"Trust but verify" is probably too generous a rule for dealing with Putin.
And Trump forgot the "verify" part.
In 2016-17, it was an article of faith among Democrats and the mainstream media that Donald Trump is a collaborator with, and a stooge, of Vladimir Putin. I never believed this. A prolonged and costly investigation failed to corroborate the slander.
But it does seem to me that Trump has a far more positive view of Putin than the facts justify, and that he tilts heavily towards Putin when it comes to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
Here are my reasons:
First, Trump, after conferring with Putin, is trying to force Ukraine into negotiations with Russia. Trying to get talks going would be fine if the Ukrainian government had asked for negotiations or wanted them. But that doesn’t appear to be the case. Putin wants them and is thrilled with Trump. Ukraine, not so much. So Trump is tilting towards Russia.
Second, Trump clearly views Ukraine as, at best, an unequal partner in the negotiations. Asked point blank whether he views Ukraine as “an equal member of the peace process,” Trump paused (uncharacteristically), called the question “interesting,” and then said “I think they have to make peace.”
In other words, Trump does not view Ukraine as an equal member of the peace process. He does not view Ukraine as equal to Russia in the negotiations.
Later Trump said that Ukraine would have a seat at the negotiating table. That’s considerate of him, given that Ukraine’s future as an independent nation is at stake. But I fear that its seat at the table will be for the purpose of being dictated to by Trump.
Third, Trump is trying to undermine Zelensky’s standing with the Ukrainian people. In another gem from his press conference, Trump taunted Zelensky for having bad poll numbers, “to say the least.”
This is untrue. According to this source, 70 percent of Ukrainians strongly or somewhat approve of Zelensky’s performance in office.
As a politician who considers his victory with just under 50 percent of the popular vote a landslide, and whose own approval rating is also under 50 percent by most accounts, Trump shouldn’t pooh-pooh a president whose approval rating is much, much higher.
But even if Trump’s assessment had any basis in fact, it shouldn’t factor into his decision to force negotiations. Did FDR consider Winston Churchill’s standing with the British when he decided to back Britain to the hilt in World War II? Of course not. Did Joe Biden chide Benjamin Netanyahu for his weak (at the time) poll numbers when he clashed with the Israeli Prime Minister? I don’t think so.
I know that Trump is obsessed with popularity polls. But they should have no bearing on America’s treatment of its allies. In any case, if he’s that obsessed, he should at least get the numbers vaguely right.
Fourth, and maybe worst of all, even as he talks down Zelensky, Trump talks up Putin. Asked whether he trusts the empire-building Russian autocrat, Trump answered in the affirmative.
On the evidence, though, Putin is about as untrustworthy as a ruler can be. Mark Temnycky, writing for the Hill, cites chapter and verse.
He points out that over the past few decades, Russia has repeatedly violated ceasefires and treaties. For example, Russia violated the Minsk Agreements, an effort to resolve the conflict that followed Russia’s invasion of the Dombas region in 2014.
It constantly broke the ceasefires agreed to by the parties. It refused to withdraw its troops and military equipment from the Russian-occupied regions in the Donbas, as promised. Then, in February 2022, it broke the protocols entirely by declaring the Russian-occupied regions in eastern Ukraine as autonomous and launching the full-scale invasion that’s the subject of the negotiations Trump wants.
Consider, as well, Russia’s violation of the cease fire negotiated during the war between Russia and Georgia. After Russia invaded that sovereign nation in 2008, the international community brokered a ceasefire. Russia broke it by failing to withdraw from the Russian-occupied regions in Georgia. It continues to occupy Abkhazia and South Ossetia to this day.
Russia has also broken several norms established by international organizations to which it is bound. For example, according to Article 2, Section 4 in the United Nations Charter, “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Russia has violated this part of the UN Charter by invading Georgia in 2008 and then Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.
Yet, Trump says he trusts Putin.
Trump isn’t stupid. Surely, he understands that Putin is untrustworthy. Why does he say otherwise? Because he favors him in the dispute with Ukraine.
Why? Who knows? Maybe he hopes to get help from Putin on other matters. If so, he shouldn’t count on the dictator to live up to whatever promises he makes.
Maybe Trump is saying he trusts Putin in order to gain his cooperation in reaching a peace deal in Ukraine. But when Ronald Reagan negotiated successfully with the Soviets, his mantra was “trust but verify.” In other words, don’t really trust. Trump, by contrast, says nothing about “verifying.”
I should add that Trump isn’t just negotiating with Putin. He’s also negotiating, after a fashion, with Zelensky. Yet, as noted, he bad mouths the Ukrainian leader while vouching for his far less trustworthy Russian counterpart.
Trump’s mantra on Ukraine is that the war has gone on too long and too many people have died. Thus, he insists, the war must end.
That’s a non sequitur. A war doesn’t have to end because it’s gone on for three years and resulted in a great many deaths. If the Ukrainians are still willing to die to avoid being swallowed up or losing large amounts of territory to Russia, then the war doesn’t need to end.
Nor does it need to end because the U.S. is providing a large amount of military weaponry. For one thing, most of the money is spent in the U.S. For another, the money serves America’s interests by weakening an adversary (and, in my view, an enemy) — Russia. Unfortunately, Trump doesn’t seem to regard Russia as our enemy, or even our adversary.
But even if you believe the war has to end soon, Trump should not be tilting towards Putin in the peace negotiations. He should not be unwilling to say that Ukraine is an equal member of the peace process. He should not be disparaging — falsely — Zelensky’s standing with his own people. He should not be claiming — ridiculously — that Putin is trustworthy.
Ukraine doesn’t trust Putin, and for overwhelmingly good reasons. What does Trump’s assertion of trust signal to Zelensky? It signals that Trump doesn’t take Ukraine’s legitimate concerns about Putin’s willingness to abide by a negotiated settlement seriously. It therefore signals that Trump is prepared to sell Ukraine out.
I believe Trump is. I hope events prove me wrong.
Its a shame that all the clarity shown with Israel is missing when it comes to Ukraine. Unfortunately the Democrats offered no real alternative. Sticking to the mantra of "dont risk escalation" Biden consistently gave Ukraine sufficient support to avoid defeat but nowhere near enough to win and force Russia back. Now Trump comes in and seems to have a soft spot for Putin. Bad all around
I don't understand what, exactly, the US interest in Ukraine is. I don't understand what the military strategy is, and I don't understand what "winning" means - other than John Bolton's suggestion that Russia surrender its conquered Ukrainian land and Crimea and permit NATO on its border, even though it has a military advantage in this conflict. Wars should not be fought without a clear objective, and this one is as muddy as the Ukrainian plains in April.
Please don't tell me it's about "defending democracy." We could exhaust ourselves defending democracy in a world full of tyrannies, and Ukraine is hardly a shining example of democracy, given the 2014 Maidan Coup and the fact that Zellensky cancelled elections. The fact is he operates today as a self-appointed premier. If he is so popular, why not stand for re-election? If the Ukrainian people support this war so enthusiastically, why are Ukrainian youth fleeing the country to avoid it, and why did Zellensky have to fire generals for selling draft amnesty to worried parents?
It is silly to believe that Ukraine, even with hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign support, is going to prevail in a war of attrition with Russia, or fight to a draw and be able to claw back all of the land they've lost (I'm not including the Crimean peninsula in that statement, which Russia will never surrender).
I suspect this war has always been about expanding NATO into Ukraine (and gaining control of its mineral and agricultural assets in trade) and regime change in Russia (a long time fantasy of the evil Nuland/Vindman contingent in the State Dept and IC). That itself was a reversal of sound US policy during the HW Bush administration, which averred NATO expansion to the Russian border.
I do not support either of the Nuland-era objectives. I don't think they advance US interests in the near or long term, however they may profit certain western interests, and I think they defy common sense.
If the shoe were on the other foot, there is no way the US would tolerate Russia attaching Mexico or Canada in a military alliance, which is what NATO is. There is no way we would allow Russia to have dominion over their governments to gain control of their natural assets. Why is it so difficult to US policy-makers to admit the obvious fact that NATO presence in Ukraine is an important and understandable issue for Russia?
What has the west achieved in pursuing this policy for three years? The US-China-Russia triangulation of the pre-Cold War days has been reversed; Russia and China are now closer than ever, with the US as a common enemy. They are together encouraging/intimidating the BRICS against US interests.
Great job, Washington!
Finally, the main argument for the "interagency-consensus" - or the one that's publicly stated - always revolves around what a disreputable tyrant and rotten rat Putin is. He violates international norms! True enough. But the same is true of Xi, with his recurring threats and military exercises against Taiwan, turning islands in the South China Sea into air bases, not to mention his currency manipulation and violations of trade agreements, human rights, etc.
Putin exists. As long as he exists, a US President needs to deal with him. Joe Biden hadn't spoken to him since the war began, and he didn't speak to him during the 6-month run-up to the war when Putin was massing troops on the border, practically waving his arms and shouting that he might just invade Ukraine. A total failure of American diplomacy.
(As an aside: all those DC weekend warriors who want to depose him need to think more carefully about the men waiting in the wings to replace him).
It is not appeasement or selling out to engage an adversary to unwind or prevent war. The US has engaged with all manner of tyrants since 1945, usually to advance a strategic or economic interest. Supporting a bloody war out of a moral or personal distaste for Putin does neither.
I don't think there is any need to speculate about Donald Trump's feelings about Putin. He doesn't trust him except to pursue his self-interest and on the international stage, that's as far as trust should ever go. Trump regards him an adversary, but one who needs to be engaged and one whose military power should be respected, not mocked. You don't engage an adversary who is a nuclear equal by calling him nasty names and refusing to pick up the phone. Saving face is an important tool in settling wars.
I suspect Trump means what he says: he sees it as a pointless war, at least for the US, and one that could dangerously escalate on the battlefield if continued with NATO backing.
That said, what would I like to see happen? I'd like to see Ukraine and Russia reach an agreement, perhaps ceding the ethnic Russian region on the border, but otherwise maintaining its territorial integrity and its status as a sovereign state. I would like to see them hold elections, under international supervision so no one will suspect Russian (or American) interference, which would otherwise be certain.
Both the NATO nations and Russia should be able to agree that Ukraine will not be militarized by either party (and that includes bioweapons research) and that it will be able to make its own unilateral trade agreements with other nations.
Given its geographical and strategic position between Russia and NATO, Ukraine should be a Switzerland, not another Poland.
What to do if Russia breaks its word (as we never, ever do)? If the agreement is in his self interest, why would that happen? Russia is not an ideological or imperialist actor like the old Soviet Union or Iran. Their conduct of this war is plain evidence that they do not have the capacity to rebuild the old Soviet empire or conduct a broad conquest. The old strategy of containment - not regime change - is the one that should prevail here, and understanding an adversary's self-interest is the key to containment.
What is astonishing to me about the US hawks on Ukraine (across both parties) is their complete disinterest in understanding Putin as an adversary, as any of the great generals we've had studied their opposites.