The war over the war

To the many who nonetheless think the art of the deal means Vladimir Putin can be gulled into paying to avoid Ukraine’s NATO inclusion when that inclusion hasn’t been made credible, well, this points to the real problem: We have an American leadership class suitable only to have the walls decorated with its entrails in any negotiation with Mr. Putin (never mind, down the road, with Xi Jinping).

Or take Keir Starmer, the British prime minister. In Europe’s belated rush to simulate seriousness about its strategic pickle, he’s willing now to send British troops to Ukraine if there’s a peace deal. And if there’s not? Mr. Starmer would command more weight if he were to say Britain is ready to send troops right now unless Mr. Putin signs and abides by a cease-fire.

Supposedly an unfortunate message is Team Trump’s meeting this week with a Kremlin delegation minus a heartwarming tableau of European and Ukrainian representatives by the administration’s side. Wrong again. If there’s a logic to the Trump approach (and we can only hope), this was the meeting where the U.S. told the Kremlin what the U.S. is ready to do if Russia doesn’t take the proffered exit ramp. Not only appropriate, it’s necessary that this message be delivered privately without distracting theatrics.

Then there’s Ukraine’s mineral wealth. President Volodymyr Zelensky put this on the table. A price remains to be struck. But who can fail to see the advantage of a long-term interest tying the U.S. and Western economies to Ukraine?

This is the beginning, unfortunately, not an ending. It’s asking too much for Ukraine to be a glorious and promising episode in the Western democracies’ coming to terms with the world as it is.

First things first: A big, beautiful broom is needed to sweep out the deadwood and worse clogging up the West’s leadership pathways. It will take time to bring to the fore those (usually to be found among the world’s 40-year-olds) ready to do the job that needs doing now.

Donald Trump is not the answer and never was. He’s the question. Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Angela Merkel, our national news media—to mention these names is to recall how much Mr. Trump’s empowerment was his enemies’ doing.

Mr. Biden’s one decision was whether to restore Mr. Trump to the White House or get out of the way for a contested Democratic primary. We know how he chose. His only Ukraine goal was to keep the war off the front burner until he could be re-elected, then negotiate on terms that most certainly didn’t include NATO membership or recapturing stolen territories.

Tweeted a former minister in the Zelensky government last week: “We just didn’t want to admit it. The difference between Biden and Trump is that Trump says out loud what Biden was thinking and doing."

In my view, NATO membership plus large-scale rearmament would be the best of all possible worlds. But most NATO members want neither. They don’t want to spend on their militaries and therefore don’t want Ukraine potentially embroiling NATO in a showdown with Russia.

Yet the flip side is their moaning now as if the U.S., in talks with Mr. Putin, can commit Europe or Ukraine to anything. It can’t. They are free agents. Europe has 12 times Russia’s gross domestic product. Mr. Starmer and colleagues can dispatch troops to Kyiv tomorrow. The Finns can commence maneuvers to remind Mr. Putin that St. Petersburg is a two-hour drive from the border. Poland and Lithuania, with guest appearances by the Czech and German militaries, can show him that severing his Kaliningrad enclave on the Baltic coast is a five-minute operation. The Baltic itself could be made uncomfortable for Russian shipping by an active European naval presence.

While not endorsing JD Vance’s every jot and tittle, a Europe without leaders can’t provide leadership. The problem with its end-of-growth environmentalism is now manifest: The international system doesn’t allow countries to beg off the pursuit of wealth and technology. Europe can choose to make itself a weak player. In the ancient saying, then it will suffer what it must.

But let’s also have some perspective on the other side’s weakness. Mr. Putin is playing to survive the worst blunder of his career. He seeks, more than territory, displays and rituals to reinforce his indispensability back home. Historian Sergey Radchenko, in a new book, emphasizes how Russian and Soviet leaders looked to the West for a status and legitimacy their institutions couldn’t provide. Mr. Trump is one president who seems instinctively to understand Mr. Putin’s need for “face." Meaning: Get ready for a lot of ditzy commentary. It will suggest that letting Mr. Putin know at every moment how little we think of him is more important than locking in the gains from his Ukraine failure so the U.S. can shift strategic resources to the Indo-Pacific.