That baseless theory allowed some Europeans to avoid
the reality that they must take on the full burden — including the costs and
risks — of supporting Ukraine, or face the inevitability that Russia will come
after them next.
The false notion that Trump was not fully committed to Putin
also allowed many Republican supporters of Ukraine to justify looking the other
way while Trump uttered his endearments to the Russian dictator.
Now that the Trump/Putin alliance has been indelibly
formalized, denial is no longer a remotely reasonable option.
The fake peace plan
Trump’s announcement of his full-blown alliance with Putin
was preceded by an attempt by his incompetent and absurdly corrupt team of
“envoys,” real estate investor Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, to
advance a predictably bogus Ukraine “peace plan.”
On October 9, Witkoff and Kushner made a show of inviting
representatives of Ukraine, as well and European and NATO representatives whom
they had previously frozen out of their “mediation” efforts, to a meeting at
Witkoff’s Florida golf club.
The purpose, as columnist (and Kushner mouthpiece) David
Ignatius explained in a recent
column, was to announce a “peace” initiative.
As Ignatius touted, instead of going along with Putin’s
demand for all of the eastern Donbas region of Ukraine, the Trumper plan
offered Ukraine the “carrot” of a ceasefire based on the current lines —
“guaranteed” by the US (whatever that is worth).
The only problem with the “plan” was that Putin has
resolutely refused such terms in the past, and there’s no indication he’s
changed his mind.
Ignatius asserted that the Trumper “envoys” had extended a
generous offer of funding the rebuilding of Ukraine once Russia’s campaign of
devastation ends. What Ignatius failed to mention, but later emerged from press
reports, is that Kushner and Witkoff also demanded (as they have in the past)
that Europe hand over to Trump as yet undisclosed portions of the billions of
dollars in frozen Russian assets currently held in Belgium.
In sum, their “peace plan” was to use those monies — which
rightfully belong to Ukraine — to fund the “rebuilding” effort, presumably
after skimming a large amount off the top for Trump cronies.
The one-sided “ceasefire”
To cap off this great proposal, Witkoff and Kushner
reportedly announced that the “peace plan” would involve an immediate halt on
some of the most devastating attacks in the war … but solely by Ukraine.
For months, Ukraine has been striking key elements of
Russia’s war economy, particularly its oil and gas industry, by attacking
hydrocarbon industry plants and other infrastructure, including refineries and
tankers. As a result, Russia’s ability to generate oil revenues on the black
market is becoming impaired, as is Russia’s ability to produce the refined fuel
that is crucial to the operation of its economy and prosecution of its war of
conquest against Ukraine.
One would expect that Kushner and Witkoff, as supposed
“mediators,” would want Ukraine to continue its strikes. After all — as
demonstrated during Zelenskyy’s notorious February 2025 Oval Office encounter
with Trump and JD Vance — Ukraine needs to have such “cards” of its own both to
defend itself and obtain leverage over Russia in any actual negotiations.
But the very opposite was true. Over at least the past
several months, it has come to light that US representatives from Vance on down
have been demanding that Ukraine cease attacking Russian refineries. And during
the Florida golf course meeting, Kushner and Witkoff formalized that demand for
what Trump later called an “energy ceasefire.”
The problem, of course, is that such a one-sided “deal”
would leave Russia free to continue hitting Ukraine’s heating and electrical
infrastructure in advance of the winter, as Putin’s regime has been doing with
ever greater ferocity — including immediately after Trump announced the
“ceasefire.”
The peace “proposal,” therefore, was actually a proposal for
Ukraine to hobble its own military and defense activities, while Russia
assaults Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure.
Trump’s “diesel deal”
But Trump himself all but put the kibosh on his purported
mediators’ “peace plan” by announcing his intention for the US to join Iran,
North Korea, and China in becoming an open ally in — and profiteer from —
Russia’s “Special Military Operation” against Ukraine.
The vehicle for that announcement was Trump’s declaration
that he had reached a “diesel deal” with Russia, pursuant to which the US would
purchase diesel fuel from Russia and facilitate the sale of the fuel by Russia
to other countries.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United
States has cut off purchases of Russian oil and gas and has strongly pressured
allies, particularly Europeans, to do the same. Some countries, particularly
Germany, have substantially reconfigured their economies to end dependence on
Russian hydrocarbons.
Furthermore, just weeks ago, Trump signed into law the
Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026, which was to impose massive
secondary tariffs on countries that continued to purchase Russian oil and gas,
including China and India. Trump’s announcement was, therefore, a complete
about-face, rendering the US into a buyer and marketer of the very same Russian
oil products the US has pressured others to shun.
It was hard to make sense of Trump’s actions in light of
actual energy market realities.
Because of Ukraine’s successful refinery strikes, as
Secretary Chris Wright acknowledged during two Sunday interviews, Russia has
been experiencing a serious shortage of diesel.
Indeed, Putin has had to turn to other countries, including
South Korea, for supplies of the fuel. Furthermore, the US produces more diesel
that it consumes, so it’s unlikely that Russian diesel would be imported to the
US even if it was available.
But Trump’s actual purpose was plainly not to increase US
diesel supplies, or otherwise lower consumer prices, but rather to make clear
his intention to definitively change sides and become Russia’s wartime ally —
and to undermine the international sanctions regime against Russia that the US
worked so hard to implement over the past nearly five years.
This became all the more clear when reports began leaking
out that Trump’s “peace” envoys, Witkoff and Kushner, have been working on a
plan with their close associate, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, to pressure
Germany to start buying Russian gas again — but this time in a commercial
arrangement that will give Trump-associated American firms a cut. This jibes
completely with another Kushner/Witkoff scheme that was recently leaked to sell
the assets of a large Russian oil company, Lukoil, to an American investor
named Todd Boehly who has donated
millions to Trump.
If Russia is going to be an ally, why shouldn’t Trumpers get
a piece of the resulting gusher of oil profits?
Trump capped off the week by announcing last Friday that he
was “implementing” the Graham Act by suspending its provisions and preventing
the sanctioning of purchasers of Russian goods, including the diesel fuel Trump
has effectively been marketing for his ally Putin’s part.
The Graham Act requires the president to provide
certification that any such waiver “is in the national interests of the United
States” and to report to Congress on why that’s the case. But Trump made a
mockery of these requirements by simply declaring that his about-face in US
policy is in the national interest without any substantial explanation.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in typically disingenuous
fashion, later said that Trump “wants to take the 60-day period of time to sort
of analyze what imposing both sanctions and tariffs will mean to the global
economy and even to the US economy,” despite the fact that the president signed
a law calling for those sanctions and tariffs just days ago.
But, of course, by that time, everyone knew Trump’s actual
purpose was to help Putin vanquish Ukraine and endanger the rest of Europe.
The scheme to hobble Ukrainian defenses
Trump’s decision to ally the US with Russia became clear
last week, when the Defense Department — which uses its sophisticated aerial
intelligence to warn Ukraine of incoming Russian ballistic missile attacks —
repeatedly failed to provide such warnings in advance of massive Russian
assaults on Kyiv. That came on the heels of reports that Kushner and Witkoff
had threatened a complete cutoff of US intelligence sharing with Ukraine during
the “peace” talks in Florida.
Then, on October 12 — entirely without warning — the
Ukrainian armed forces began to incur sudden speed and connection interruptions
in the SpaceX-owned Starlink systems used for navigation of many Ukrainian
drones. As a result, Ukraine’s ability to both intercept incoming Russian drone
attacks and conduct the midrange attacks the country has been pursuing with
great success on Russian military logistics hubs were drastically impaired.
The unexplained cutoff was met with such anger and dismay by
Ukraine and its allies that even Putin-friendly oligarch Elon Musk distanced
himself from it, stating it was ordered by the US military. Defense Department
sources then pointed the finger at, you guessed it, the White House.
Rubio later acknowledged that the US government has wholly
cut off Ukraine from the “military” elements of Starlink. Rubio went on to say that it is “under discussion
right now how [Ukraine] would want to use” the services Trump has cut off, more
than implying that Trumpers are continuing to try to blackmail Ukraine into a
one way “energy ceasefire.”
Just yesterday, reports emerged the United States has been
holding off on giving necessary approvals to Ukraine of the transfer of Patriot
missile interceptors — which provide virtually the only effective defense to
increasing Russian ballistic missile attacks. This comes as the US itself has
largely refused to provide these interceptors to Ukraine from its own
stockpiles.
Also on Monday, Trump opined that Russia "hasn't been
doing much" to Ukraine and that its brutal war of annihilation is “fine.”
Facing facts
During a Sunday morning interview Treasury Secretary Scott
Bessent was repeatedly asked if Ukraine is an ally of the United States. He
refused to give a straight answer, but effectively responded in the negative by
berating Zelenskyy.
Trump himself is far less cagey than Bessent on the topic of
who his allies are. He recently announced that he was going to invite Putin to
attend the G20 meeting, to be held in December at his own Doral golf club. It
is now clear that if Putin attends, it will be in his newly anointed role as
US, or rather Trump, ally.
Trump’s open effort to join nations like Iran, North Korea,
and China in aiding Putin’s murderous assault on Ukraine is nothing short of
disastrous, and it will leave a lasting moral stain on the United States. But
there may be something of a silver lining to this dark cloud.
Since Trump returned to the presidency, many of Ukraine’s
supporters — including some allies in Europe and Republicans in the US — have
clung to the theory that, despite Trump’s fondness for Putin, he was not
ineluctably committed to a pro-Russian position. All that was needed, these
“optimists” argued, was continued sweet-talking and submission from Ukraine’s
leaders — including a lot of plaintive “thank yous” — and Trump would come
around.
This never made much sense, particularly given the ample
evidence that Russia helped Trump get elected, and continues to cultivate him
through elaborate disinformation campaigns and by offering lucrative financial
“deals” to the likes of Kushner, Witkoff and other Trump cronies.
But it was also, in certain respects, a reassuring fiction.
Many European countries have been notably hesitant to take
all of the steps necessary to assist Ukraine in defending itself against
Russia. Those include sharing weapons systems and stocks of anti-missile
defense weapons (if the US allows it), and by providing Ukraine with access to
frozen Russian assets, which are needed both to keep the Ukrainian economy
afloat and fully fund the country’s defense.
That European hesitation has continued despite, and possibly
in some respects because, Russia has been increasing its so-called hybrid war
on other European countries, consisting of everything from cyber attacks to
kinetic terror attacks on airports and infrastructure. The use of the term
“hybrid warfare” itself reflects a form of self-denial by Europeans, many of
whom are hesitant to acknowledge that they are now effectively at war with
Russia.
Trump’s now open alliance with Russia may increase the
impetus for European leaders to take more steps necessary to provide Ukraine —
which after all is the frontline defender of the entire continent against
Russian aggression — the resources it requires to prevail. But even if such
full-throated resolve is forthcoming, it could also be too late given that
(with the help of Russia) pro-Russian politicians may soon come to power in
France and potentially Germany.
There also remains a chance, albeit a small one, that some
of the vast majority of Republicans who have long claimed to support Ukraine
against Russia’s murderous assault will finally stand up to Trump, even feebly.
Lindsey Graham’s sister, who Trump plucked out of obscurity to become her late
brother’s successor, took a first step in that direction last week by opposing
Trump’s “diesel deal” with Putin. A drubbing in the midterms and Trump’s
descent into the political basement could encourage that process.
Recent history makes it hard to say that optimism is
warranted. But continued, and ever greater, efforts by Ukraine’s supporters are
nonetheless essential. The stakes not only for Ukraine, but also the world,
could not be higher.
Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so
feel free to share it.
🌍
Subscribe to PN 🌍
