Ukraine Doesn’t Have to Defeat Russia. They Just Have to Outlast Putin.

We’ll get to Russia and Ukraine in a minute. But first I want to make the case for Democrats playing hardball.

Also: TNL is a juicy one today. We talk about the National Guard in DC, Trump’s war on truth, Dems and the off-year elections, and Arby’s. Show will drop here later today. —JVL

1. D.C.

I’ve been banging on about D.C. statehood for years: It should be in the Tier 1 set of Democratic objectives when/if they regain power. The party should be willing to pay just about any price to make it happen because it’s the kind of structural change that can push back against the authoritarian slide.¹

I don’t know why Democrats are squirrelly about making D.C. a state, but if nothing else Trump sending the National Guard into the District this week should give them all the pretext they need. The argument goes like this:

The District of Columbia must be granted statehood in order to protect its residents and economic interests from being targeted by federal troops.

Bam. That’s it.

I’m not saying Democrats should campaign on D.C. statehood—it doesn’t have any electoral salience. But if they ever regain power in the government, they should make it their top legislative priority and be willing to do anything (including nuking the filibuster) to achieve it.

I have thoughts on two other Tier 1 priorities to help Trump-proof the federal government, but I’ll save them for another day. Instead I’ll ask a sincere question:

As Democratic governors now prepare for the possibility that the National Guard will be used aggressively in cities within their jurisdiction, should they move to legalize “constitutional carry” and pass “stand your ground” laws?

Isn’t the current moment almost the exact scenario Second Amendment enthusiasts have always warned about? The federal government sending paramilitary forces into the streets to control law-abiding, unarmed civilians?

Or, to put it another way: How do you think it would work if the National Guard were sent into Dallas? Do you think federalized troops would feel liberated to be as strong and tough as Trump wants them to be? Or would the legal climate surrounding firearms in Texas encourage them to be on their best behavior?

This is a serious question—I don’t have a firm view on it. I’d like you to discuss it seriously in the comments. And as a side matter: I’d like your views on my general suspicion that Democrats ought to get much friendlier with gun culture in this moment.

Leave a comment

2. Nations and Men

Trump’s Alaska meeting with Putin on Friday will not produce peace. That’s just a fact. But the reasons why it won’t—it can’t—produce peace are instructive.

(1) Trump misunderstands the idea of national interest. In Trump’s mind, nations are merely extensions of their leader. The strongman’s will exists, and so the nation fulfills it. This is why he has always been more comfortable around dictators than elected leaders. He understands the dictators and finds the elected leaders—who have duties, obligations, and constraints—off-putting.

Because of this view, Trump understands Putin and Russia instinctively. But he is blind to how Ukraine will make decisions and act. Trump thinks that Ukraine will do whatever Volodymyr Zelensky tells the country to do—so if he can just force Zelensky to submit to his will, then the situation can be controlled.

But that’s not how functional democracies work. Even if Zelensky wanted to do whatever Trump demanded of him, he could not.

(2) Ukraine has interests that extend beyond Zelensky. Russia does not have interests beyond Putin.

“Russia” has no interest in taking land belonging to Ukraine. It’s Putin who wants the land for his personal and ideological reasons. He will not allow any peace without substantial annexation of Ukrainian territory.

But Ukraine is...