Welcome to the REAL New World Order!

Only President Trump, like him or not, could have assembled this historic meeting!

What a privilege it has been to see history in the making as we have seen with the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska followed by a rare, dare I say unprecedented?, meeting of all the leaders of the European nations. Here is the way one writer (Progress on Ukraine War? [Updated]) described it and I note my 100% agreement with this assessment:

Today, President Trump has been meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Europe’s top leaders. It remains to be seen what will come from today’s meetings and future negotiations with Russia, but for now we can make a few observations.

First, President Trump solidified his position as the leader of the Western world. This photo of the heads of state who gathered at the White House today is impressive:

As a personal aside, I must note that for those who only get their news via such Democrat propaganda outlets as the New York Times, MSNBC or The View, yesterday must have been a most depressing day as they were told the meeting ended with little or no progress on ending the Ukraine-Russia war. What total, unfounded nonsense by those who simply cannot tolerate the fact that this President is —or has already - one of the greatest Peace Presidents in American history. Perhaps it would be better to hear from the heads of state who were actually at the table for their perspective rather than that of a reporter who does all his investigative reporting via Google and cut and paste. Here are some of their comments:

Second, fellow heads of state have been unanimous, and I think sincere, in expressing appreciation for the role that Trump is playing, and optimism for resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. For example:

Finnish President Alexander Stubb underscored the progress being made toward ending the war in Ukraine.

“I think in the past two weeks, we’ve probably had more progress in ending this war than we have in the past three and a half years,” Stubb said.
***
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni credited President Trump for Russia’s newfound willingness to talk about ending its brutality against Ukraine.

“I think it is an important day, a new phase, after three years … [when] we didn’t see any kind of sign from the Russian side, that there [is] a willingness for dialogue,” she said.

“So something is changing. Something has changed.”

Before discussing the big meeting Monday and the Trump-Putin Summit in Alaska last week, in an attempt to try to keep this piece fair and balanced and also to show how diametrically opposed viewpoints are about these meetings, here are a few highlights from the New York Times’ coverage of this historic event (Europe’s Leaders Headed Off Giveaway to Putin, but Emerged Without a Clear Path:):

In the annals of trans-Atlantic diplomacy, Monday’s meeting between President Trump and European leaders may go down as one of the stranger summits in memory. Historic, yet uncertain in its outcome; momentous, yet ephemeral in its effect on the war in Ukraine; choreographed, yet hostage to the impulses of a single man, Mr. Trump.

***

Diplomats pointed out that the remarkable spectacle of European leaders ditching their summer holiday plans to rush to Washington was prompted less by a rare opportunity to make peace than by the fear that Mr. Trump might attempt to bully Mr. Zelensky, as he did in a turbulent Oval Office meeting in February. This time, the fear was Mr. Trump would try to force the Ukrainian president into a one-sided, land-for-peace deal with Russia.

“Zelensky and seven European leaders rushed to Washington for one reason,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former American ambassador to NATO and China. “They don’t trust Trump’s commitment to a free and independent Ukraine or his mystifying infatuation with Putin and his authoritarian persona.”

One may be excused for pointing out that Ambassador Burns served in the eminently successful Biden Autopen administration which allowed this war to start in the first place.

As to the foundational meeting between Trump and Putin, Victor Davis Hanson had these observations, brilliant as usual, in an article entitled Putin, Trump, and the Elusive “Peace”:

Yet for all the posturing, we have known for some time the general outlines of a peace, how it could come about, and why it has not yet happened.

Ukraine will not join NATO, but will likely be fully armed by the West. Ukraine lacks the power to retake Crimea or the Donbass, but with Western aid, it can preserve most of its territory.

Russia is worn out, but it is not yet ready to give up and may not be even after the envisioned destructive secondary sanctions. Putin will only make peace when his dictatorship feels it has advanced far enough westward (perhaps 100 miles west of the border) to justify to the oligarchy and military his foolhardy invasion and the needless toll of one million Russians dead, wounded, missing, or captured.

A full reading of this piece cannot be recommended highly enough as it is the most complete analysis of the entire nightmare scenario I have been able to find.

Another excellent analysis is in The Federalist by John Danieal Davidson entitled The Ukraine War Was Always Going To End This Way which includes these insightful observations:

Reality is really the big difference between the Biden administration’s approach to the war and Trump’s approach. Biden and his top officials routinely talked about Ukraine in a way that was so unrealistic it bordered on the fantastical. More than once, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken dismissed the possibility of a negotiated peace until Ukraine could “defend itself” and Russia withdrew all its troops from Ukrainian territory. In June 2023 he told CBS News that any peace agreement must uphold the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. Biden and Blinken repeatedly insisted that nobody can veto NATO membership. But of course that’s not true; Putin vetoed NATO membership for Ukraine when he invaded the country.

And here we come to heart of the difference between Biden and Trump’s view of the war, and of foreign policy broadly speaking. The establishment foreign policy experts that ran things during Biden’s term (and Obama’s) think the world operates according to theories and abstractions rather than solid realities like history and geography. They thought they could simply invoke something like sovereignty, without grappling with the possibility that sovereignty and territorial integrity, given Ukraine’s history and its untenable borders, might be mutually exclusive.

That mindset is representative of an entire class of policymakers in Washington who fail to grasp that the outcome of a war — any war — is far more likely to be decided by something as unmovable as a mountain range or a warm-water port than vague invocations of sovereignty. Likewise, a common language or a shared 1,000-year history between warring peoples are going to be more important factors than the bureaucratic minutiae of a multi-lateral security agreement drafted in Brussels.

While it is outrageously unlikely that the Nobel Committee will ever bestow their Peace Prize upon President Trump-even with Hillary’s promised nomination- it is still important to recall his amazing accomplishments in securing peace in so many parts of the world, as outlined by Roger Kimball in Trump-Putin Alaska Summit Shifts Talk From Ceasefire to Peace:

Give Peace a Chance.” What used to be a mantra of the Left is now one of Donald Trump’s primary mottos (along with, let us not forget, “Peace Through Strength”). So far, he has brokered peace deals between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Cambodia and Thailand, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Serbia and Kosovo. And let’s not forget the world historical achievement represented by the Abraham Accords, which, mirabile dictu, brought peace to the Middle East.

One of the best treatments of yesterday’s Summit and one with more than one humorous twist was Peace and Security by Jeff Childers on the Coffee and Covid blog. Here are a few highlights; please take a look at the entire article as you will both smile a lot and learn a lot from this post:

What Trump accomplished was possibly the greatest political upheaval in world power in living history. All the Europeans got was herd immunity in a “sudden stampede of European leaders to Washington on Monday,” the Times explained. Like Belgian Blue cows trotting toward the dinner bell, all Europe’s top deciders —Macron, Starmer, Merz, Meloni, “Vonda” der Leyen, Rutte, etc— cantered up to attend their little Zelensky playing in the big game.

“He did so well,” a proud Emmanuel Macron might have glowed. “He said please and thank you and he never lost his temper. And he looked so grown up in his big boy clothes! Quel magnifique!”

Zelensky must have practiced like a maniac. The European leaders probably coached Zelensky through six crucial hours on Sunday (before Call of Duty time) to repeat his lines over and over: “peace and security, peace and security, peace and sec… trjascja! I forgot!” But when the crucial moment came, and he had his chance to perform, Zelensky did it; he told the American President both of his big boy words: “peace and security.”

He didn’t forget either word. Mr. Starmer was so proud.

***

The optics were perfect for President Trump. He sat alone at the Resolute Desk —the undisputed center of the world’s solar system— while a line of Europe’s top leaders and Zelensky slouched in smaller chairs across from him, leaning back or leaning in, attentive, sober, notepads in hand, like they were attending a parent-teacher conference to endure a difficult conversation about little Vladimyr’s toilet habits.

They can only blame themselves. They demanded a place in Trump’s photo session. They insisted on showing up on short notice without knowing what they were walking into. Behold, another shot of that same scene, except this time from the other direction:

This photo practically bursts with America First symbolism and illustrates the imbalanced power dynamic even more intensely.

Considering all the nay-saying ankle-biters of the liberal press it is appropriate to ask, in light of these breathtakingly ground-breaking events, just what these critics would propose as an alternative to what the President actually DID, as their gloomy critiques are notably devoid of any such suggestions whatsoever. At this point, no one could do better but to quote Sir Winston on the choice of diplomacy over combat; he said:

“Jaw Jaw is always better than War War.”

I am unabashedly, unqualifiedly proud of our President who will, in my opinion, with our without the imprimatur of the Nobel Committee, Hillary Clinton or anyone else, be remembered by history as one of the greatest peacemakers to ever occupy the Oval Office, in the most esteemed company I could possibly imagine, President Reagan.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.