Not a Single Question on Ukraine?

It was malpractice for the vice-presidential debate moderators not to ask about a top foreign policy topic.

On Tuesday, JD Vance and Tim Walz sparred at this election’s first and only vice-presidential debate. Vance objectively won, at least by typical debate standards.

The senator was polished, prepared, relaxed, and notably took on a far more humble and diplomatic tone than what we’ve seen from him on social media, cable news, and right-wing podcasts. I think former Trump official, Alyssa Farah Griffin, provided an apt description when she tweeted, “Vance’s greatest political talent is that he’s a chameleon. He can play the role of eloquent, empathetic debate opponent & just as easily pivot to Far-Right Internet Troll who spreads baseless lies about immigrants.”

Walz, however, was nervous. He committed a number of cringe-worthy gaffes, and was clearly ill-equipped to defend himself from criticism (his Tiananmen Square response was excruciating), as well as prosecute a compelling case against his opponent (despite there being ample material from which to do so). This was particularly surprising, being that the entire case for Walz even making it onto Kamala Harris’s VP shortlist seemed to be that he had a knack (in a folksy, no-nonsense manner) for framing Donald Trump (and Trump’s disciples and policies) as being “weird.”

But there wasn’t much of an attempt Tuesday to further qualify that weirdness. Walz didn’t even bother to evoke Vance’s "childless cat ladies” remarks, which tanked the senator’s approval nationally. Walz instead often went the “Minnesota nice” route of humanizing Vance, and highlighting their areas of agreement. Not until the January 6 and “stolen election” questions right at the end (after a lot of viewers had likely tuned out) did the governor bring some heat.

While it was refreshing to see two high-ranking politicians from opposing parties treat each other with respect and cordiality, it deeply undercut Walz’s perceived value as a running mate, and once again begged the question of why Harris didn’t go with Governor Josh Shapiro, who was the obvious choice at the time for several reasons (among them his oratory skills).

Idea wise, I think both men were wrong on all kinds of things, and spread a good amount of B.S. in their framing of various issues. But the one topic I was very much looking forward to — a top foreign-policy issue in which there’s actually a stark contrast between the presidential tickets — was shockingly and inexplicably never brought up: Ukraine.

While I’ve long argued that the Biden/Harris administration has been too slow and timid in its support for our invaded ally, that support has been real. We and other western countries have provided Ukraine with invaluable defensive resources. Without them, Putin likely would have already won a victory that would have led (and still could lead) to terrible global ramifications. The world, including our enemies abroad (some of which have invasion fantasies of their own), has been closely watching this conflict.

A Trump/Vance administration should very much concern those who believe it’s vitally important that Putin’s war-crime-ridden invasion of Ukraine ultimately ends in defeat. Trump’s well-documented man-crush on the Russian president, his history of playing games with Ukraine defense-funding (and accusing them of U.S. election interference), and his invitation to Putin to attack our Nato allies are far from the only suggestions that Trump will abandon our ally.

Trump couldn’t even bring himself to say at last month’s presidential debate that it would be good if Ukraine won. Last week, he parroted Russian talking points, declaring that “Ukraine is gone. It’s not Ukraine anymore,” and that “any deal, even the worst deal, would be better than what we have right now.”

Really? Ukraine surrendering to Russia, which is clearly the only “deal” Putin is interested in, would be “better” than what we have right now?

Last week, National Review’s Noah Rothman documented Trump’s increasingly hostile rhetoric toward Ukraine, and days later, while standing next to Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump made the obscene claim that Putin, like Zelenskyy, wants the war to stop, and that a “fair deal” can be made “for everybody.”

Putin could stop this war tomorrow if he wanted to, and there is no fairness to be had from an illegal, genocidal invasion.

When Kamala Harris stood next to Zelenskyy, her rhetoric was measurably different. “There are some in my country who [want] to force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory,” she said. “These proposals are the same as those of Putin. Let us be be clear. They are not proposals for peace. Instead, they are proposals for surrender.”

And of course, JD Vance’s sentiments on Ukraine are no mystery. Just days before Russia’s full-scale invasion, Vance famously declared, “I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”

The senator has been affirming and reaffirming that stance ever since, routinely trashing Zelenskyy, attacking his supporters as warmongers and neocons, and falsely attributing America’s domestic problems to the Ukraine defense-funding he continues to adamantly oppose. Vance even refused to meet with Zelenskyy, an unbelievable move for a sitting U.S. senator now vying to be a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the free world.

Yet, Vance actually had the gall Tuesday night to say, “We should support our allies wherever they are when they’re fighting the bad guys.”

A more capable debate-opponent than Tim Walz would have pounced on the comment, and called on Vance to define whether Ukraine was, in his view, an “ally” or a “bad guy.” After all, Vance’s words and actions thus far have all pointed to the latter.

Unfortunately, Walz let Vance’s remark slip right on by. Maybe the governor didn’t hear it, or maybe he figured the moderators would inevitably bring up the topic of Ukraine. But again, that amazingly didn’t happen… which was journalistic malpractice, plain and simple.

Ukraine may not be a top concern of the average American (though most still back us supporting them), but if that were the rationale, why did the moderators spend almost 10 minutes on climate change?

Ukraine matters. Its fate has global implications. Voters (and frankly the world) need to know as much as possible about how the next administration will handle the issue.

---

Catch Up on the Sean Coleman Thrillers

All of John Daly’s Sean Coleman Thriller novels can be purchased through Amazon, Apple, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Books-A-Million, and wherever else books are sold.

Now’s a great time to catch up on the series.