Since many of our readers do not follow Twitter/X, it is worth bringing to everyone’s attention a very substantive exchange between Vice President Vance and historian Niall Ferguson. Ferguson is alarmed at Trump’s recent pronouncements and diplomatic initiatives over Ukraine, calling it “appeasement.” Vance very politely and respectfully dissents, followed by Ferguson’s rejoinder.
Vance: In this thread I’ll respond to some of what I’ve seen out there. Let’s start with Niall:
1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I’m surprised to hear you call the administration’s posture “appeasement.” We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is “appeasement” only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don’t, so it’s not.
2) As far as I can tell, accusations of “appeasement” hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we’re even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea–based often on fake media reports–that we’ve “given the Russians everything they want.” Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false. Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth. But the bigger issue, as I think Niall knows, is that most of those loudly shouting “appeasement” are people who aren’t dealing with the reality on the ground.
3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I’m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I’ve seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he’s awfully good at this. But we’re not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags. The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying “maybe we’ll let Ukraine into NATO” defies all common sense. Again, it’s not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground–realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.
4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don’t ultimately matter. I’m happy to defend POTUS’s criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he’s the president, but I agree with him). You’re welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don’t bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it.
Ferguson’s reply:
Well, thank God also for free and open debate.
Having visited Ukraine every year but one since 2011, I think I have an informed and realistic view. I repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for its failure to deter Putin in 2021 and failure to end the war while Ukraine still had some leverage.
I have said more than once in the past three years that the war would not have happened if President Trump had been reelected in 2020. I supported his campaign for reelection last year, consistently predicted his and your victory, and welcomed the “vibe shift” that victory represented.
I have also supported the President’s previous calls to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine. So I am not sure I really qualify as a globalist. In fact, I agree with all five of the points you make. Indeed, I praised your Munich speech.
But I simply cannot understand the logic of beginning a negotiation this difficult by conceding so many crucial points to Russia. As I understand it, before negotiations have even begun, NATO membership for Ukraine has been taken off the table and the loss of 20% of its territory has in effect been conceded. Correct me if I am wrong.
I have read also (though it may not be true) that “American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer.” China? Seriously?
On Wednesday, President Trump accused Ukraine of having “started it,” meaning the war. He also cast doubt on the legitimacy of President Zelensky’s government. It is not “moralistic garbage” but a hard and realistic lesson of history that wars are easy to start and hard to end.
As for “historical illiteracy,” here are some facts. It took 1 year, 10 months, 25 days for Woodrow Wilson to negotiate an end to World War I (it helped that the Allies won); 2 years, 18 days to negotiate an end to the Korean War; 3 years, 5 months, 24 days to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War; And 5 years, 5 months, 1 day to negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt.
I earnestly hope that the Trump administration can negotiate an end to this war. But if we end up with a peace that dooms Ukraine first to partition and then to some future invasion, it will be a sorry outcome.
To repeat, I agreed with most of your criticisms of Europe at Munich. I would add that the Europeans have talked for “strategic autonomy” for too long without making a serious attempt to achieve it. But you and President Trump campaigned last year with a slogan that dates back even further than George H.W. Bush’s words that I quoted. That phrase was “peace through strength.” I wish you luck.
I’m hoping to carve out time in the next few days to offer my own extended thoughts on this subject. Stay tuned.
