The New York Times is starting to get it ... sort of.

Are the apologists for the Administration coming around on Ukraine? Watch your head as the self-anointed best-and-brightest change tack, because Midterm Elections.

Favorability ratings, courtesy of realclearpolitics.com.

Very short note.

Two days ago, the editorial board of The New York Times came out to obliquely suggest that the United States should press the warring parties in Ukraine to negotiate a settlement.  Three days ago, a contributor to The Atlantic did the same thing. 

Three observations.  First, it would have been nice if these observers, so confident in their assessment this week of the Ukraine matter, could have offered their wisdom last week or the week before that, well before Congress agreed to send $40 billion to Ukraine.  No one has explained how that $40 billion will be allocated.  How much of it will end up in the pockets of the entrenched interests—the oligarchs—who have been running Ukraine?

Second, one cannot find in these opinion pieces any information that had not been available for the last several months.  In the piece in the Times, one cannot find any information at all.  It’s all just talk.  Meanwhile, various other observers have suggested over the same several months that the outlines of prospective deals were obvious.  These same observers suggested that the United States has been situated to press the press the parties to cut a deal.  Even I tossed in my own piece in March titled, “This is How Wars End”.  What changed?

Third, The New York Times piece gives a hint as to what has changed.  The Times is concerned that voters are beginning to weary of the business in Ukraine and that the Ukraine matter could prove to be an impediment to the success of the Democratic Party in the forthcoming, mid-term elections in November.  The Times explains … sort of:

Is the United States … trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Vladimir Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Mr. Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war — and if so, how does crowing about providing U.S. intelligence to kill Russians and sink one of their ships achieve this?

Without clarity on these questions, the White House not only risks losing Americans’ interest in supporting Ukrainians — who continue to suffer the loss of lives and livelihoods —  but also jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent.

Americans have been galvanized by Ukraine’s suffering, but popular support for a war far from U.S. shores will not continue indefinitely. Inflation is a much bigger issue for American voters than Ukraine, and the disruptions to global food and energy markets are likely to intensify.

Correctly or not, one can imagine that the Administration might have perceived, and may continue to perceive, some electoral advantage to pressing for war in Ukraine.  Imagine, for example, that others in Russia were to push Putin’s clique from power.  Would the Administration then claim credit for that?  And would the electorate reward the Administration for that?  Who knows, but the war in Ukraine certainly has provided ample opportunity to carry on superficially about “democracy” and about the integrity of national borders.  With illegal aliens streaming across the southern border of the United States by the thousands each day, one wonders where these proponents of the integrity of national borders have been all this time.