Donald Trump took office on Monday with a stated intention Ending the war in Ukraine. Longtime critic NATO– an alliance Ukraine hopes to join – An admirer of Vladimir Putin, Trump has alarmed Ukraine’s supporters who believe he may force the country to make harsh territorial concessions. (Several Trump allies in Congress have already tried to end the military aid the Biden administration has consistently provided to Ukraine since the Russian invasion in 2022.) More broadly, Trump spent much of the transition mocking and threatening US allies such as Canada and Panama. Including refusing to rule out military occupation of the Panama Canal. He also speculated about annexation Greenland.
I recently spoke by phone with Steven Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, about what Trump’s foreign policy might mean for Ukraine, and for the world. Wertheim is no fan of Trump, although he is a so-called realist on foreign policy matters: He questions US military action abroad and criticizes what he sees as the open commitment the Biden administration has offered to Ukraine. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why Trump’s approach to foreign policy may be different than in his first term, whether the West bears in part responsibility for Putin’s attack on Ukraine, and whether the United States really can Provides Ukraine with adequate security guarantees.
For people like you who have concerns about what American commitment to Ukraine looks like, what is your hope about what a new presidency might herald?
This is not a prediction, but an opportunity to lift the taboo that unfortunately arose quickly after the large-scale Russian invasion, on seeking a diplomatic settlement to the war, and hopefully resolve the conflict within a short period of time. This is particularly attractive at this stage, because it is difficult to claim that Ukraine is in an advantageous position. For people like me, who have been supportive of helping Ukraine but critical of the Biden administration’s relatively unconditional way of doing so, the opportunity now is to find a way to end the conflict that ends up being the United States’ best. We hope that this will be in Ukraine’s best interest as well, given the realities Ukraine faces.
I never thought this conflict would end in a complete territorial victory for Ukraine — in other words, that Ukraine would be able to reclaim all the territory Russia seized from it, whether that goes back to the pre-February 2022 lines or back to 2014. [when Russia took Crimea and areas of eastern Ukraine]. In fact, many officials in the Biden administration did not do so. So, I do think, with Trump’s election victory, that political taboo on discussing how to end this devastating conflict, realistically, has been lifted. However, I am very concerned that it will be very difficult to reach a permanent settlement.
You mentioned Biden’s somewhat “unconditional” support for Ukraine. But many Ukrainians and some White House critics would say Biden’s support was not enough: He has ruled out deploying US troops or launching any direct attacks on Russia. Many times over the past two years, the White House has taken too long to authorize certain things, such as relocation Fighter planes Or whether Ukraine could use American weapons He hits Within Russia. On both counts, and on many other things, the White House eventually agreed. But is it fair to say “unconditional”?
I think a better word, at least publicly, is “respect.” The Biden administration has taken a publicly deferential approach to Ukraine when it comes to war goals and ending the war. So you’re absolutely right that when it comes to specific requests that Ukraine has made, such as establishing a no-fly zone early in the conflict or requests for any number of weapons systems, the administration has clearly said no to some of those requests. Or he said: “Not now; Maybe later.”
But the administration also not only pressured Ukraine to seek negotiations, but in fact emphasized that it would be truly illegitimate for the United States to pressure Ukraine to enter into negotiations, and that this is really Ukraine’s fight. It avoided contradiction Volodymyr ZelenskyRussia’s ultimate war goals, which included regaining all of the Ukrainian territory it lost to Russia. To be perfectly clear, this is a completely fair and equitable goal. It’s just an idea that seems unattainable, at least without it directly NATO Military intervention in the conflict, which is not imminent.
You recently books“Trump’s outlook has an attractive quality. It suggests that although he may have important ideas and instincts about international relations, he has few laid plans and adheres to few orthodox beliefs. What do you mean?”
I was referring to what I called Donald Trump’s philosophy of history, which is, “We’ll see what happens.” This is his response to the long arc of Barack Obama’s history leaning toward justice.
Trump is not a big MLK guy.
No, it’s not. But I was trying to advise foreign governments. There would be a particularly wide range of potential policies that this administration could adopt. If you look at some of the individuals who have been appointed so far, some of them seem like fairly traditional defenders of global American military superiority. For example, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State-designate, seemed like a very clear neocon figure when he ran for president against Trump in 2016. On the other hand, you have the Vice President, J.D. VanceSome Defense Department appointees, who seem more interested in completing the so-called pivot to Asia and reducing US military commitments in Europe and perhaps the Middle East, are, however, trying to focus on the United States and are more vocal about the challenge posed by China.
I wanted to say to allies in East Asia that perhaps their interests could be better served if the United States intervened less militarily around the world and focused more on Asia. Trump obviously has a lot of different personalities when it comes to foreign policy, and they contradict each other, right? One of them is Trump, the China hawk, the man who loves “peace through strength.” But there is also the aggrieved nationalist Trump, who seems willing to pick fights with almost anyone, including allies. But Trump has another personality, which is Trump the dealmaker and the peacemaker, and we saw expression of that personality — and we didn’t see much of it, frankly — in his first term. I was very critical of Trump’s foreign policy in his first term, but we may see more of it in his second term.
He may not have a clear vision, but I can’t imagine him ever saying he really admires his allies in Western Europe. I can’t imagine he speaks well at all NATO. I question the strength of any peace agreement in which the American president does not have credibility. Ukraine will need a security guarantee, but we know that Trump cannot possibly want to provide security guarantees, nor will he be completely trustworthy about any security guarantees offered. Trump’s position, which has been consistent, towards this region of the world may appear to be a problem for any peace agreement.
