Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 20
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Overly long review of the deal is a bit lower in this thursday thread. Bottom line- it gives the US a major interest hook to stay invested in Ukraine's defense (major influence over the resource economy), sets up a potential payment mechanism that could be used for military aid (justified in the name of defending sites), and gives the US a reserved right to take any action it deems necessary, which is close to the language actually in NATO Article 5. It's basically a reserved right to retroactively claim a security guarantee, without a security guarantee.
As for cut-off, basically yes. General language is that Congress authorizes the President to transfer military equipment, not that everything has to.
That said, I don't think it's likely he will in earnest (read- in totality / for very long). From what I've seen / looked into, this seems more Vance-initiated, and while Trump will back Vance in the moment, I also wouldn't be surprised if Vance takes a more background role in Ukraine stuff going forward- Vance actually is the one without power on ending the war, whereas Zelensky is the one Trump needs to make a deal happen.
We'll see going forward, but I imagine it will be a loud next few weeks, as this will lead into the European summit next week, and they can be expected to circle the wagons around him, and then we'll deal with that summit's fallout.
More options
Context Copy link