Letters to the Editor: Trump’s actions in the Russia-Ukraine war don’t merit a Nobel Peace Prize

To the editor: The only peace deal that President Trump accomplished, and was completely responsible for, was the one in Afghanistan (“Ending the Ukraine war? Trump is the man for the job,” Aug. 22). Peace, defeat, surrender or however you want to describe Afghanistan’s loss, that is exactly what will happen in Ukraine if Trump continues reducing support for our friends there.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a very good reason for attacking Ukraine and it has nothing to do with fearing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Russia is a failing state and needs new resources, land and, most importantly, more people.

The one huge difference with any of the wars the U.S. has supported in my lifetime is that the Ukrainian people are willing to do the fighting in this one. All we have to do is give them the materials they need to defeat Putin’s forces. That will also be the best way to push back on China. If China sees that military force will not work in taking over other countries, they will be less inclined to attack Taiwan or push around the Philippines.

James Wilterdink, Chula Vista

..

To the editor: Contributing writer Josh Hammer blames former President Biden and his “neoliberal blob” (whatever that is) for not having a plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Well, Biden gave Ukraine warning that Russia was going to invade and supported Ukraine from the beginning; otherwise Russia would be controlling the country now. On the other hand, Trump, while running for and as president, has encouraged Putin to fight by cutting the supply of weapons to Ukraine, ridiculing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and treating Putin as a rational leader (something few others think).

In fact, the bombing of Ukraine with drones and missiles has doubled in the second Trump administration. If Kamala Harris were president, Ukraine would have had much more leverage in dealing with Russia. Now, its leverage has been eroded by Trump.

Hammer has written a delusional column topped off with the statement that maybe Trump will win the Nobel Peace Prize. How, by rewarding Russia for invading Ukraine?

Dave Woelfel, Tehachapi

..

To the editor: Hammer’s description of Trump as a “sober and emotionally detached realist“ is a stretch. So is his suggestion that recognizing Russia as owning part of Ukraine will “permit the U.S. military to focus on deterring” China.

Rewarding the Russian invasion with recognition will entice China to attack Taiwan. Emboldening our “top 21st-century geopolitical threat,” as he calls China, risks the American interests he says he wants to safeguard.

It is obfuscation, not sobriety, to use the words “land swaps and territorial compromise” to describe surrendering sovereignty to an invading army.

Stuart Meisner, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: Hammer’s column could be succinctly summarized as follows: Trump can end the war in Ukraine by giving Putin everything he wants. Likely true, but hardly revelatory or worthy of an op-ed.

Stephen Smith, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Hammer’s paean for Trump’s skills as a peacemaker bears scrutiny. Trump makes no secret of his admiration and envy of Putin’s autocratic rule. He gives lip service to the need for security for Ukraine, but refuses to commit U.S. troops to be part of a peacekeeping force. In contrast, he has no compunction about deploying U.S. military forces to patrol the streets of American cities, most of which are governed by his perceived political enemies. We need real governance by a president who is knowledgeable about national and international affairs, and not one who behaves like a petulant autocrat with an undeserved amount of power at his disposal.

David Sacks, Los Alamitos

..

To the editor: Hammer’s column raises questions for me about so many subjects, it’s hard to know where to begin. So I’ll stick with just one or two subjects.

Why does Russia need a buffer zone against NATO on its western border? Is there a real risk that NATO is going to invade Russia absent Russian aggression against a NATO country? Or is the purpose of such a buffer to assure Putin that, if he decides the “land swaps” with Ukraine are not enough, he can just take over the rest of Ukraine without having to confront NATO?

And what Russian land, exactly, is Russia proposing to “swap” for the Donbas? Or is the idea that leaving the rest of Ukraine an independent nation is somehow a “land swap”? If so, Hammer, Trump and Putin all need some English vocabulary lessons.

June Ailin Sewell, Marina del Rey