By Kiw11Fif @Adobe Photoshop
Cooler Heads Need Prevail
Some media outlets are reporting on President Trump’s “transactional approach” to foreign policy and questioning the US role in world affairs. From upper state NY, Congressman Mike Lawler, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, meets with Kimberley Strassel of the WSJ to discuss the recent Oval Office meltdown between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
High Stake Transactions
KS starts by asking what we all want to know: What comes next? Decidedly, there is a lot of blame to go around.
- Lawler:
VP Vance arguably should not have inserted himself into a meeting between two heads of state. Arguably, Zelensky should not have taken Vance’s comment as a reason to go off the mineral deal topic and lurching into a full-fledged argument about future questions of security assurances. And Trump probably should have just shut this down.
KS: how did we got here?
Congressman Lawler calls the kerfuffle unfortunate. It didn’t help anyone but Vladmir Putin. It’s critically important to get back on track.
Trump is on track to negotiate a peace quickly and end this conflict. Consequences of failure would be catastrophic for Eastern Europe and the free world. Other former Soviet satellite states would be in Putin’s crosshairs, especially countries that border Ukraine.
There’s a lot at stake here, warns Ms. Strassel., and Congressman Lawler concurs, tensions run high, but getting talks back on track is paramount.
KS points to a whole bunch of programs that are noncontroversial and popular —the ones with the biggest ticket items.
The budget for the Department in the 2024 fiscal year was $268 billion. The biggest chunk of that, $160 billion, goes to the Office of Federal Student Aid, which runs Pell Grants, federal direct subsidized loans, federal direct unsubsidized loans, and the federal work-study program.
Talking Past One Another
Focusing on the word “imperative” KS asks Mr. Lawler if the mineral deal is the correct path to a “full-fledged” peace deal.
ML:
Zelensky seemed to want to jump ahead to a lot of other things, and I think that was part of the miscommunication that this was essential.
If President Trump is correct that a minerals deal would strengthen Zelensky’s hand in negotiations with Putin, wouldn’t this tie the US closer to Ukraine, especially considering security considerations and guarantees that would be attached?
Severing Reliance on China
ML: Whatever the outcome, Ukraine is going to need a lot of help from the US and from Europe to rebuild.
It (a mineral deal) helps recoup some of our costs as we supported Ukraine throughout this conflict, but it also helps with the issue of critical minerals and getting the United States and our allies off reliance of China.
… there’s a lot at stake here, and I think people fail to understand something. They say, “Oh, Trump is a puppet of Putin,” or, “Oh, this was intentional sabotage trying to embarrass and bully Zelensky in the meeting.”
This is an agreement that is consequential for President Trump and it’s something that he pushed for and there’s no reason why he wouldn’t want to get this done. But it also is something that Putin certainly wouldn’t want. He wouldn’t want the United States signing this agreement. He wouldn’t want greater US investment and cooperation with Ukraine.
KS: The way President Trump says something mirrors his approach. Is President Trump trying to prevent this conflict from escalating and from devolving for Ukraine and in fact strengthening the US-Ukraine relationship?
Trump does not support war, inserts Mr. Lawler, and he understands the importance of getting this done right.
Mike Lawler notes how Trump seems willing to use our military when necessary and is willing to strike when there are threats against the United States or our interests.
But (Trump is) not somebody who wants prolonged war. He also takes great umbrage when he feels that the United States is being taken advantage of and when our allies are not necessarily ponying up to the level that they should. And I think here with respect to this situation, I think that is a large part of what is driving him in (his) decision-making …
KS asks what needs to happen now to get things back together? What does Zelensky have to do? What are the circumstances that this gets fixed?
An Unholy Alliance
Mike Lawler liked Zelensky’s recent tweet. It was constructive and was helpful towards addressing some of the concerns that came out of Friday’s meeting. Zelensky clearly wants peace, wants to work with President Trump to negotiate peace, and is willing to sign an agreement today.
Trump understands his responsibilities as leader of the free world. Trump wants “to kind of back Russia out of that arrangement, out of that agreement that they have undertaken with China and Iran that undermines and destabilizes the US, Europe, Israel, and the free world. So I think the president is focused on advancing the ball forward. I certainly think he understands the need to get this deal done. It’s why he pushed his administration to negotiate it.”
If cooler heads prevail here, this will get done quickly.
KS: After everything went pear shaped on Friday, Zelensky obviously departed, and he went to Europe, and you saw the Europeans offer their support. I think also probably in private some words of advice, how to dig himself out of this hole.
Will Europeans maybe be thinking a little bit more earnestly about their role and what position they might play in some sort of ultimate peacekeeping agreement or arrangement. Would you say that that’s a possible benefit of this maybe?
Uniquely Trump
Our allies, argues Mr. Lawler, perhaps are thinking about their responsibilities and the role that they can play – not just relying consistently on the United States to provide cover or military support. What is positive is forcing a stronger commitment and greater dialogue amongst allies about everybody’s role and responsibility.
At this point, KS asks Mike Lawler if he has a sense of what President Trump’s bigger vision is, beyond these questions of immediate peace, for instance?
Mike Lawler says Trump recognizes the threats to global peace posed by China, Russia, Iran.
Iran: Trump’s objective is to cut off Iran’s oil supply and the illicit oil trade with China. … to cut off its source of funding for its terror proxy network, for its nuclear weapons program and for its missiles program.
Russia: Trump recognizes that as Germany and other European nations are reliant on Russian gas, they are going to find themselves in a difficult situation. Europeans are funding the war by purchasing Russian gas at the same time they’re trying to support Ukraine and defend against it.
China: Donald Trump was the first president a very long time to take an aggressive posture against Beijing and President Xi. So, I think he looks at it from the standpoint of yes, how do you make a deal?
How do you get an economic advantage for the United States? I think you see that through what he’s doing with respect to tariffs. I think his philosophy is obviously first and foremost to protect the US and make sure that we are benefiting from the decisions that are being made, whether it’s with trade, whether it’s with foreign aid and military aid or otherwise.
If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for the Richardcyoung.com free weekly email.
