The weekend news cycle was dominated by Trump administration officials attempting to spin Putin’s diplomatic win in Alaska as a strategic retreat by Trump. Those efforts were unsuccessful. Sources inside the administration and Putin’s surrogates made clear that Putin did not budge an inch during the Alaska negotiations. Trump, on the other hand, has begun to prepare European allies for a peace deal that includes transferring 20% of Ukraine’s territory to Russia. One pesky detail remains as an obstacle to Trump’s proposed solution: neither Ukraine nor US allies in Europe will accept the surrender of Ukrainian territory to Russia as a prerequisite to peace.
Before turning to the details of the “peace” negotiations, we should pause for a moment to reflect on why Russia’s war on Ukraine matters to those seeking to defend democracy in the US. The three-quarters of a century of relative peace that followed WWII was due, in large part, to US alliances with NATO members and Australia. The mutual trust between those nations was hard-earned. In the main, the US has been the beneficiary of mutual aid—with NATO members and Australia fighting and dying alongside US troops in regional conflicts and peace-keeping missions. The only time that the mutual aid provision of the NATO Treaty was invoked was after the terrorist attack on the US on 9/11.
In short order, Trump has squandered the mutual trust, goodwill, and friendly relations that contributed to the success of its international alliances. Trump’s disastrous efforts to obtain a Nobel Peace Prize by gifting large swaths of Ukraine to Russia further eroded US relations with its allies. Indeed, as noted below, representatives of several NATO allies are rushing to Washington on Monday, August 18, to stop Trump’s efforts to sacrifice Ukraine in exchange for a Nobel Peace Prize.
But there are also political and moral dimensions to Trump’s failure to support Ukraine. Preserving an independent Ukraine helps Europe and the US in constraining the expansionist ambitions of Putin. Recall that in 2022, Putin suggested that he wanted to restore “Greater Russia” as it (never) existed under Peter the Great. See NBC News (6/20/2022), Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in fight to expand Russia.
Under President Zelensky, Ukraine had begun to make the first steps toward democratic reform when Putin invaded Ukraine without provocation. Maintaining democracy in the US depends, in part, on supporting democracies around the world.
It is no accident that the anti-democratic Trump’s closest “friends” are dictators and strongmen: Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un, Viktor Orban (Hungary), Nayib Bukele (El Salvador), and Mohammed bin Salman (Saudi Arabia).
When grassroots activists in America speak for Ukraine, we are advocating for America as part of a global alliance of democracies. And we are speaking for the democratic future of Ukraine—which will happen only if Russia’s effort to balkanize Ukraine fails.
Whenever Jill and I attend pro-democracy rallies, we bring two flags: The US flag and the Ukrainian flag. I am always amazed and gratified by the number of positive comments about Ukraine I hear when I wave its flag.
Trump is attempting to undermine the nascent democracy in Ukraine by forcing a settlement that involves Russia conceding nothing and Ukraine conceding everything. That is no basis for a peace settlement, and no basis for a stronger future for democracy across the world.
The aftermath of Trump’s disastrous Alaska summit
Prior to the summit, Trump proclaimed that unless Russia agreed to a cease-fire, the US would impose “very serious consequences” on Russia. After the summit in Alaska failed to make any progress, Trump proclaimed that achieving a cease-fire was a stupid idea and that the only thing that really mattered was a final peace agreement. See CNN, August 16, 2025: Trump shifts focus to Ukraine peace deal instead of ceasefire after Putin meeting.
Indeed, the Alaskan summit resulted in lost ground for Ukraine. After the conference, Trump told Zelensky that Putin had increased his demand for Ukrainian territory as the cost of peace. See HuffPost, Trump Tells Zelenskiy That Putin Wants More Of Ukraine, Urges Kyiv Make A Deal.
Per Axios, Trump told European leaders that Ukraine would be required to agree to most of Russia’s territorial demands to secure peace. See Axios, Putin made maximalist claims to Ukrainian territory in Trump summit: Sources. (“Putin had demanded that Ukraine cede two of the four regions to which Russia has laid claim (Donetsk and Luhansk), and freeze the front lines in the other two (Kherson and Zaporizhzhia).).
As Trump “pivoted” away from a cease-fire and toward a full surrender by Ukraine, President Zelensky is rushing to the White House on Monday to stop Trump’s “fire sale” of Ukrainian territories. This time, however, Zelensky will be joined by several European diplomats to help prevent a repeat of the Oval Office attack on Zelensky that occurred last February. See NYTimes, Zelensky Brings Backup to the White House as Trump Aligns More Closely With Putin. (Accessible to all.)
Throughout the weekend, Trump administration officials hinted that Putin was willing to make “concessions” to achieve peace. However, those “concessions” are illusory. Putin is apparently offering to relinquish demands to territory that Russia does not currently control and has no right to possess. See NYTimes, Trump Officials Hint at Possible Concessions by Putin. (“Mr. Putin has expressed an interest in taking swaths of the country that are not currently under occupation, including parts of the eastern region of Donbas, a proposal that Kyiv has rejected.”)
Putin is thus offering to relinquish the future attempt to conquer Ukrainian territory in exchange for retaining the territory Russia has already illegally seized from Ukraine. Only in the Trump administration would Putin’s agreement to forego future seizures of Ukraine be considered a “concession.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff spent the weekend outlining an alleged deal with Putin, as Putin said nothing on Russian media about any agreements with the US. It seems obvious that Putin played Trump and Witkoff for the fools they are, making vague grunts and head nods as they described what the US wanted, mistaking Putin’s indigestion for “progress” toward peace.
The meeting at the White House between Trump, Zelensky, and several European allies may be consequential. If Trump continues with his unilateral attempt to carve up Ukraine over NATO’s objection, it could spell the end of the US-European alliance, for now.
Showing support for Ukraine during pro-democracy rallies can help shape the political narrative in America. Although Russia’s war on the Ukrainian people may seem like a distant abstraction, it matters to our fight to defend democracy at home and abroad.
Change in tone at NYTimes?
I have been a harsh critic of the headlines and news analysis of the NY Times. Two weeks ago, I complimented the Times for running a series of front-page articles that accurately and fairly portrayed the redistricting fight in Texas and beyond.
The change in tone I noted two weeks ago continues, both in headlines and news analysis. To be sure, the headlines are not perfect, but perfection is not the standard. In the last few weeks, the Times has stopped parroting Trump’s talking points and begun to fact-check the Trump spin.
For example, I cited above to the following article: NYTimes, Zelensky Brings Backup to the White House as Trump Aligns More Closely With Putin. (Accessible to all.)
The headline and the reporting that follows fairly report that Trump is aligning with Putin and that European leaders are rushing to Washington to help defend Zelensky and Ukraine. The Times did not merely repeat the ludicrous talking points of Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff. Instead, the Times noted that Rubio and Witkoff had changed positions in light of Trump’s failure to achieve any progress at the conference in Alaska.
A second article on the Sunday front page of the Times shows how a fair recitation of the facts can communicate the fact that the Trump administration is in over its head. See NYTimes, Trump Officials Hint at Possible Concessions by Putin. The article makes clear that the “concessions” are illusory, as explained above.
Moreover, in that article, the Times criticized Trump’s use of a real-estate mogul to broker a peace between Russia and Ukraine. The Times writes,
Mr. Witkoff, a billionaire New York real estate developer with no formal background in international relations, has become Mr. Trump’s most relied-upon envoy when it comes to trying to solve the many conflicts around the world that Mr. Trump has tried to mediate. The president has envisioned himself as a peacemaker and is in pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The two men golfed together on Saturday after returning from Alaska.
There is a lot of implied criticism in a short paragraph that merely recites the facts: Witkoff’s inexperience, Trump’s vain pursuit of a Nobel Prize, and the juxtaposition of a failed peace summit not interfering with Trump’s golf schedule.
I make this point because of my frequent criticism of the Times. When the Times does it right, it deserves praise. I hope that the shift in tone over the last two weeks reflects a thoughtful change in the Times’ news analysis and editorial stance. Keep up the good work, NYTimes!
Update on D.C. protests and implications for other cities
On Saturday, I noted that Trump’s use of federal agents and National Guard troops seems to have crossed an invisible threshold that has turned most Americans against men and women who volunteered to perform law enforcement duties and military defense. Whenever masked men toting automatic weapons and unmarked cars swoop in to arrest people in the streets, crowds gather to criticize and verbally confront the nameless agents.
The trend is gaining steam in D.C. See Axios, Trump’s DC takeover met with lawsuits, protests. Importantly, the crowds that are gathering to challenge the agents and troops performing the arrests are directing their comments to the moral and legal choices being made by agents who are enforcing Trump’s anti-immigrant sweeps.
Exercises of free speech directed at questionable moral and legal choices by federal agents and troops are appropriate. Indeed, those expressions of criticism may help inform future decisions by National Guard troops if they are given orders they consider to be illegal. A recent survey of troops found that a strong majority said they would not follow illegal orders. See Talking Points Memo, Majority of US Troops Surveyed Say They’re Aware of Their Duty to Not Follow Illegal Orders.
The survey is reassuring because it illustrates that the men and women who volunteer for the military understand that their first loyalty is to the Constitution. They also have a clear sense of what is “over the line.” For example,
One [soldier] wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.”
Every day, I hear from readers who tell me they fear that Trump will stage a military coup. I don’t believe that will happen. I believe US soldiers will follow their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.
I am not asserting that every US soldier will refuse to follow illegal orders. Rather, I am asserting that enough troops would refuse to follow such orders that military commanders will refrain from giving illegal orders they know will result in mass desertion, abandonment of posts, and general breakdown of military order. See the discussion in the Talking Points Memo.
If a commander knows that 50% of their troops will refuse to follow an order, the commander dares not give the offending order—because he or she will lose control of the troops under their command. That would be an existential threat to the US military.
The survey described in Talking Points Memo seems consistent with the expected outlook of an all-volunteer military. Enlisted members of the military are younger, more diverse, less affluent, and more motivated to build a life, a family, and a home than many Americans. They see military service both as a way to serve their country and to build a better life. I do not believe that the military will turn against the American people in any material way. (There will always be misguided exceptions, just as there are among civilians.)
Reminding federal agents and members of the military of the questionable and/or unlawful nature of the commands Trump is issuing is a healthy exercise of our First Amendment right to free speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Keep up the good work!
Concluding Thoughts
There is more, but I have run out of time. I do want to acknowledge the dozens of readers who sent photos of their pro-democracy rallies over the weekend. Your persistence is an inspiration to others! Keep up the good work, everyone! You are holding the fort until reinforcements arrive!
Talk to you tomorrow!
Daily Dose of Perspective
The three images below show how I process raw images into final photos for publication. The target object is Pickering’s Triangle, part of the Cygnus Loop, a.k.a. the Veil Nebula.
The first image is the raw output from my telescope and camera. Because deep space is black, stars are bright, and the nebula is faint, the relative exposure of those elements must be adjusted to obtain a pleasing view of the target.
Using an astronomy program, I “remove” the stars. I can then boost the exposure of the target, Pickering’s Triangle.
I then “add” the stars back into the image as a separate “layer,” and balance the exposure between the darkness of deep space, the brilliance of the stars, and the nebulosity of the target.
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed
You must log in or # to comment.