‘Bad Things Happened’: Trump Still Doesn’t Understand the Ukraine War
And in his eagerness to cut a deal to end it, he may give Putin the lifeline he so desperately needs.
ONE WEEK INTO DONALD TRUMP’S NEW ADMINISTRATION and observers around the world find themselves trying to understand what to expect from a president who prides himself on being unexpected.
In foreign policy, where the stakes are high, Trump’s inconsistency is particularly marked. Predictably hawkish on Iran, suddenly friendly with Xi, belligerent when it comes to allies Mexico and Canada and Denmark—Trump doesn’t have anything near a predictable worldview. The only hope is that he and his appointees will attempt to ensure that American interests are served, not only the interests of Trump and co-president Elon Musk.
What does this uncertainty mean for the war in Ukraine, as we near the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion? Trump made many pre-election promises setting expectations for how his second term would unfold. He has already retracted, amended, or magnified many of them. Among these is his hyperbolic vow to end the Ukraine war in a single day, which in recent weeks he has revised upward to six months, apparently reflecting a modified assessment of how difficult it will be to achieve this desired outcome. Nevertheless, it’s clear what outcome Trump would prefer: a clean extraction of America from the conflict, with the appearance of maximum efficiency.
But a speedy end to this war—even if just in the form of a ceasefire that would favor Russia—is unrealistic. And based on the sliding timeline, Trump and his advisers must know this.
Trump’s latest remarks aren’t encouraging. In a virtual address last Thursday to the World Economic Forum at Davos, he spoke about the war with his usual equivalency and evasiveness, as if blame for the war lies as much with Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as with Russia and its dictator, Vladimir Putin. “When I was out” of the presidency, Trump said, “bad things happened, bad things were said, a lot of stupidity all around, and you end up with what you have.” What an obtuse way of talking about Russia’s war of choice, of conquest, of the extermination of the Ukrainian state. Putin started it and will continue it as long as it serves his interests.
Putin, for his part, knows how to play the game: On Friday he tried to butter Trump up by saying the 2020 election was stolen and, echoing Trump’s Davos remarks, if Trump had been around Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022 wouldn’t have happened. Truly impressive how many lies can be packed into such a short statement.
HERE’S THE REALITY: Russia is weak. Putin’s only hope is Western weakness, especially lifelines from Trump—like meetings that exclude Ukraine and Europe. Trump is correct to focus (as he did in his Davos remarks) on reducing Russia’s income from oil, although shutting down its shadow fleet of tankers and ability to export is better than asking OPEC to pretty please help reduce oil prices.
A pause in fighting isn’t an end to war. Everyone understands that a ceasefire in Israel doesn’t mean an end to that conflict. The tentativeness with which all sides have approached the latest agreement to end the Gaza conflict demonstrates an underlying understanding that Israel and Hamas are fundamentally at odds, and may not even be able to execute these latest mutually agreed upon terms satisfactorily. That is because Hamas, as a terrorist organization, is predicated on the complete annihilation of the state of Israel.
The parallels to Ukraine are obvious: Putin’s regime is now predicated on the domination of Ukraine by Russia and its annihilation as a sovereign, Western-oriented nation. I didn’t make this up—just take a look at Russian state propaganda, or official government policy. The official line is that Ukraine should not exist. This was Putin’s policy before the full-scale invasion of February 2022 and it will remain his policy even if he agrees to a temporary ceasefire. There are only two possible ends to a war in which the aggressor is committed to the destruction of its opponent: a victory for the aggressor or the destruction of the aggressor. These are the only possible outcomes in Ukraine. Either the Ukrainian nation will cease to exist as we know it or Russia will lose and the Putin regime will fall. Any ceasefires, temporary retreats, or pauses are merely stages on the way to one of these final outcomes.
Appeasement is not a way to end the conflict, and any public relations victory it would produce for Trump would be fleeting. History tells us that appeasement is the greatest fuel for continued war. Negotiations can only work if the administration is willing to walk away. Moreover, negotiations in which Ukrainian or European leaders are not present are unacceptable; they are from the start tipped in favor of Putin, a war criminal for whom it is a victory in domestic and international politics just to be talking to the American president as an equal.
Putin has said that his demands for Ukraine include its never joining NATO, and having a limited army and defense budget. In other words, he wants Ukraine to be militarily impotent and have no recourse against Russian aggression, a hostage to Putin’s whim. These are not acceptable starting points for negotiation. Any talks must start from the understanding that Ukraine is a sovereign nation with the right to defend itself. This is antithetical to Putin’s underlying ideology.
Putin is by no means invincible. Trump acknowledged that this war was supposed to be over in “one week,” and that “it’s not making him [Putin] look very good.” The Russian dictator is not nearly as powerful as Stalin in 1945, with an enormous army occupying vast swaths of European territory. The Russian economy is teetering and more pressure on energy exports could topple it. America has the leverage to bring this war to an end on terms favorable to Ukraine.
Unfortunately, based on the testimony of Trump’s cabinet nominees in their confirmation hearings, the officials who will be managing America’s involvement do not understand the underlying dynamics—namely, that Putin’s hold on power is synonymous with continued war. Perhaps Secretary of State Marco Rubio, given his experience and previously voiced views, understands this, but, if so, he is afraid to say it.
America must stand up to Putin. If you think defeating Russia is expensive, it’s far cheaper than the trillions that will be required should Ukraine fall. If Putin is allowed to win in Ukraine, he will only move on to other targets and the price will keep going up. Putin made clear before the full-scale invasion that he sees his war in Ukraine as part of a larger political and military struggle against the West, especially the United States. The Biden administration never acknowledged this reality, but neither has Trump, at least not yet. On Tuesday, Trump vaguely threatened Putin with sanctions should Russia not make a deal to end the war. Putin might come to the table, simply because the fact of a meeting is already a huge win for him. But he won’t leave the battlefield unless there are concrete threats to his power, and that means peace through strength—in Ukraine.
A victory for Putin means, in due time, a re-charting of the entire map of Europe, to suit his vision of a Russian empire that never lost the Cold War. The only way to end the war in Ukraine is to ensure that Russia loses and that Ukraine wins.
 | A guest post by
|