Ecclesiastes 3:1 Heads to Ukraine

...Rebeccah, someone is reading your drafts...

To everything there is a season. Over the last 18 months, a lot of national, personal, and political capital was invested by the present administration to try to get Ukraine and Russia to the negotiation table to stop a war that has been going on longer than WWII.

This is not just a war between brothers like the U.S. Civil War, where—as fights between brothers are—things become more brutal and go longer than expected, but it is a war where both sides are limited on what they can do to bring the war to any end outside complete victory.

For Ukraine, the war is existential. Should Ukraine lose, she would be lucky to become little more than a rump Belarus after Russian forces conduct a victory parade in central Kiev (no one will spell it Kyiv again).

For Russia, it is an attempt to regain what was lost. Should they lose, no Ukrainian army will reach Moscow, but odds are Russia will cascade into something between the 2017 bloodletting and the chaos after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Though I appreciate applied optimism, if there was a space for compromise, it is gone.

If we have played out the peace option, then for Europe and North America and their support for Ukraine, there are two options:

1. Back away and leave Ukraine to her fate, or

2. Decide to decisively support Ukraine’s effort and accept the risk of a Russian systemic crisis in the future

The events of the last few days lead me to think we will see the later option…which has been trending that way since early spring.

As that news started to trickle in, I was grinning a bit on behalf of our friend Rebeccah Heinrichs. Some of the items in her July 2nd article in National Review, An Opening for Trump to Secure Peace in Ukraine, seem to be fleshing out.

That is an excuse to share the article and show you what I’m referring to.

Firstly, she opens with a correct diagnosis of the problem.

The root of the problem is that Vladimir Putin is ideologically committed to his hostility against the United States and the West. This is why Trump’s strategy hasn’t worked. He has sought to appear impartial and demand that both sides compromise, focusing on territory in the Donbas, as if the war is a violent real estate dispute between feuding personalities.

Putin cannot compromise and is not inclined to compromise. Anything but victory is a death sentence for him personally and the entire structure that supports him. He knows it. His grip on power is firm, but brittle.

Only Putin can end the war by, at the very least, accepting a cease-fire. Ukraine and NATO could then focus on rebuilding their stocks and defense industrial capacity to deter further Russian aggression, especially as the U.S. urges Europe to help carry more of the burden of defense.

Putin cannot accept a cease-fire, in my opinion as outlined earlier. Ukraine and the West will not have the luxury to rebuild on its timeline. We will have continued war, and we will need to expand capacity.

This is a lot more than a Westphallian map exercise. There was a small chance it could have been, but time has proven that chance is no longer in play.

What is Plan-B?

Trump has shown a willingness to adapt when his plans don’t work, and now is the time to shift the strategy. The only way for Trump to help end the war is by applying pain and pressure to Russia and encouraging Ukraine and the rest of NATO to do the same.

Here is where Rebeccah’s drafts are seeping into the ether.

From today’s WSJ:

President Trump said he supported Ukraine striking targets deep inside Russian territory, calling it an escalation that could help end the war.

The comments mark his strongest praise yet of Ukraine’s military strategy and deal a significant blow to Russia’s efforts to keep Trump on its side in talks to end the war.

In a marked contrast to past meetings between the two leaders, Trump opened his press conference with President Volodymyr Zelensky by offering warm words and fresh promises of military cooperation with Ukraine, providing a major boon for Kyiv and its supporters in Europe.

…

“It’s an escalation, but it’s also an escalation that could help lead to an end,” Trump said of backing Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory. He spoke during a session with the Ukrainian president at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on Wednesday.

Back to Rebeccah’s article, she outlines the next logical step.

The United States should encourage, not restrict, Ukraine’s bolder operations and should exhort NATO nations to continue supplying Ukraine with weapons, including by purchasing key systems from American companies.

Expanded capacity? Lockheed is game:

Lockheed Martin welcomes the commitment of the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden to explore a dedicated PAC-3® Missile Maintenance Facility in Europe. The joint government-to-government agreement was signed today during the NATO Summit Defense Industry Forum, part of the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara.

…and it appears that the U.S. is prepared to do even more than that:

Trump praised Ukraine’s bravery, signaled he would consider granting Kyiv a license to produce U.S. Patriot missile interceptors and said he would consider traveling to Kyiv at the right time in peace talks.

Ukraine has run critically low on Patriot missiles, which have been used to intercept Russian ballistic missiles. The shortage left its capital and other cities exposed during deadly large-scale Russian attacks this summer. The path from licensing rights to standing up production lines for Patriot interceptors could take years, and Trump didn’t offer more specifics on the plan.

Will they build them in Ukraine proper or in some other European country? How long until warshots are coming out the factory door? No idea at this point, but coming out of the Ankara Summit everyone should be clear—the West’s support for Ukraine is entering a new phase of unknown magnitude or time.

Buckle up.

Also…keep reading what Rebeccah is writing. She’s sauntering through the zeitgeist like she owns the place.