NY Times Editorial Board Sparks Fury With Suggestion Ukraine Cede Territory to Russia: ‘Really Shameful, Guys’

The New York Times editorial board spark some sharp reactions from critics on Friday after it published an editorial suggesting that Ukraine cede some territory to the invading Russians.

While everyone from Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes to the Dispatches’ Stephen Hayes tore into the editorial as promoting a kind of appeasement, the argument also created some strange bedfellows as Fox News host Laura Ingraham offered faint praise for it.

Ingraham, a one-time hawk turned America First isolationist, wrote on Twitter: “Even the @nytimes realizes that we’re getting in too deep in Ukraine.”

The editorial notes the “messy” situation the U.S. is in with Ukraine and laments the hard choices that must be made, while slowly backing into calling for Ukraine to consider giving up some territory to Russia.

The writers argue that Biden and NATO must stand up to Vladimir Putin and show the West is “able to resist his revanchist ambitions.”

“That goal cannot shift, but in the end, it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions,” the editorial continues.

“A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal,” the editorial argues, the line that critics were quick to pounce on.

“Though Russia’s planning and fighting have been surprisingly sloppy, Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down,” the writers argue, noting previously in the article that Putin’s threats of using tactical nuclear weapons should be taken seriously as he becomes more desperate.

“In the end, it is the Ukrainians who must make the hard decisions: They are the ones fighting, dying and losing their homes to Russian aggression, and it is they who must decide what an end to the war might look like,” the editorial adds, concluding, “If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand.”

The article then, with a sense of self-awareness, defends against the accusation of appeasement:

Confronting this reality may be painful, but it is not appeasement. This is what governments are duty bound to do, not chase after an illusory “win.”

Wittes replied to the argument writing, “The New York Times editorial page endorses pressuring Ukraine to cede territory to Russia. Really shameful, guys.”

Hayes added, “The NY Times is right that the war in Ukraine is messy, that US options are complicated, that inflation at home is of paramount concern.

Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle wrote, “But appeasement — which is the case they make here — is not the answer. Appeasement is never the answer.”

“I used to think the main characteristic of ⁦@nytimes⁩ editorials was their pomposity,” he said. “I see they’ve now added craven appeasement and contempt for freedom.”

Yaroslav Trofimov, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent of The Wall Street Journal, responded, “NYT editorial argues for Ukraine to give up territory. “A decisive military victory for over in which regains all the territory has seized since 2014 is not a realistic goal. Ukrainian leaders will have to make the painful territorial decisions.”

Author Andrea Chalupa noted, “If the @nytimes Editorial Board has to insist its argument for Ukraine giving up territory to Russia “is not appeasement” then it’s appeasement. This is Walter Duranty level nonsense. No wonder they still count his award among their Pulitzers”

—-