Pick your poll to tell your story but support among the US population for Ukraine is on a downward trend. War, or in this case funding war, saps morale and stamina. Trump was elected on a commitment to bring peace and he is pursuing that end.
The US has one, existential enemy, which is China. The priority is to avoid a Russian alliance with China that would provide energy and food security that the Chinese currently lack. Fighting to reclaim Crimea, which is of the utmost strategic importance to Russia, drives Russia into China's arms.
One way to view the circus of Zelensky's appearance in the Oval Office is as the day the media died as the interlocutor of foreign policy. All previous media appearances have been for show and the tough talk done behind the scenes. The Trump administration does not trust the media to relay its message and therefore played it out on live TV.
The message is simple - the US is not providing an unlimited security guarantee for Ukraine. Europe must now decide if Crimea matters enough to burn men and money reclaiming it.
I think both of your suggestions are right: for the US the urgent need to separate Russia from China (no difficult task, I'd have thought) is paramount; and yes, it's another sausages and laws moment as far as diplomacy is concerned.
* it imbues British people uniquely into believing we are the most moral nation known to man. This is why we take our unrealistic stance on Ukraine. Our hoary prophets are over-feted historians like Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts who are the first to race to defend the Churchill false legacy. “Appeasement” has become a pejorative as a result.
In the final analysis WW2 has replaced the new testament narrative in a secular world. Churchill features as Jesus and Hitler is Satan.
It informs every useless conflict we have gotten involved with since then.
As Peter Hutchens says in interview about his book “The Phoney Victory”, “in the rubble and dust a myth had to be created - the cult of Churchill - because the fact we had thrown away an empire and all future long term prosperity over Poland - a country we gave to Stalin anyway - was too much to bear”
Even if you are right about Russia, then there's still a calculus to be made between i) the certainty of prolonging the war now and ii) the risk that a ceasefire won't hold long-term. I can't see how the certainty of prolonging the war now is the better option.
Your worry about Russia rearming and re-invading is absolutely legitimate, and it would be a persuasive argument if you could describe for me a Ukrainian 'victory' which doesn't leave open the possibility of a resumption of Russia's aggression in the future. To rule that out I think you'd need a 'Cartheginian' victory, which is out of the question.
Nothing will 'validate' Russia's invasion - there's no expunging that crime.
As for Beijing/Taiwan, I think you are reading it exactly wrong. I suspect (I don't know) that bringing in Russia from the cold is precisely part of the US's calculation that it needs to ensure that Russia/China relations are not inseparably close. If US can detach Russia from China, then the odds of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan are reduced, not raised. If forcing the inevitable dishonourable armistice on Ukraine is the price to be paid. . . they'll pay it.
As you say, it's ugly and there are no good choices.
Pick your poll to tell your story but support among the US population for Ukraine is on a downward trend. War, or in this case funding war, saps morale and stamina. Trump was elected on a commitment to bring peace and he is pursuing that end.
The US has one, existential enemy, which is China. The priority is to avoid a Russian alliance with China that would provide energy and food security that the Chinese currently lack. Fighting to reclaim Crimea, which is of the utmost strategic importance to Russia, drives Russia into China's arms.
One way to view the circus of Zelensky's appearance in the Oval Office is as the day the media died as the interlocutor of foreign policy. All previous media appearances have been for show and the tough talk done behind the scenes. The Trump administration does not trust the media to relay its message and therefore played it out on live TV.
The message is simple - the US is not providing an unlimited security guarantee for Ukraine. Europe must now decide if Crimea matters enough to burn men and money reclaiming it.
I think both of your suggestions are right: for the US the urgent need to separate Russia from China (no difficult task, I'd have thought) is paramount; and yes, it's another sausages and laws moment as far as diplomacy is concerned.
* it imbues British people uniquely into believing we are the most moral nation known to man. This is why we take our unrealistic stance on Ukraine. Our hoary prophets are over-feted historians like Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts who are the first to race to defend the Churchill false legacy. “Appeasement” has become a pejorative as a result.
In the final analysis WW2 has replaced the new testament narrative in a secular world. Churchill features as Jesus and Hitler is Satan.
It informs every useless conflict we have gotten involved with since then.
As Peter Hutchens says in interview about his book “The Phoney Victory”, “in the rubble and dust a myth had to be created - the cult of Churchill - because the fact we had thrown away an empire and all future long term prosperity over Poland - a country we gave to Stalin anyway - was too much to bear”
Even if you are right about Russia, then there's still a calculus to be made between i) the certainty of prolonging the war now and ii) the risk that a ceasefire won't hold long-term. I can't see how the certainty of prolonging the war now is the better option.
Your worry about Russia rearming and re-invading is absolutely legitimate, and it would be a persuasive argument if you could describe for me a Ukrainian 'victory' which doesn't leave open the possibility of a resumption of Russia's aggression in the future. To rule that out I think you'd need a 'Cartheginian' victory, which is out of the question.
Nothing will 'validate' Russia's invasion - there's no expunging that crime.
As for Beijing/Taiwan, I think you are reading it exactly wrong. I suspect (I don't know) that bringing in Russia from the cold is precisely part of the US's calculation that it needs to ensure that Russia/China relations are not inseparably close. If US can detach Russia from China, then the odds of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan are reduced, not raised. If forcing the inevitable dishonourable armistice on Ukraine is the price to be paid. . . they'll pay it.
As you say, it's ugly and there are no good choices.