The Trump administration recently issued its national security strategy, and some critics are concerned it doesn’t condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin enough.
Hanson breaks down how President Donald Trump and his administration aren’t trying to crush Putin, but rather are working to end the war between Russia and Ukraine as “the dead now exceed Stalingrad,” on yesterday’s episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In a Few Words.”
“The Ukrainian military’s average age is approaching the late thirties, maybe even forties. Ukraine has probably lost 300,000 dead, wounded, and killed. The Russians are probably at 1.3. So, the inference of the strategic assessment is that war should end before Ukraine is overwhelmed—unless the Europeans suddenly get religion, and they want to spend 5% immediately, and they want to put sophisticated weapons systems without restrictions into Ukraine.”
👉The Daily Signal cannot continue to tell stories, like this one, without the support of our viewers:
#DailySignal #Trump #News #USPolitics #WhiteHouse #MAGA #victordavishanson
source
34 Comments
Better dead than red has been US policy for 100 years, so glad Trump funding Ukraine to collapse Russian dying economy
Why Putin must be punished in the first instance? He is the one being attacked and Europe wants now to seize Russia assets to give it to Ukraine. What a bundle of corrupted people! If instead of Russia there were USA, what would the narrative be?
A channel called Julian Micheals is using VDH Ai generated imagery and audio to push the idea that Victor proves that capitalism is the foundation of Marxism!
I did report it to YouTube as misinformation.
So many Ukrainian men the same age and younger than Zelensky are dead … and he walks about with so called leaders with his chest puffed out …
So where IS the pressure on Putin?! Oh, right…
Budapest memorandum?
If EU hadn't insisted on accepting Ukraine onto NATO the invasion wouldn't have happened. EU insists Russia is going to attack. That's not going to happen
The EU is a shambles.
Victor did not address the headline question. Did I miss something?
Victor, it's controversial because a non-Ukrainian (Trump) is trying to give Russia part of Ukraine, against Ukraine's wishes.
And all so Trump can add a "peace deal" to his Nobel Peace Prize application by the Dec 31 deadline.
What would you be saying if it was happening in Alaska instead of Ukraine?
Make a peace deal giving part of Alaska to the Russians?
I don't think so.
In the words of don rickles. Make a deal. Maybe Putin is republican?
Not a desirable example for world peace to survive. Russian bleeding out would be preferable to be given a victory by Trump. This contradicts every lesson we have learned in the last century or so.
Lest I am not mistaken, Verdun is in Europe.
Shortest way to peace is Ukrainian surrender. France surrendered to Germany in WWII and they had peace. The US didn't surrender to Japan after Pearl Harbor and didn't have peace. China will occupy Taiwan, the US will do nothing, and there will be peace.
Punishing? Wake up, granpa
If the Europeans are anything like the UK government then the main investment will be in accountants employed to fake the 5%. Somehow useless social projects will be included and no extra real war fighting capability will appear. Perhaps we’ll get massive and failing IT projects designated as critical cyber warfare infrastructure and fraudulent overspending on toilet paper with a Minister’s brothers business as warfare rationing planning, or the cost of another 250,000 public sector workers put under the wrong heading, or the VAT on military invoices included rather than reclaimed. The one thing we all know, a rise from 2% to 5% won’t give us the pro rata military capability increase.
Just one question- since the second world war ended in 1945 where has US foreign policy not led to many civilian lives lost in most countries USA was "helping"??
GO MAGA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸✝️✝️✝️🥓🥓🥓⚡️⚡️⚡️🦮🦮🦮🥇🥇🥇🌎🌎🌎🎅🏽🎅🏽🎅🏽
Somehow, I don't believe that Russia has four times the deaths and casualties that Ukraine has.
Trump does not have a strategy he has feelings and zero logic.
RuZZia as a foil to China. Good riddance with that. Putin has made his country a vassal to China. He has no alternative. The Chinese now know how weak his military is and Vladivostok once was chinese. The Chinese want control over the east of RuZzia, either indirectly or directly. Associating with the US means losing the East. Trump is selling out more or less reliable allies to gain nothing in return.
Using the word "strategy" and "Trump" in the same sentence is already an error. Trump doesn't have a strategy. He has ways of keeping himself at the top of the news. That is the strategy.
I am a great admirer of Professor Hanson and trusting of virtually everything he says, but not this time. I said at the moment Trump reversed U.S. policy for the Russia-Ukraine war that he was making a catastrophic blunder. He should have continued the Biden strategy. If he had, the conflict may have come to a resolution and the U.S. would not be in the position in which we find ourselves. At odds with Ukraine and most of Europe. Putin wants to conquer Ukraine. That is what Zelenski believes. That is what the nations next to Russia and most of Europe believe. The only real solution was for Putin to withdraw, but that outcome seems unlikely at this time.
I listened to what Col. Doug McGregor had to say today on Putin and the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said that a) the situation in Europe right now is not like 1939 and b) US can't do squat and should not invest any resources in preventing Russia from reshaping the post-Soviet space. He expressed confidence that Putin would not risk nuclear war and would not attack European territory, limiting his attention to the post-Soviet Union space. I conditionally agree with some of his statements but I do not think he says everything he thinks about Europe. For instance, he repeatedly questioned the reason of existence of NATO at modern times when Soviet Union is gone. Although he never explicitly stated this I have the feeling that his line of questioning operates on the premises that 1) EU cannot be trusted by the US hence NATO cannot be trusted to achieve any meaningful for the US goals and 2) US has its own goals which are not parallel/in sync with those of EU. We need to dig into those two assumptions further because if those have merit / justified indeed this changes drastically the 20 century established world order and the US policy established so far in the beginning of 21st century. This is a major departure in the national doctrine of the US which needs to be communicated and analyzed explicitly.
It is as if Europe doesn't remember WW1, WW2, Boznia…
For every Ukrainian killed there are 4 Russians killed? These numbers almost sound like they are fabricated.
Thanks Victor
Truth teller!!~~
NATO and the EU are using Zelensky and Ukraine as a proxy to continue damaging Putin and Russia. There is no rush by the West to end the conflict. Ukraine is damaging Russian military and economy daily. All these problems while many EU countries continue to purchase Russian oil and gas.
What's controversial about this deal is that Putin is rewarded for his aggression. Does anyone seriously believe massive Ukrainian cessions will satisfy him? Putin himself has said that Russia's borders have no end, and that wherever a Russian soldier sets foot is Russia. Also, I think you're attributing way too much intellectual credit to this administration. Terms like "Verdun" and "Stalingrad" are unknown to Trump and his advisors. His goals are to force Ukraine to capitulate, enrich himself through doing business with Russia, and receive universal praise in Oslo for personally stopping 157 wars. Hence, he and his followers see Zelensky, and not Putin, as the obstacle to peace.
Speaking of Verdun and Stalingrad, what would have happened if the French had surrendered Verdun or the Soviets had surrendered Stalingrad? Their backs were to the wall much like Ukraine today. The "peace plan" crafted by Russia on Russia's terms while Witkoff dutifully takes dictation from Putin is worse for Ukraine, Europe, and ultimately us than Ukraine fighting back. Americans who imagine that isolation is possible must be ready to ask themselves how much of Alaska they're willing to concede if Ukraine falls.
Never in my life would I have thought that the USA support Russian terrorism.
Senate passed defense fund with 1 billion going to Ukraine even though this is not what people want or voted for. What happened to America first?
Mr. Hanson. No one is providing the necessary background information. Russia has twice as many troops. They called in reinforcements from North Korea. Once the strength of the Ukrainian Army drops below a certain number, Russia will take the country. The entire country. But if Ukraine wants to fight to the last man, that's up to them.
Condemning Putin means nothing. No one knows what happened at Stalingrad. Everyone wants to be spoon-fed online. They want three line explanations. They are being taught to do nothing for themselves. No research. Nothing.
Stupid people think giving Ukraine more weapons will drive the Russians out. That is 100% stupid. Russia is a threat to the most powerful country on Earth. Russia will not hesitate to bombard Ukraine till the last soldier is killed.
Europe is under Leftist control and will continue downward until the damage becomes more severe. Once that point is reached, there will be trouble.
Too cute by half. Trump should have declared that the US would help drive out the invading army by supplying Ukraine with whatever they needed to do so. China would have paid attention.
Just let Europe self-destruct. There is no reason Trump should spend a single minute in that failed continent.