Jake Broe Doesn’t Get Trump Wrong—But the Logic Runs Deeper
- john raymond
- Aug 26
- 2 min read
Jake Broe’s recent update is noteworthy not because he makes a daring analytical breakthrough, but because he avoids a glaring blunder.
On Trump’s role in constraining Ukraine, Broe doesn’t fall into the common trap of imagining Trump as a counterweight to Putin. Instead, he delivers a passing but accurate judgment: U.S. pressure to halt deep strikes served no real peace process and advantaged Russia.
That moment deserves praise—and amplification—because it shows the terrain where analysis can stay upright. My purpose here is to expand the logics he brushes past so quickly.
What Jake Said
At timestamp 00:29–00:38, Broe remarked:
“They were striking depots and refineries in the first 3 months of the year, but I’m guessing the Trump administration told them to stop so that we could have peace talks. But the Russians don’t actually want peace talks.”
This is sub-analytic in form—delivered quickly, with the hedging phrase “I’m guessing.” But the intuition is correct: Trump’s “peace talk” push functioned to suppress Ukrainian coercive leverage. That is the essence of the Traitor-General dynamic.
The Underlying Logic
Constraint as Strategy. The Pentagon approval regime for ATACMS use and the engineered pause on energy strikes both amounted to deliberate throttling of Ukraine’s capacity to coerce. These were not neutral measures; they preserved Kremlin war-making resources.
Moral Inversion at Alaska. At the August Alaska summit, Trump presented Ukraine as the obstacle to peace, while Putin refused even to meet Zelensky. The aggressor was shielded, the victim constrained. Broe acknowledges the talks but misses this inversion’s full weight.
European Diffusion. Within days, European leaders converged on Washington to reaffirm military and financial support for Ukraine. Trump’s gambit was real, but it was diffused by allied solidarity. This immediate correction shows the limits of Trump’s leverage outside his own executive action.
Why Jake’s Framing Matters
Many analysts commit the fatal mistake of suggesting Trump “constrained Russia” or “balanced Putin.” Broe does not. He instinctively places Trump’s maneuver in the category of Ukrainian constraint and Russian advantage.
That is why, even in its narrative shorthand, his remark is not wrong. However, what he leaves undone—and what I have expanded—is the structural logic:
Trump’s moves were deliberate throttling of Ukrainian coercion.
They created a moral inversion, rewarding the aggressor.
They were diffused only because Europe stepped in to plug the gap.
Cause for Celebration
Broe’s strength here is not brilliance but discipline: he does not commit the major analytical sin of crediting Trump as a check on Putin. That alone is worth recognition.
By adding the broader logics—Pentagon constraint, Alaska inversion, European diffusion—we can easily clarify the field of betrayal and resistance. Trump tried to throttle Ukraine. The gambit was diffused.
Broe doesn’t deny this. He only passes by it too quickly.
And with so many would-be-analysts getting this area of analysis wrong, Jake not making the same blunder should be celebrated.
Thank you, Jake!
Comments