SUMMIT CONFERENCES ARE INTENTIONALLY BORING.

What Our President described as "really good TV" last Friday might be an example of what happens when the conference communique refers to a "frank and open exchange of views."  Diplomatic protocols exist for a reason.  They surely govern in times of war.  After Cornwallis or Lee or Tojo's army stacks arms, comes the formal surrender.

USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Unattributed photograph retrieved from Ace of Spades.

If diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" whilst fetching a stick,  perhaps it is better that the stick not be public knowledge.  Thus, unless there is a finished agreement ready to be signed, either the subordinates continue the donkey work of frankly exchanging disagreeing views, or the principals hope to hash it out in private and at least end on an optimistic note, or the conference ends with no outcome.

Such outcomes are not uncommon.  I can remember at least two involving the Soviet Union between 1961 and 1987.  What happened Friday might have been foreshadowed by something I quoted just below my photo of the surrender ceremonies.

Here's Richard Fernandez of Belmont Club on why it matters.

Power means the last word on things.  It is not as if some future Republican president can reverse Obama and re-attempt a civil society in the Middle East the way America did in Europe and Japan at the end of World War 2.  Obama demonstrated the American Left can veto any attempt to resist imposing its vision upon the nation.  It has the will to throw away any victory, however complete, to have the last say.

The mistakes of Obama’s policies are secondary to the principle that a certain point of view should prevail.

For now, no.

In the wake of Friday's Diplomatic Springer Show there have been recriminations from Team Trump along precisely the lines of that quote.  I understand that immediately before the meeting at the White House, Ukraine's president had a meeting with assorted Democrats and tame Republicans who might have given him the impression that the Permanent Bipartisan Establishment had the ability to make their point of view, rather than whatever today's Trumpian position is, prevail.

Let's say that didn't turn out well.  Craig "Streetwise Professor" Pirrong got off the short take.  "How Do You Say 'Screwed the Pooch' In Ukrainian?"  There are additional details in his post, with this conclusion.

Continuing the war in Ukraine is not in American interests. Ending the war is. The president of the United States has the responsibility of advancing American interests. By trying to end the war, even under conditions that do not achieve cosmic justice, and allow an evil actor to pocket some gains and live to be evil in the future, Trump is advancing American interests.

But if he succeeds, he is advancing Ukrainian interests too. Perhaps most of all. This war is destroying that nation and its people, and its continuation will only increase the destruction. Zelensky thinks that recovering blasted regions is in his nation’s interest, regardless of the cost. In that way, he is as much an enemy of the Ukrainian people as Putin.

National Review's L. R. Abel draws the same conclusion, more gloomily.

The resulting commentary from that episode has been everything one might expect — the interventionists decried it as boorish, almost blasphemous, and the isolationists crowed about sticking it to a man they view as the party most responsible for prolonging a conflict they want no part of. If there is a middle ground, I reckon Rich, Mark, and MBD have surveyed that half acre as well as can be done.

Ultimately, the event should have never happened because we should be done with Ukraine, and it with us.

Whatever utilitarian argument we have for supporting them — Ukraine fights Russia so we don’t have to — has run its course as we deplete munition stores for which we do not have replacements.

The moral argument, that we should defend an oppressed state against an aggressor, is superficially compelling but falls apart when our attempt to end the conflict requires us to (a) sell the notion that Russia isn’t so bad after all, to keep them at the negotiating table, and (b) agree to defense obligations that we could not uphold vis-à-vis Ukraine in a future conflict that will almost certainly occur.

Meanwhile, the people clinging to their rules-based international order have not thought through the exit conditions.  Mr Abel has.

Why? It’s their men, their matériel, and their territory. . . . Who are we to say “enough” when it has become obvious that they will stay in their fatigues (Ukraine) and their fictions (Russia) until one or both are dead?

To be clear, I don’t want this. But the combatants seemingly do. Credit to Trump for trying to wrap this conflict up. Credit to Zelensky for the pugnaciousness he has exhibited that has kept his country in the fight this long. Credit to the Russian bastards for playing us for fools. Meanwhile, as MBD rightly pointed out, the Europeans are sitting back in their welfare states letting us take the arrows when it’s their rear ends that are allegedly so endangered that we have to prop Ukraine until every city in that country is a Russian-controlled ruin.

I’m tired of it. And not in the exasperated, bored Goldbergian sense. I’m tired of watching the same team debate play out month by month while two countries slaughter each other. War is a crime, full stop. Actively, indefatigably pursuing its end is the greatest good. Sometimes, that means stomping on the head of the aggressor until he stops trying to rise (e.g., World War II or the Gulf War). Other times, it’s knowing when a win isn’t possible and expeditiously pursuing a Zaitsev Draw.

He concludes with a suggestion. "Europe must take our place at the table. They are customers of Russia and have a personal interest in Ukraine’s survival as a buffer. It would appear they are starting to realize this, with Keir Starmer calling on his Old World peers to treat with him as if he were visited last night by a vision of King Henry."  It appears, though, that whatever the Europeans were proposing wasn't enough.  Our President might be repeating his deal in tonight's speech.