UA
FR
DEAuthors: Griffin Cook and Peter Donlon
Photo Credit: https://shawnryanshow.com/blogs/the-shawn-ryan-show/srs-130-jd-vance-why-have-a-government-if-its-not-functioning
Last month, Republican Party Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance appeared on the Shawn Ryan Show to discuss issues that are of concern to voters in the last few weeks before the United States Presidential Election. During the interview, Vance described his plan to end the war in Ukraine, and also explained how U.S. support for Ukraine would change if he and Donald Trump are elected in November. This article will show that both the peace plan and broader changes in U.S. support for Ukraine that Vance has outlined would be disastrous for both Ukraine and the West. More specifically, this analysis will demonstrate that Trump and Vance’s “peace plan” is nothing more than a poor attempt to appease Russia, and that Trump and Vance, if elected, intend to significantly curtail U.S. assistance to Ukraine due to a gross misperception of U.S. interests.
Components of the “Peace Plan”
Vance explains that his plan to end the war in Ukraine has two major components: the creation of a “demilitarized zone” that follows the current line dividing territory controlled by Ukraine and territory controlled by Russia, and a “guarantee of neutrality” under which Ukraine agrees to not join NATO or any other “Allied institutions.” Both components of Vance’s plan are absurd and will not address the circumstances that led Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place.
In the Korean Peninsula, a demilitarized zone has been put in place to prevent further conflict between North Korea and South Korea. The current state of the demilitarized zone, as well as the current state of the relationship between North Korea and South Korea, demonstrate that the demilitarized zone between the two countries has not completely functioned as intended and that creating a similar zone between Ukraine and Russia will not reduce conflict.
The Demilitarized Zone in the Korean Peninsula is known as the most militarized border in the world today. According to estimates, there are approximately two million land mines within the Demilitarized Zone and the surrounding area. In addition, there have been many skirmishes between North Korean troops and South Korean troops since the Demilitarized Zone was created.[iii] Furthermore, the conflict between North Korea and South Korea that began in 1950 and originally led to the creation of the Demilitarized Zone has never been formally ended through a peace treaty, and prospects for a formal resolution of the war remain low due to perpetual tensions between North Korea and South Korea.[iv]
Using the current battlefront between Ukraine and Russia as the dividing line for a demilitarized zone is also an illogical concept. Although creating a demilitarized zone may appear to be a simple way to quickly end hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, doing so would solely benefit Russia. If a demilitarized zone is established at the current battlefront, Russia would effectively gain full control of all of the territory that it has illegally seized from Ukraine since the full-scale invasion began.
This move would amount to appeasement, which, as former U.S. Congresswoman Liz Cheney has already pointed out, would not satisfy Putin in the slightest.[v] The consequences of the attempted appeasement of Adolf Hitler demonstrate that appeasement cannot be used to rein in an aggressor. Creating a demilitarized zone between Russia and Ukraine would instead embolden Putin by giving him the impression that he will always be able to gain control of some territory in each subsequent country that he invades.
Vance also proposes that Ukraine offer a “guarantee of neutrality” to Russia as part of an agreement to end the war. Under the guarantee, Ukraine would agree to withdraw its application to NATO and formally commit to not seek membership in other “Allied institutions.” This proposal is equally as ludicrous and will not achieve Vance’s purported goal of upholding Ukrainian sovereignty. In fact, this so-called guarantee inherently contradicts the concept of sovereignty. If a country is prohibited from associating itself with the nations that it desires to be associated with, as Vance is proposing, then the country is not fully sovereign.
Under this guarantee, Ukraine would also not be afforded the protections associated with membership in NATO and other Western institutions. As a result, Ukraine would be extremely susceptible to further overt and covert attempts from Russia to meddle in Ukrainian affairs. In addition, this move would play right into Putin’s hands. Putin himself has publicly stated that one of the primary objectives of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is to ensure that Ukraine remains a “neutral” state, or in other words, does not associate itself with the West.[vi] Therefore, the proposed “guarantee of neutrality” is merely another feeble attempt to appease Putin that will not satisfy him for long, if at all.
Bringing about an End to the War
Vance also makes numerous misleading statements regarding a potential end to the war. For example, Vance acknowledges that Russia “shouldn’t have invaded” Ukraine, but then quips that there are “a lot of corruption problems” in Ukraine. Vance’s attempt to shrug off the invasion by suggesting that Ukraine is a less-than-perfect country is utterly despicable. Over the past decade, Ukraine has made a significant amount of progress in addressing public corruption. Furthermore, public corruption is not a problem that is unique to Ukraine. There have unfortunately been countless high-profile corruption scandals over the course of United States history.
Vance asserts that Vice President Harris is incapable of handling the U.S. response to the war in Ukraine because she apparently “can’t even answer a simple question without retreating into slogans and talking points.” Vance’s choice to call out Harris’s supposed inability to answer basic questions is perplexing, as Trump appears to experience the exact same problem whenever he is asked a question about the war in Ukraine. During the most recent presidential debate, Trump did not answer yes or no when he was asked directly if he wanted Ukraine to win the war against Russia.[i]
Vance argues that Ukraine, Russia, and Europe as a whole all desire an end to the war. While it is true that all parties involved in the war would like for the war to eventually end, Vance’s statement completely glosses over the profound differences between the interests of Russia and the interests of Ukraine and the West. President Putin has previously expressed his disappointment with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, and experts have concluded that one of the long-term objectives of the war in Ukraine is to restore Russia’s influence.[ii] On the other hand, Ukraine has made it clear that the war will not end until all Ukrainian territory that has been illegally seized by Russia over the past decade is returned, and the European Parliament has pledged to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.”[iii]
Within Ukraine itself, there is also overwhelming support for the continuation of fighting, as well as a strong belief that Ukraine will ultimately prevail.[iv] In fact, the war has had the effect of strengthening patriotism and hardening views on Russia in the Ukrainian population. When Ukrainians were asked in 2012 if they would support a hypothetical Declaration of Independence, 63 percent of respondents answered in support.[v] When the same question was asked in 2022, the number of respondents in support increased to 97 percent.[vi]
Russia’s actions on the battlefield sharply contradict its public claims that it desires to enter into negotiations with Ukraine.[vii] Russia has not backed down on its maximalist war goals, among which are the illegal annexations of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts of Ukraine, preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and further embracing the West, and acceptance of Russia’s current illegal occupation of Crimea.[viii] Any negotiations or ceasefire would simply be a pretext for Russia to reconstitute its forces before continuing hostilities. Freezing the current frontlines will leave Russia in a prime position to launch attacks on the rest of Ukraine.
In addition, Vance contends that European nations are seeking an end to the war in Ukraine primarily due to the war’s impact on energy prices. The suggestion that economics is the primary motivation of Europe’s desire to end the war is simply absurd. The war in Ukraine is considered to be the most severe armed conflict in Europe since World War II.[ix] There is also a widespread belief that Putin will target other European nations if the war in Ukraine is resolved in Russia’s favor.[x] This sense of vulnerability among European nations is especially evident in the decisions by Finland and Sweden, respectively, to join NATO soon after Ukraine was invaded.[xi]
Vance asserts that Trump, if elected, will be able to end the war “very quickly” because European leaders “are worried about” Trump and have a sense that Trump “actually means what he says.” European leaders are in fact concerned about the possibility of a second term for Trump and are fully aware that Trump means what he says. However, European leaders are concerned about Trump and his statements in a different way than Vance suggests. In light of Trump’s past comments about Europe, many European leaders are concerned that Trump could undermine NATO, the EU, and other European institutions if he returns to power.[xii]
Vance’s simplistic view of the war also suggests that the government of Ukraine is merely a puppet of the United States. Over the past decade, Ukraine has forcefully demonstrated that it is not beholden to the U.S., Russia, or any other power. Since the full-scale invasion began, President Zelensky has emphasized that Ukraine is committed to repelling Russia, regardless of how much outside support the country receives.[xiii]Despite his best efforts, Trump would not be able to unilaterally end the war, as the modern international order simply does not function in that way. Ending support for Ukraine would accomplish nothing except a significant undermining of democracy and freedom around the world.
Concerns about the Costs of Aid to Ukraine
Throughout his discussion of U.S. policy towards Ukraine, Vance appears to be predominantly concerned with the costs associated with U.S. support for Ukraine. Vance contends that “there are a lot of risks” associated with continued U.S. involvement in Ukraine and proclaims that he is not willing to provide further support to Ukraine if the number of American casualties that could result from such support is “more than zero.” Vance’s comment completely mischaracterizes the types of support that the U.S. is providing to Ukraine and overlooks the multitude of ways that the U.S. and the EU can continue to support the Ukrainian war effort.
Since there is currently no official U.S. troop presence in Ukraine, American casualties are virtually impossible. Those that have died have almost always been private citizens serving in the international legion or humanitarian organizations, or, in other words, heroes defending democracy from an aggressive authoritarian regime. In addition, the U.S. and the EU can certainly continue to provide regular allotments of financial aid and armaments to Ukraine. The crassness of Vance’s comment is also eerily similar to an infamous remark by a Canadian government official regarding the admission of Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, in which the official stated that admitting “None [of the Jewish refugees to Canada] is too many.”[i]
Vance expresses a concern that the U.S. will not have enough armaments to defend Taiwan since it is sending “all” of its armaments to Ukraine. This remark is yet another distorted chain of logic that plays into Russia’s hands. The equipment and munitions that the US has been sending to Ukraine are older and largely land-based, such as 155mm Howitzers and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles from the 1990s. Most of these donations would have little role to play in a war over Taiwan, as the war would likely be fought in the sea and sky. Furthermore, the US military has a variety of systems with overlapping capabilities. Even if the U.S. donated all of the Stinger air defense systems in its possession, the U.S. would still have Patriot and Terminal High Altitude systems that it could donate to Taiwan.
Instead of depriving the United States of weapons, the war in Ukraine has actually led to greater investment in the defense industrial base and increased domestic production of many weapons systems. U.S. production of 155mm shells, for example, has already doubled, and Javelin, GMLRS, and SM-6 production have seen drastic increases as well. The war in Ukraine has also revealed the shallowness of US ammunition stocks in the face of large-scale conventional war. Had this issue not been noticed, the U.S. could have been in an incredibly dire position in a future armed conflict with China.
Vance boasts that the United States has been “very generous” to Ukraine since the start of the war and accuses European nations of providing significantly less funds to Ukraine than the United States has. There is indisputable evidence that Vance’s accusation, like former President Trump’s previous criticisms of defense spending by NATO member states, is false.[ii] According to data from the Kiel Institute, European nations have provided €110.2 billion of aid to Ukraine and are expected to provide an additional €77 billion of aid.[iii] The United States, on the other hand, has provided €75.1 billion of aid to Ukraine and is expected to provide an additional €23.3 billion of aid.[iv]The effects of U.S. involvement in Ukraine on the U.S. economy are also minimal. Vance claims that the Biden administration’s sanctions on Russia and separate moves to decrease U.S. energy production have resulted in an increased demand for Russian fuels. Vance fails to mention that, in response to changes in the global energy market caused by the onset of the war in Ukraine, the U.S. released oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Germany reopened decommissioned coal power plants.[v] In addition, new Liquified Natural Gas terminals are expected to be constructed across Europe in order to replace Russian gas.[vi]
Concerns about the Possibility of Escalation
Vance also seems to be acutely concerned about the potential for nuclear escalation in the event that Ukraine or the U.S. crosses Russia’s “red lines.” This line of thinking plays right into Russia’s hands. While the actual possibility that Putin would deploy nuclear weapons is not zero, such escalation does not occur in a vacuum. Russia would have to weigh the costs of conducting a nuclear strike against the heavy price that it would almost certainly pay. If Russia chose to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine, Russia would likely become even more diplomatically isolated. Put simply, the use of nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine would set a precedent that few other nations desire.
China, Russia’s so-called partner “without limits,” would be particularly displeased, and would likely pressure Russia against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine if Putin ever seriously considers doing so.[i] Since Russia relies heavily on China to circumvent the Western sanctions regime, China would likely have a significant amount of influence in any such deliberations.[ii] In addition, the Biden administration has emphasized that Russia will face severe consequences if it decides to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.[iii] Although specific details are unknown, the U.S. response could include additional weapon supplies to Ukraine and conventional strikes on Russian military infrastructure. In short, the costs that Russia would incur if it used nuclear weapons against Ukraine would likely be extremely high.
The benefits of the use of nuclear weapons are also likely to be less than many expect. A country cannot “automatically win” a conflict through the use of nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons may be able to destroy a command post, base, or airfield, but the nature of modern warfare is dispersed. There is a lot of open space between army units, and positions are generally well fortified. A tactical nuclear weapon would likely have only a limited effect against dug-in infantry or mechanized troops. A strategic nuclear attack, against a city for example, would cause much more damage. A nuclear attack of this nature would undoubtably destroy hundreds of buildings and kill thousands of civilians.
Despite the tragedies that would likely result from the use of nuclear weapons, the immediate impact that their use would have on the war itself would be negligible. A sustained nuclear campaign against Ukrainian cities and centers of production would be able to disrupt the military industrial base and economy of the Ukrainian state, but a small number of strikes is unlikely to induce and immediate Ukrainian surrender. As a result, the benefits of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would, for Russia, almost certainly be outweighed by the drawbacks, regardless of the manner in which Russia would choose to use them. Putin, despite being a corrupt authoritarian dictator, is fully aware of this calculus. Nuclear weapons are simply not a viable way for Russia to escalate its war against Ukraine.Vance also alleges that Putin does have “red lines,” and that Putin has deliberately avoided stating what some of the “red lines” are. Ukraine has breached Russia’s “red lines” on numerous occasions since the invasion began, most recently with its attacks in the Kursk region of Russia.[iv] To date, Putin has not responded forcefully to any of Ukraine’s breaches, which strongly suggests that his so-called “red lines” are nothing more than empty threats intended to intimidate the West. The U.S. should not be deterred from supplying weapons to Ukraine and permitting Ukraine to strike Russian territory with American weapons.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are numerous flaws in Donald Trump and JD Vance’s “peace plan” for Ukraine and proposed adjustments to U.S. support for Ukraine. The proposals indicate that Trump and Vance are both highly naïve in regard to conflict escalation management and international politics in general. This is especially concerning for Trump, as he has already held the presidency for one full term. Trump and Vance’s “peace plan” does not address the root causes of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and instead resorts to crude attempts at appeasement that require far less effort to implement. In addition, Trump and Vance’s aid proposals would abandon Ukraine in pursuit of what Trump and Vance mistakenly believe are U.S. interests. misbelieve are U.S. interests. If Trump and Vance’s proposals are implemented, the future of Ukraine and the rest of Europe will be in serious jeopardy.
[i] https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/08/taiwan-and-the-limits-of-the-russia-china-friendship
[ii] https://www.econpol.eu/sites/default/files/2024-02/EconPol-PolicyReport_47.pdf
[iii] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-catastrophic-consequences-nuclear-weapons-ukraine-us-warns-rcna49365
[iv] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/24/putin-red-lines-war-ukraine/
[i] https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr6/blms/6-2-4f.pdf
[ii] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nato/index.html
[iii] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
[iv] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
[v] https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-purchases-more-4-million-barrels-strategic-petroleum-reserve
[vi] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/lng-infrastructure-in-the-eu/
[i] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/11/us-presidential-debate-donald-trump-ukraine-war
[ii] https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/what-does-putin-really-want-ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-rues-soviet-collapse-demise-historical-russia-2021-12-12
[iii] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-zelenskiy-vows-end-russian-occupation-crimea-2023-08-23/
[iv] https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx
https://www.iri.org/news/iri-ukraine-poll-strong-majorities-believe-in-victory-over-russia
[v]https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/s_mnadcyate_zagalnonac_onalne_opituvannya_dentichn_st_patr_otizm_c_nnost_17-18_serpnya_2022.html
[vi]https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/s_mnadcyate_zagalnonac_onalne_opituvannya_dentichn_st_patr_otizm_c_nnost_17-18_serpnya_2022.html
[vii] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-wants-ukraine-ceasefire-current-frontlines-sources-say-2024-05-24/
[viii] https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/what-does-putin-really-want-ukraine
[ix] https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2022/11/29/not-seen-since-world-war-ii-the-worrying-precedent-many-are-evoking-for-the-ukraine-war/
[x] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russian-victory-in-ukraine-would-leave-europe-at-putins-mercy/
https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-hit-nato-baltic-win-ukraine-eu-valdis-dombrovskis
[xi] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61397478
[xii] https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-second-term-presidency-united-states-tear-europe-eu-apart/
[xiii] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/02/russia-ukraine-war-news/
[i] https://apnews.com/article/north-south-korea-border-incursion-dmz-65e835c044d22a70703b145ca0784cd8
[ii] https://apnews.com/general-news-a6da46cf967b430987d04ab6ad4a4c18
[iii] https://www.britannica.com/place/demilitarized-zone-Korean-peninsula
[iv] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/south-korean-troops-fire-warning-shots-after-north-korean-soldiers-mistakenly-cross-dmz-border
[v] https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1708201731778064473
[vi] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67711802