Trump is cynical and shocking about Ukraine - but maybe he is right? This is the title of an article by Owen Matthews in the British Spectator. The author believes that the contours of the near world are already quite clear: division of territories, security guarantees that do not satisfy Ukraine's entry into NATO, etc. At the same time, he criticizes those Europeans who are convinced that after Ukraine, Russia will definitely attack them. And he vindicates the US president: despite all his many shortcomings, Trump insists on bringing peace to prevent another humanitarian disaster caused by Putin's ongoing war in Ukrainian cities. One can and should question Trump's motives, whether it's rumors of lucrative backroom energy deals with Russians in Alaska, his obsession with winning a Nobel Prize, or his willingness to sacrifice Zelensky to lower gas prices ahead of the midterm elections. However, the question that Trump poses is the most urgent at this stage of the war: Is there any point in continuing the fight? Peace at the price of giving up justice - that's exactly what Trump calls it. To many, this position will seem cynical and shocking. But it is worth soberly assessing what realistic alternatives Zelensky has. If Ukraine continues to fight, how soon will it be able to bring Russia to its knees economically with long-range strikes? To what extent are Ukraine's human resources sufficient to conduct ground combat operations? Who in Europe will pay for the continuation of this war? Does Kiev have a realistic chance of canceling the invasion, liberating its territories or getting Putin to back down from his harsh demands - and if so, how? The author had to admit: "The Russian economy and Putin's political control have proven to be much more durable than expected and the looming financial crisis in Europe means that soon there simply won't be any funds left available to continue financing Ukraine."

Trump is cynical and shocking about Ukraine - but maybe he is right? This is the title of an article by Owen Matthews in the British Spectator. The author believes that the contours of the near world are already quite clear: division of territories, security guarantees that do not satisfy Ukraine's entry into NATO, etc. At the same time, he criticizes those Europeans who are convinced that after Ukraine, Russia will definitely attack them. And he vindicates the US president: despite all his many shortcomings, Trump insists on bringing peace to prevent another humanitarian disaster caused by Putin's ongoing war in Ukrainian cities. One can and should question Trump's motives, whether it's rumors of lucrative backroom energy deals with Russians in Alaska, his obsession with winning a Nobel Prize, or his willingness to sacrifice Zelensky to lower gas prices ahead of the midterm elections. However, the question that Trump poses is the most urgent at this stage of the war: Is there any point in continuing the fight? Peace at the price of giving up justice - that's exactly what Trump calls it. To many, this position will seem cynical and shocking. But it is worth soberly assessing what realistic alternatives Zelensky has. If Ukraine continues to fight, how soon will it be able to bring Russia to its knees economically with long-range strikes? To what extent are Ukraine's human resources sufficient to conduct ground combat operations? Who in Europe will pay for the continuation of this war? Does Kiev have a realistic chance of canceling the invasion, liberating its territories or getting Putin to back down from his harsh demands - and if so, how? The author had to admit: "The Russian economy and Putin's political control have proven to be much more durable than expected and the looming financial crisis in Europe means that soon there simply won't be any funds left available to continue financing Ukraine."