CNN Reminds Us We Need a Refresher on Diplomacy
President Donald Trump’s recent CNN townhall reminded the nation why he was first elected to serve in the White House in 2016. It also served as a reminder as to why the elites hated him so much, leading to them to push him our in 2020, whether you believe in the official narrative of the events during that election cycle or not.
One of the areas of controversy was the CNN host’s pestering as to whether or not Trump wanted Ukraine “to win” the war against Russia. Trump’s response that his goal was to end it through diplomacy so that people on both sides of the complicated conflict would stop dying was not enough for her.
Russia must pay, Ukraine must win the war at all cost- is what the allowable opinion on cable TV is when it comes to the conflict.
While CNN and the rest of the liberal media lost their minds over Trump’s responses, as they always have, the network did one thing out of character; they allowed for an op-ed to be published focusing on what the author deemed what Trump “gets right” on Ukraine.
According to the article’s author, Daniel R. DePetris:
Some observers simply scoff at the thought of Ukraine sitting down with Russia at the negotiating table and compromising for the sake of a peace agreement. But that all but relegates the parties to what could be endless war.
Although we may like to imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin eating humble pie as he withdraws his forces in defeat and disgrace, US intelligence officials behind closed doors have acknowledged that Ukraine likely doesn’t have enough combat power to win the war outright.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley said in March that the war “probably will end somewhere, somehow at a negotiating table.” In November, senior Biden officials reportedly pressed Ukrainian officials to at the very least keep diplomacy on the table. And European officials are reportedly anticipating a US-led peace push after Ukraine reclaims more territory in its expected counteroffensive. The major difference between the Biden administration and Trump on the Ukraine question seems to be not whether talks should happen, but when.
Another point Trump gets right is the vast disparity between the US and its European allies on the issue of assistance to Ukraine, even if he grossly exaggerates the amount of US aid. “I want Europe to put up more money,” he commented during the town hall. “Because they’re laughing at us.”
For the liberals reading this that need a basic refresher on why diplomacy matters, let’s take this back to a foreign policy for non-war hawks 101 level.
In the face of armed conflicts between nations, the pursuit of peace through diplomacy emerges as the most effective approach. Diplomacy, as Trump showed throughout his first term dealing with world leaders, creates an open communication that allows for a deeper understanding of each side’s perspectives, even if we feel one side is more at fault than the other.
By engaging in peaceful negotiations when, as reports show, the conflict seems like no side will achieve their ultimate victories, nations can eventually find a mutually acceptable solution, hopefully ending the armed conflict and bloodshed.
What this does is minimize human suffering and the destruction caused by such conflicts, which is Trump’s priority in ending the invasion of Ukraine so that this won’t ever have to happen again and both nations can rebuild. Potentially, diplomacy provides an avenue for reconciliation, helping heal wounds, rebuild some semblance of trust, and promote stability.
In conclusion, Trump wants to pursue peace through diplomacy by emphasizing dialogue, minimizing suffering, and promoting stability so that there can be paved a pathway for sustainable resolutions and end the bloodshed once and for all.
To be against that says more about Trump’s critics than it says about him.