagaries about progress and agreements on “many points,” an old question intrudes: Can the phrase “insipid beyond words” be applied to words?
Alaska clarified what was unclear only to the obtuse: Putin wants to win the war, Trump wants to end it, and as George Orwell said, the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. Putin insolently did not suppress his smirk while on the red carpet that Trump rolled out for him. He almost certainly already had dangerous clarity about Trump.
GFW holds out some hope:
Now it is the Old World’s turn to rescue the United States. It needs to be liberated from the chimera that it has no substantial stake in the outcome of high-intensity, state-on-state violence inflicted by a nuclear power obedient to a man who has actual beliefs: crackpot, but real, and menacing.
Jim Geraghty's headline (Now Is the Time for Trump to Get Tough with Putin) seems to think there's still some hope for that. But what follows seems pessimistic, to put it mildly:
Getting to peace often requires accepting an imperfect deal, or outcomes that are less than just. We’ve witnessed lots of deposed brutal dictators live out their final years in comfortable exile. And the United States has a long history of working with odious, brutal regimes to achieve a desired outcome — working with Joseph Stalin and the then-Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany, etc.
But right now, Vladimir Putin’s offer on the table is land-for-promises. (Everyone who’s paid attention to Israel’s negotiations with the Palestinians over the past four decades is reacting, “Oh, I’ve seen this one before.”) For the entirety of the war, Russia has demanded that the Ukrainians effectively unilaterally disarm in return for a promise that Moscow will never invade the rest of the country. This is like handing your own gun to the mugger in exchange for a promise that he won’t keep mugging you.
This is the same Moscow that broke existing treaties when it occupied Crimea (at least four) and launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022. This is the same Russian government that invaded Georgia in August 2008, occupying the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Jim avoids food metaphors until… he recommends that Trump "Use the stick as well as the carrot." I'm not hopeful, but we'll see.
Noah Rothman looks at what "peace" on Putin's terms would involve: Putin’s ‘Peace’ Proposal Would Be a Prelude to More War.
The best news to come out of the Alaska summit on Friday was that Donald Trump was reportedly so vexed by Vladimir Putin’s stubbornness that he was at one point “ready to walk away.” The worst news is that, in the end, he didn’t.
For those within the faction of the president’s movement whose foremost foreign policy goals seem to revolve around getting America out of the Ukraine-supporting business, the contours of a peace deal that emerged from the Anchorage summit must be depressing. At minimum, they commit the Trump administration to deeper involvement in the diplomatic process. Beyond that, the implementation of the terms with which Trump and Putin are toying would obligate “us” — the U.S. and its NATO allies — to deeper and more fraught commitments on the European continent.
For all their efforts to make the Alaska summit on Ukraine about everything and anything but Ukraine, the Russians were clear in their demands.
Moscow wants Ukraine “demilitarized,” though it will graciously negotiate with the Europeans what weapons it will allow Kyiv to possess. Russia reportedly signaled that it would cease its persecution of Ukrainian language-speakers in exchange for “official status” for the Russian language in all or part of Ukraine. It also called on Ukraine to restore the right of the “Russian Orthodox Church to operate freely,” allowing the Kremlin-subverted Patriacrhate to once again support Russian political objectives from behind vestments.
The only food metaphor I can find in Noah's article is a glum one: going along with Putin's demands "would almost invariably serve as a springboard into Ukraine in a future, third effort by the Kremlin to swallow up its neighbor."
Gulp.
Also of note:
-
Imagine me reading this article while saying "So what?" Eric Berger at Ars Technica seems to really want to rekindle that old "space race" spirit, against a different competitor: After recent tests, China appears likely to beat the United States back to the Moon.
In recent weeks, the secretive Chinese space program has reported some significant milestones in developing its program to land astronauts on the lunar surface by the year 2030.
On August 6, the China Manned Space Agency successfully tested a high-fidelity mockup of its 26-ton "Lanyue" lunar lander. The test, conducted outside of Beijing, used giant tethers to simulate lunar gravity as the vehicle fired main engines and fine control thrusters to land on a cratered surface and take off from there.
He interviews Dean Cheng, "one of the most respected analysts on China, space policy, and the geopolitical implications of the new space competition." A snippet
Ars: What would the geopolitical impact be if China beats the United States back to the Moon?
Cheng: The geopolitical impact of the Chinese beating the US to the Moon (where we are returning) would be enormous.
Ars: How so?
Cheng: It means the end of American exceptionalism. One of the hallmarks of the post-1969 era was that only the United States had been able to land someone on the Moon (or any other celestial body). This was bound to end, but the constant American refrain of "We've put a man on the Moon, we can do anything" will certainly no longer resonate.
Cheng makes the point that US space policy has undergone mood swings over the past years, while China's policy has been steady and consistent. True enough.
![[The Blogger]](/ps/images/barred.jpg)
