I argued on another site that Trump should be allowed breathing space to try and forge an acceptable peace. Apparently, numbers of others, including supposed and even genuine conservatives, think that this is a betrayal of Ukraine. Apparently, all unbeknown to me, I was, according to another contributor, supporting “Ukraine’s capitulation.”

I understand where these people are coming from. It is the mindset fashioned by the Alamo, Custer’s last stand, Britain standing alone in 1940, Rorke’s Drift, Masada, Constantinople, and many other backs-to-the-wall battles and wars. Their position is that Russia invaded Ukraine and cannot be rewarded for so doing and, beware, Russia wants more than just Ukraine under its thumb and will be emboldened by any perceived victory.

I can’t find fault with the logic of this position. I simply take issue with its real-world application. To take the second point first, that Russia is intent on empire building. Every country mentioned as potential targets for Russia – e.g., Poland and the Baltic states – are members of NATO. I would have thought that Article 5 would have deterred Russia from invading. Isn’t that why Zelensky is keen on joining?

Second, I might see the sense of being gung-ho for Ukraine, if I believed that it could lastingly “defeat” Russia within any reasonable timeframe and without drawing the US and Europeans into a wider war. But I don’t believe that for one moment. Russia is too big and has lost too many men to give up, however long the conflict is dragged out by supplying Ukraine with weapons of war. It will mean carnage on a largescale before Russia grinds out a victory, which may perhaps mean the end of Ukraine as an independent nation.

Realism points to the best solution being peace on sufferable terms.

In my view, those who are gung-ho for Ukraine live in a world of their own making, quite divorced from reality. In the absence of Russia’s capitulation – which is unrealistic – they appear to want endless war; and seem ready to risk a wider war and, also, let’s be clear-eyed, to risk the whole of Ukraine being overrun.

As I said in my post, which I referenced above, Trump’s strategy is the only game in town. I should have added, ‘in real life’. In La-La Land Russia withdraws its forces, issues mea culpas and pays reparations. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the victorious Saint Zelensky. Christoph Walz plays the chastened Putin the Terrible. And people aren’t really slaughtered in their thousands, day after day, week after week, year after year.

Let us keep in mind, Putin is winning, and winners don’t like ceasefires, particularly unconditional ones. But if Trump manages to find a way through and eventually brings about a lasting peace, he would surely be in line for the Nobel Peace Prize. A silly thought. I am realistic enough to know that nothing Trump can do will ever satisfy those suffering from TDS, i.e., the vast majority of the great and the good. Trump will inevitably be accused, whatever the outcome, of selling out Ukraine.