Why Does Trump Favor Russia Over Our Traditional Allies?

The following is part of a post by Heather Cox Richardson at Letters From An American: 

On Thursday, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called attention to another factor in play. In a speech to the Senate, Whitehouse noted that throughout his second term, Trump has advanced policies that help Russia, pausing weapons shipments to Ukraine, easing sanctions on Russia, and pushing a peace deal favorable to Russia. Last summer, he welcomed Putin to American soil, and administration officials have parroted Russian propaganda. Russian state media gloated when Trump “installed Russia apologist Tulsi Gabbard as his director of national intelligence,” and Attorney General Pam Bondi upon taking office stopped the anti-kleptocracy work that had targeted Russian oligarchs.

Trump’s new national security policy threw traditional U.S. allies overboard and favored policies that Russian government officials praised as “largely consistent” with their own.

“If Trump were purposefully doing Russia’s bidding,” Whitehouse said, “it is hard to see what he would be doing differently. The United States is the most powerful nation in the world. Russia is a weak, corrupt regime. My old friend Senator John McCain used to say that Russia is a gas station, run by gangsters, with an army. It doesn’t make sense that the President of the United States, who insists—insists—on being dominant in essentially every relationship, is so submissive to one person and that one person is Russia’s dictator, Vladimir Putin.”

Whitehouse suggested that the answer “could…have something to do with Trump’s close friendship with the deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.” He noted that the Epstein files, riddled as they are with references to Trump, are also riddled with references to Russian girls and women, Russian operatives, and Russian president Vladimir Putin. . . .

Whitehouse suggested the possibility that Epstein might have been working with Russian operatives, but emphasized that we don’t know. “Epstein was an inveterate liar and a criminal who often sought to exaggerate his power and influence, and the Epstein files need to be viewed through that lens,” he said. “What we do know is that a significant number of powerful men—our current President, some of his cabinet secretaries, tech billionaires like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and others—were very mixed up with Epstein at different times. And Epstein seems to have been very mixed up with Russia.”

“We also know that there is a cover-up afoot at the Department of Justice,” he continued, where officials are “trying to shield Trump from something in the Epstein files.”

“One of the great forces that Washington runs on is normalcy bias,” he said, but he suggested looking past that bias to note that “we have links with Russia, girls from Russia, money from Russia, people from Russia, deals and transactions with Russia, contacts with people with Russian intelligence, news reports exploring contacts with Russia, and an official investigation from the government of Poland into an Epstein-Russia connection.”

Peace Is Possible In Ukraine - But Not The Way Trump Is Trying To Do it

Donald Trump promised during the last campaign that he would have peace in Ukraine on his first day in office. Now, eleven months later, that peace still seems very far away. 

Trump has tried several times to end the Russia-Ukraine war and failed. His latest attempt was a 28 point plan that he demanded Ukraine accept. Sadly, it was so bad that Putin himself couldn't a written a plan more favorable to Russia. The plan was unacceptable to Ukraine (and its European allies) and has been changed. Now it is unacceptable to Russia. 

The crazy thing is that peace is possible in Ukraine, but Trump has been going about it all wrong. He has been favoring Russia and pressuring Ukraine. That's just the opposite of what needs to be done.

Trump seems to think that Ukraine is on a path to defeat while Russia is in a strong position. Neither is true. Ukraine is fighting for its life, and cannot give up or surrender. And Russia is in a weaker position than the media would have us believe.

The truth is that in the last two years Russia has only increased it control of Ukrainian territory by a scant 1% - and it has cost them 200,000 dead and wounded soldiers to do that. And while Russia keeps bombing Ukraine on a daily basis, Ukraine (with long-range drones) is hitting Russia back on a daily basis. And while Ukraine can't surrender, it remains to be seen how long Russia can continue the war with the costs it is incurring.

Instead of pressuring Ukraine, Trump should be putting some real pressure on Russia. After all, it is Russia that invaded Ukraine.

Trump has threatened severe economic sanctions on Russia and to give Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, but backed off both when Putin praised him (played him!). He needs to follow through on both of those things - and more. He needs to make it clear that the U.S. will continue to give Ukraine all the weaponry it needs, and then threaten to accept Ukraine into NATO (and the European Union). 

Russia is hurting. And some real pressure on them would make all the difference. Putin might finally realize they cannot continue a war they cannot win.

Sadly, Trump won't do that. He will be continued to be outsmarted by Putin. And he will continue to fail in his efforts for a "peace" plan. He's just not smart enough to know who America's real friends are - and who its enemies are. 

Trump's "Peace Plan" Gives Russia Everything It Wants - It's A Bad Plan

Donald Trump has come up with a "peace plan" for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sadly, it gives Russia everything it wants, while denying Ukraine the ironclad guarantees it needs. I think it's a bad plan, but Trump is threatening to abandon Ukraine if they don't agree.

Here is Trump's plan:

Here is the text of a draft version of the 28-point peace plan for Ukraine backed by the United States, according to a copy seen by Reuters

1. Ukraine's sovereignty to be reconfirmed.

2. There will be a total and complete comprehensive non-aggression agreement between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered resolved.

3. There will be the expectation that Russia will not invade its neighbours and NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue between Russia and NATO, moderated by the United States, will convene to address all security concerns and create a de-escalatory environment to ensure global security and increase the opportunities for connectivity and future economic opportunity.

5. Ukraine will receive robust security guarantees.

6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be capped at 600,000.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to pass in its bylaws not to accept Ukraine at any point in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station any troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

10. The U.S. guarantee:

a. The U.S. to receive compensation for the guarantee;

b. If Ukraine invades Russia, it forfeits the guarantee;

c. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a robust coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be restored and recognition for the new territory and all other benefits from this agreement will be withdrawn;

d. If Ukraine fires a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg then, the security guarantee will be considered null and void.

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will get short-term preferred market access to the European market while this issue is being evaluated.

12. Robust Global Redevelopment Package for Ukraine including but not limited to:

a. Creation of Ukraine Development Fund to invest in high-growth industries including technology, data centers, and AI efforts.

b. The United States will partner with Ukraine to jointly restore, grow, modernize, and operate Ukraine's gas infrastructure, which includes its pipelines and storage facilities.

c. A joint effort to redevelop areas impacted by the war to restore, redevelop and modernize cities and residential areas.

d. Infrastructure development.

e. Mineral and natural resource extraction.

f. A special financing package will be developed by The World Bank to provide financing to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia to be re-integrated into the global economy:

a. Sanction relief will be discussed and agreed upon in phases and on a case-by-case basis.

b. The United States will enter into a long-term Economic Co-operation Agreement to pursue mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal projects in the Arctic as well as other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.

c. Russia to be invited back into the G8.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

$100 billion of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a US-led effort to reconstruct and invest in Ukraine. The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will match this $100 billion contribution to increase the investment available to rebuild Ukraine. The European funds that are frozen will be released. The balance of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russia investment vehicle that will pursue joint United States Russia projects in areas to be defined. This fund will aim to strengthen the relationship and increase joint interests to build a strong motivation not to return to conflict.

15. A joint US-Russian Security taskforce will be established to promote and enforce compliance with all of the provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will legislatively enshrine a non-aggression policy towards Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend nuclear non-proliferation control treaties, including the START I Treaty.

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state under the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons).

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be restarted under supervision of the IAEA, and the produced power shall be equitably in a 50-50 split between Russia and Ukraine.

20. Both countries commit to education programs in schools and throughout their society that promotes the understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminates racism and bias:

a. Ukraine will adopt EU rules of religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.

b. Both countries agree to repeal all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.

c. All Nazi ideology or activity should be renounced and forbidden.

21. Territories:

a. Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk to be recognized De-Facto as Russian, including by the United States.

b. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to be frozen at the contact line, which would mean a De-Facto recognition at the contact line.

c. Russia to give up other agreed upon territories they control outside of the five regions

d. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk region that they currently control, and this withdrawal area will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

22. Once future territorial arrangements have been agreed, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this obligation.

23. Russia shall not obstruct Ukraine's use of the Dnieper River for purposes of commercial activities and agreements will be reached for grain shipments to move freely through the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve open issues:

a. All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on the principle of 'all for all'.

b. All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.

c. There will be a family reunification program

d. Provisions will be made to address the suffering of victims from the conflict.

25. Ukraine to hold elections in 100 days.

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for wartime actions during the war and agree not to pursue claims or further settle grievances.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Board of Peace, Chaired by President Donald J. Trump. There will be penalties for violation.

28. Upon all sides agreeing to this memorandum, a ceasefire will be immediately effective upon both parties withdrawing to the agreed upon points for the implementation of the agreement to begin. 

Americans Are Pessimistic About A Fair Peace Deal Being Done In Russia-Ukraine War

 

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll -- done between August 1st and 15th of a nationwide sample of 2,132 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Are We Any Closer To Peace In Ukraine?

Donald Trump is making a lot of noise recently about negotiating a peace between Ukraine and Russia. He held a "summit" with Putin in Alaska. Then he met with Zelensky and European leaders in the White House. Was anything accomplished?

Very little, if anything at all. Instead of a serious negotiator, Trump came off looking more like a ping-pong ball being knocked back and forth by opposing factions (agreeing with each in their turn).

Trump was heard telling Macron of France that he believes Putin really wants peace. Obviously, Trump is delusional. Putin is the one who refuses to sit down and negotiate. He thinks he's winning.

Trump now says the next step is for Zelensky and Putin to meet. That won't happen, because they have nothing they can agree on. Zelensky is trying to protect his country's independence and democracy. Putin wants to re-establish the old Soviet Union, and that requires he conquer Ukraine.

Nothing will happen until Putin believes he might actually lose in Ukraine. Unfortunately, that won't happen unless Trump puts some serious military and economic pressure on him - something he is still unwilling to do.

The last couple of weeks has been just political theater with no substance at all. The media has loved it and made a big deal out of it, but it hasn't moved the peace process any further along.

We need more than vacuous headlines and proclamations. But with Trump taking the lead there is little chance of that. He views Putin as his friend - not the enemy of the free world. Until that changes, no progress will be made toward peace.

It's Time For Trump To Choose: Ukraine Or Russia - History Will Judge His Choice

Donald Trump has been living in a dream world - a world in which he is neutral and can facilitate a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine (resulting in a Nobel Peace Prize for himself). His abject failure at the Alaska summit has ended that dream - whether he realizes it or not.

Trump now says it is up to Zelensky to end the war (by agreeing to Putin's demand for Ukrainian territory). He's wrong! Zelensky made that choice long ago. He will fight to keep both Ukraine's territory and its democracy.

The choice that needs to be made is Donald Trump's. There is no middle ground in this war. One either supports the Ukrainian democracy or the Russian aggression.The democratic leaders of Europe have made their choice. They side with Ukraine and oppose Russian aggression. Trump must now make his choice, because trying to remain neutral is just allowing Putin to continue to manipulate him and make him look foolish.

Putin has made it very clear that he is not interested in a ceasefire or a peace plan (unless it gives him much or all of Ukraine). The war will continue in spite of Trump's pathetic attempts at being a "peacemaker". And either Russia or Ukraine will ultimately win the war.

If Trump chooses to back Ukraine, and go all in to support them, Ukraine will win the war. And Trump might finally get the credit he so fervently wants.

If Trump chooses Russia (or refuses to choose), there is a good chance Russia finally wins and is able to absorb all or most of Ukraine. If that happens, Trump will be very harshly judged by history. He will be forever remembered as the person who was too cowardly or stupid to stop Russian aggression and defend western democracy.

History can either record Trump as a hero or a villain. It's now up to him. Does he have the courage or intelligence to make the right choice? 

Russia Is Not Winning Its War Against Ukraine

 

From The Washington Post

Trump's "Peace" Plan Is A Very Bad Deal For Ukraine

 

This is from Axios.com.

A Majority Don't Trust Russia To Keep Its Word On Ukraine

The chart above is from the Gallup Poll -- done between March 3rd and 11th of a nationwide sample of 2,219 adults, with a 2 point margin of error. 

Donald Trump says he trust Putin to keep his word. But the American people don't trust him. They also think Trump is likely to broker a peace that is too favorable to Russia and unfavorable to the Ukraine.

U.S. Public Disagrees With Trump On Russia And Ukraine

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between February 23rd and 25th of a nationwide sample of 1,444 registered voters, with a 3.4 point margin of error.

U.S. Public Disagrees With Trump On Russia And Ukraine

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between February 16th and 18th of a nationwide sample of 1,603 adults (including 1,451 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.3 points for adults and 3.2 points for registered voters.
 

U.S. Should NOT Restrict Ukraine's Use Of Provided Weapons

Russia continues to attack Ukraine with every kind of weapon it has, and has recently increased its attacks on Ukraine's civilians. But Ukraine is unable to do the same to Russia. That's because the U.S. (and NATO) has restricted the use of weapons they provide to Ukraine (especially long-range weapons the provided like missiles and F-16's).

In effect, we are forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind their back. That's ridiculous, and it must change. War is a messy and horrible business. But if it must be fought, it should be fought on equal terms.

So far, Ukraine has attacked Russia, but only with their home-made drones. That's not good enough. They, like Russia, should be able to attack with any weapon they have (or can get).

I know that Russia has threatened to declare war on NATO if we allow Ukraine to use the weapons provided to attack Russia. That's just bluster. 

It's become obvious that Russia cannot defeat Ukraine, and is having a lot of trouble just hanging on to the eastern provinces it has taken. Declaring war on NATO would be a serious mistake - and Putin knows it. NATO has the weaponry and strength to quickly push Russia out of all of Ukraine - and easily defend all NATO nations.

The same is true for nuclear weapons. Putin knows he cannot use them without causing Russia to suffer massive destruction!

The U.S. and NATO should provide Ukraine with all the weapons they request, and then let them use those weapons without any restrictions.  Not allowing them to fight on an equal basis with Russia just makes no sense!

Why Do Georgia Voters Support This Ridiculous Woman?

American voters have the right to send any person they want to serve in the House of Representatives. But I have to wonder why the voters in the 14th District of Georgia elected Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Her mission seems to be to cause trouble in the House. She was one of the people who kicked Speaker McCarthy (a fellow Republican) out of office, and she is threatening to do the same to Speaker Johnson (also a fellow Republican).

Why? Because he is going to bring a bill to provide more aid to Ukraine up for a vote. She opposes aid to Ukraine, and has ridiculously accused the Ukrainian government of being Nazis who are fighting against christianity. She supports authoritarian Putin's invasion of Ukraine's democracy. 

To delay the aid to Ukraine bill, she has introduced three amendments to the bill. Here are those amendments:

WHY DOES SHE HATE DEMOCRACY? Do the voters of Georgia's 14th District also hate democracy and support the Russian dictator?

The Hope For A Better Future For Russia

The following post is by Serge Schmemann in The New York Times:

The spectacle of Alexei Navalny’s funeral on Friday must have filled Vladimir Putin with fury.

He had done everything to silence Navalny, to crush any hint of disobedience from his followers, to eradicate any questioning of his war. And yet Putin could do nothing to prevent thousands of Russians from lining up in a dreary, remote Moscow district to pay their last respects to their fallen hero, to chant “No to the war!” and to defy the massed police in full riot gear.

I remember a similar outpouring of silent defiance in the Soviet Union, after the enormously popular balladeer and actor Vladimir Vysotsky died, when thousands of grieving Muscovites spontaneously gathered outside the theater where he worked. Vysotsky’s ballads spoke to the misery of ordinary Soviet lives, and at that moment popular grief overcame fear. The grief for Navalny was even greater: He spoke to an acute, simmering frustration among many Russians with what Putin has done to them and their country.

They may not be the majority in Russia. Putin still seems to command support among the millions of rural, less-educated Russians who believe in his propaganda about a hostile world out there that only he can hold at bay. But the mile-long line of people, most of them young and many with a clutch of roses, inching across the colorless, slush-covered streets of the southeastern Maryino district, were the people Putin continues to fear.

They gathered in other Russian cities, too, though they knew they would be photographed; they knew that Putin in his fury would seek revenge against them. Yet they walked past the lines of police officers and piled their roses at the grave and nodded to Navalny’s parents, sitting stoically alongside, some whispering, “Thank you for your son.” It was the mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya, who had demanded that Putin release her son for burial in Moscow, rather than in a hole at the remote Arctic labor camp where he died on Feb. 16.

When Mr. Navalny’s coffin was lowered into the ground, Frank Sinatra’s defiant version of “My Way” blared from loudspeakers. “I did what I had to do … I did it my way….” That was what people loved in Navalny, his refusal to bend. One Russian interviewed by an independent Russian online broadcaster said the long line of defiant mourners were evidence that “hope remains, that Russia has a chance for a future.”

Top Secret Binder On Russian Election Interference Missing

The following is part of a story from CNN.com:

A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Its disappearance, which has not been previously reported, was so concerning that intelligence officials briefed Senate Intelligence Committee leaders last year about the missing materials and the government’s efforts to retrieve them, the sources said.

In the two-plus years since Trump left office, the missing intelligence does not appear to have been found.

The binder contained raw intelligence the US and its NATO allies collected on Russians and Russian agents, including sources and methods that informed the US government’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help Trump win the 2016 election, sources tell CNN.

The intelligence was so sensitive that lawmakers and congressional aides with top secret security clearances were able to review the material only at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where their work scrutinizing it was itself kept in a locked safe.

The binder was last seen at the White House during Trump’s final days in office. . . .

The binder was not among the classified items found in last year’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

How Long Can Russia Count On China To Back Them?

The following is part of an op-ed by Sergey Radchenko in The New York Times:

In 1969, China and the Soviet Union seemed on the brink of war.

They fought a deadly border clash in March of that year and another in August. The Kremlin dropped hints of a nuclear strike. Over the next few years, they exchanged barbs. Mao Zedong warned, “You piss on my head, and I shall retaliate!” The Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev called Mao “treacherous.” An alliance that Moscow and Beijing previously billed as unbreakable quickly unraveled.

So Mao reached out to his avowed foe the United States. Mao, a scathing critic of what he called American imperialism, suddenly referred to President Richard Nixon as “the No. 1 good fellow in the world,” and by 1972, Nixon turned up in Beijing. It was a geopolitical earthquake that altered the course of history.

These days Vladimir Putin is Xi Jinping’s No. 1 good fellow as the two countries make common cause against the United States. But the Russian leader — his authority bruised in the wake of the aborted mutiny by the Wagner paramilitary group in June — would be wise to keep in mind China’s track record. As Mikhail Kapitsa, a top Soviet foreign ministry official, put it in 1982, “The Chinese never befriend anyone for a long time.”

The Chinese Communist Party’s approach to geopolitics is rooted in an ancient strategic culture of playing other nations — sometimes dismissed as barbarians during China’s imperial times — against one another for China’s benefit. Mao’s abrupt turn to the United States showed just how quickly Chinese loyalties can crumble when the usefulness of a strategic partner wanes. . . .

Mr. Xi, perhaps sensing diminishing returns from deeper engagement with America, has brought things full circle once more during the Putin era, embracing the Russian leader and denouncing the United States.

The West is right to be worried. Turning the clock back to the days of Sino-Soviet brotherhood, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi have unequivocally sided with each other in challenging the Western-led world order. The combination of Mr. Putin’s revanchism and military aggression and China’s economic power is dangerous.

But Mr. Putin has made a potentially grave error, burning bridges with the West to go all in with China in reckless disregard for Beijing’s track record of instrumentalizing its friendships.

Despite offering diplomatic cover for Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, China has largely avoided running afoul of Western sanctions on Russia, essentially putting its own interests before those of its embattled client. Russia’s deepening isolation has given China access to discounted Russian energy products. Much of the trade between China and Russia is now conducted in the Chinese yuan, which reduces Russia’s exposure to Western economic pressure but also advances Beijing’s goal of undercutting the dollar’s dominance as the world currency. At the same time, China has been able to portray itself to much of the world as a responsible global player with its halfhearted calls for peace in Ukraine as the war has dragged on.

Mr. Putin, on the other hand, has made his country a junior partnerto China. Looking weakened and less secure after the Wagner revolt last month, he risks becoming even more dependent on China for political and economic support.

Mr. Xi will no doubt take note. Like past Chinese leaders, he respects strength but knows how to exploit weakness, and Russia will remain useful to him as he continues to challenge the United States. Mr. Putin can still make major strategic choices for his country, as long as they coincide with China’s interests. But will China stand by him if those interests diverge? Or if Russian elites run out of patience with his poor decisions and try to push him out? Or if the global costs of standing with him prove too onerous for China?

China remains the same secretive, self-serving Communist Party state that it was in Mao’s day, with an outlook on global politics in which alignments are viewed as temporary. There are no “good feelings,” as Mr. Geng put it five decades ago, just cold calculation.

The West, so concerned today about this newly united front between China and Russia, should remember that.

So should Mr. Putin.

There Is Only One Acceptable Outcome - Victory For Ukraine

There has been a lot of talk about a diplomatic solution for the war in Ukraine. That's hogwash. If Putin is allowed to keep even an inch of the territory he has seized, it will just encourage more Russian aggression in the future. The only acceptable solution is a Ukrainian victory!

Here is how Bret Stephens describes it in The New York Times: 

It may be that Ukraine’s long-awaited counteroffensive, which could be in its early stages, will be as fruitless as Russia’s winter offensive. Defenders typically have advantages over attackers in trench warfare, and the Russian Army has had months to dig in.

But it’s also possible that the Ukrainians could achieve breakthroughs that could put the end of the war in sight this year. What then? How should this end?

We can start by listing the ways in which it shouldn’t. The first is the one suggested last year by President Emmanuel Macron of France. “We must not humiliate Russia,” he argued, “so that the day when the fighting stops we can build an exit ramp through diplomatic means.” At the time, to “not humiliate Russia” was code for allowing Russia to preserve its ill-gotten gains while it was on the offensive.

Wrong. A crushing and unmistakable defeat is precisely what is necessary to put an end to Russia’s imperialistic ambition. It’s easy to forget now that last year’s invasion was the third time Vladimir Putin had launched a war of conquest, intimidation and annexation against his neighbors, following the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the seizure of Ukrainian soil in 2014. And that’s not counting cyberwarfare against Estonia, assassinations on British soil, the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, or the annihilation of Aleppo and Grozny.

Each act of aggression went essentially unpunished, tempting Russia into the next one. If the war in Ukraine ends with Putin having achieved at least some of his goals and suffering no irreparable consequences to his regime, the only “exit ramp” the West will have found is Putin’s on-ramp to his next outrage.

Similarly, if Ukrainian forces break through Russian lines in a way that prompts Putin to seek a settlement — probably through Chinese mediation — there will be those who argue that a cease-fire and armistice on the Korean model is preferable to the risks of a dramatic escalation. The Kremlin may try to encourage this line of thinking by again rattling its nuclear saber, this time even louder.

But while the nuclear threat should never be discounted, it looks empty on close inspection.

The reason Putin hasn’t used tactical nuclear weapons in this war thus far isn’t because of moral scruples that might vanish if he feels cornered. It’s because those weapons, which were originally designed to destroy large concentrations of armor, make little sense on a thinly spread battlefield. And because the Biden administration has threatened unspecified “catastrophic consequences” if Russia uses such weapons — perhaps involving the sinking of Russia’s Black Sea fleet or some other kinetic but non-nuclear NATO response.

The larger problem with the armistice model is that it freezes the conflict in a way that would allow Russia to resume it once it has licked its wounds and regained its strength. As for Ukraine, it would have to become a garrison state even as its economy has been crippled by the war. Those who make the South Korea analogy neglect two things. First, Russia is intrinsically a more powerful state than North Korea. Second, peace on the Korean Peninsula has been preserved by a large and continuous 70-year U.S. military presence — one that relatively few Americans would have an appetite to duplicate in Ukraine.

The alternative is winning. It is what Ukrainians deserve, what the overwhelming majority want and what they demand from their political leadership. The goal has been both hindered and advanced by President Biden’s fluctuating willingness to provide Kyiv with the tools it needs to win. It has also been stymied by his own ambivalence about the outcome he really desires, other than to not let Russia win and to not blow up the world in the process.

Winning comes in two flavors. The first, and riskier, is to provide Kyiv with the weapons it needs — mainly long-range guided missiles, more tanks, Predator drones and F-16s — not only to push Russia out of the territories it seized in this war, but to retake Crimea and the breakaway “republics” in the east. This is what Ukrainians want, and what they are morally and legally entitled to.

But retaking Crimea will be hard, and even success will come with costs, primarily in the form of populations that aren’t necessarily eager to be liberated by Kyiv. Hence the second flavor: To help Ukraine restore its pre-February 2022 borders, but no further — with compensation in the form of membership in the European Union and a bilateral U.S.-Ukraine security treaty modeled on America’s security cooperation with Israel.

Would this increase America’s exposure to Russian aggression? No, it would diminish it, for the same reason Putin didn’t dare attack the NATO-member Baltic States but twice attacked Ukraine: Dictators prey on the weak, not the strong. Would it satisfy Ukraine’s need for security? Yes, both in guaranteed access to Europe’s markets and America’s arms.

And would it humiliate Putin? In the best way possible, by showing him and other despots, within and beyond Russia, that aggression against democracies never pays.