To say that this has been a tumultuous time in U.S.-Ukraine relations is a glaring understatement. Putin’s agreement to halt energy attacks on Ukraine on March 18—already violated by Russia—falls far short of the unconditional 30-day cease-fire proposed by the U.S. and Ukraine a week earlier. His effective rejection of the proposal vividly underscores the notion that there is still an incredibly long and complex path ahead for anything approaching meaningful peace in Ukraine, if it can be achieved at all. Many pitfalls lie ahead, in part due to Trump’s continued apparent affection for the Russian war criminal, in stark contrast with his treatment of Ukraine’s democratically elected president.
In the last month, there has been a plethora of counterproductive, unnecessary, and even cruel actions by the Trump Administration with respect to Ukraine. One glaring example of this incompetence is the throwing away of negotiating leverage by ruling out NATO membership and insisting that Ukraine make territorial concessions. Someone needs to take a course in Diplomacy 101.
Trump has been exceptionally tough on the victim of an unprovoked, unjustified, savage war and warm and fuzzy toward the perpetrator. Sticks for the victim, carrots for the aggressor.
We all saw this first-hand in the infamous Trump (with a major assist from J.D. Vance)–Zelenskyy Oval Office debacle. Among the many things that struck a nerve with me was the criticism of the Ukrainian president for not being thankful enough. Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked the United States publicly (a CNN story chronicled 33 public expressions of thanks), as well as in countless private meetings with U.S. officials. I challenge anyone to find any foreign leader in history who has thanked America more profusely than the Ukrainian leader has.
Now here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, it’s America who should be profoundly thanking Ukraine. After all, it’s the Ukrainian people who are bearing the burden of protecting the free world—especially Ukrainian soldiers who are fighting and dying on the frontlines of freedom. Since the full-fledged war started, Congress has appropriated a total of $175 billion in Ukraine-related military and non-military aid, with $120 billion allocated to programs that directly support Ukraine. It’s not $350 billion, as Trump has repeatedly and falsely claimed. This is a colossal amount of money—no doubt about it. At the same time, it is minimal when compared to the size of the federal budget and only a tiny sliver of America’s GDP. Much of the money is spent in the United States. It has been an incredible return on investment, reinforcing our own security (including by degrading the Russian military), helping to maintain the international order (which, despite what Trump might think, does serve our interests), and providing economic advantages. The costs to the United States would be far, far greater should Ukraine be taken over by Russia.
The suspension of U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing went beyond the pale and caused considerable consternation. Thankfully, it was quickly reversed.
There were other appalling claims by the Trump Administration—that it was Ukraine who started the war, that democratically elected Zelenskyy is a dictator, and calls for elections in Ukraine, which are prohibited under martial law and the constitution. Holding anything approaching free and fair elections without a sustainable peace would be nearly impossible to implement.
There was the shocking February 24 U.S. vote alongside such “democratic stalwarts” (yes, I’m being sarcastic) as North Korea, Belarus, Hungary—and, of course, Russia itself—in the U.N. General Assembly against a resolution condemning Russia as the aggressor in the war.
Then there have been Administration officials spouting Kremlin talking points, and Trump’s “co-president,” Elon Musk, calling Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a dedicated supporter of Ukraine, a “traitor” for visiting Ukraine. As I recently posted on Facebook: “Elon Musk, even with your billions, you are a zero compared to Mark Kelly.”
I doubt that Trump cares about Ukraine or has any real knowledge or appreciation of the country, and at best only a vague awareness of its long history of struggle against Russian imperialism. He might do well to read recent U.S. intelligence reports that question Putin’s willingness to end the war, concluding that the Russian dictator is still committed to his maximalist goal of dominating Ukraine.
So what now? As unlikely as it seems, we need to be open to the possibility that Trump’s thinking could evolve. Indeed, on occasion, he has shown glimpses of cognizance, realizing that reaching even a temporary cease-fire—not to mention durable peace—is an incredibly complicated endeavor. His March 18 lengthy phone call with Putin should have at least raised serious doubts in his mind as to whether Moscow even wants peace.
One hopes it will become increasingly and painfully evident to Trump that Putin—the evil but savvy ex-KGB agent—is manipulating him and will string along any peace process. Trump might conclude that the only way to achieve even limited gains with Putin is with sticks, not carrots. His March 18 call with Putin should help Trump shed the obscene notion that Kyiv stands in the way of peace and that concessions need to be made solely by the victim. Trump needs to grasp that Kyiv’s conditions for a deal, including most notably meaningful security guarantees, are eminently reasonable, while Russia’s, to date, have been anything but.
To try to predict Trump, given his volatility, is a difficult—if not futile—task. He could keep giving in to Putin, or he could get tired of Putin’s intransigence and being played for a fool. Trump might realize he doesn’t want an Afghanistan on his watch—which would pale in comparison to losing Ukraine. Hope springs eternal. In any event, all who care about Ukraine’s fate—political figures and laypeople alike—need to make their voices heard and keep working for the best possible outcome.
About Author:
