With Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the nation has returned to an America-First worldview that stands in stark contrast to the globalist order that has held sway over our country’s international relations for all but four of the last 75 years. Our nation long bowed to a world order designed to protect the West in the aftermath of World War II and the Cold War, using collective action, primarily through establishing the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). But now that Donald Trump has returned as commander-in-chief, it is through the prism of protecting America’s interests first – and at all costs – that appropriate policy regarding Ukraine, Russia, and the war between the two countries must be viewed.
The now three-year-long conflict has cost at least 1.5 million lives, and thousands are added to the death toll with each passing week. Many experts, if not most, initially viewed the conflict as unwinnable for Ukraine, believing the Russians could overtake the capital city of Kyiv – and thus effectively the country – in a matter of weeks. However, while Russia was ultimately able to conquer and control the Donbas region along the shared border between the two countries, Ukraine marshaled surprisingly strong and courageous resistance. But the result is a grinding war of attrition, and neither side can claim significant strategic gains or advantage today.
Joe Biden did nothing to respond or intervene as Russia massed troops along the Ukrainian border shortly after he assumed office. In fact, in what many viewed as a virtual invitation for the Russians to invade, Biden made the incredible statement that he would likely not respond to a “minor incursion” by Vladimir Putin’s forces. A full-scale Russian invasion followed shortly thereafter. Biden later committed to supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” which was viewed as a virtual blank check from American taxpayers to support one side in the war. While providing at least $150 billion in support for Ukraine (the total amount is disputed, with Trump claiming $350 billion), perhaps Biden did not realize that the conflict would continue indefinitely, as it likely will absent peace negotiations, necessitating more and more funding for what many view as a lost cause, or at least one dependent on continual American aid.
Does the Fate of Ukraine Threaten American Security?
Trump is the only president in decades not to preside over a new foreign conflict, and his was the only presidency in the 21st century during which Putin did not attack and take over a foreign country or region. Russia invaded Georgia during the George W. Bush administration and Crimea when Barack Obama was president. But now, having inherited a war he insisted would never have happened if he had been re-elected in 2020, what is Trump to do?
His answer during the presidential campaign, which he repeated during the early days of his second term, has been unambiguous. He seeks to bring both sides to the negotiating table to forge a ceasefire and, ultimately, an end to the war. That has raised the hackles of Democrats and neoconservatives who have consistently favored seemingly endless support for the Ukrainians. In fact, during Trump’s fiery joint address to Congress on March 4, his mention of Biden’s support for Ukraine was the only instance in which Democrats stood and applauded.
In the end, it all boils down to one crucial question. In a world now 80 years removed from the last world war and 35 years past the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, what exactly is America’s strategic interest in Ukraine? Is this a hill worth dying on? Neoconservatives in both parties believe the answer is yes.
The war hawks raise the specter of Putin conquering more and more of Europe if he is allowed to annex Ukraine. They attempt to equate Trump’s efforts toward a negotiated peace with those of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who signed the infamous ill-fated pact with Adolf Hitler in 1938 in Munich, ceding control of Czechoslovakia in return for what Chamberlain termed a “peace for our time,” which never came to pass. They point to Trump’s apparent willingness to allow Russia to maintain its control of the Donbas region as a Chamberlain-style appeasement that will only embolden Putin to continue his quest to rebuild the old Soviet Empire. They oppose any peace deal that would “legitimize” Putin, which equates to favoring the continuation of the war ad infinitum, even as Ukraine has no hope of victory. They imply that the president’s refusal to condemn Putin creates a moral equivalence between the two countries and between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Democrats actually advised Zelensky to reject the mineral deal carefully negotiated with Trump, and he evidently followed their advice, leading to the infamous blow-up in the Oval Office when he met with the US president.
Weak Historical Parallels
This is not 1938 in Munich. Donald Trump is hardly Neville Chamberlain. And Vladimir Putin, though undoubtedly one of the many brutal dictators poisoning the world, is not Adolf Hitler but a severely weakened tyrant in a nation long in decline. This war has significantly depleted Russia’s military hardware and manpower. In addition, every day of the war in Ukraine reportedly cost Russia up to $1 billion. Putin has responded by transforming his country into a war-making machine, much like the US in preparing to enter World War II, propping up a Russian economy that would otherwise lie in ruins. The idea that Russia has the capacity to re-conquer the once-enslaved countries behind the Iron Curtain is unrealistic at best.
It is not Trump’s fault that the Russians started the war and captured Ukrainian territory. He can only deal with what Joe Biden handed him. Strategically, Trump also would undoubtedly like to turn his international focus away from Russia and towards China, widely considered the greatest threat to the U.S., both economically and militarily. Only the deployment of American troops might change the trajectory of the war, but an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose that position. The neocons frame the war around good versus evil, ignoring the deadly consequences of a grinding ground war promising no winners, while Trump employs his typical transactional approach to stop the slaughter of innocents.
The war hawks have been unable to define a vital or even compelling American strategic interest in the fate of a country that once was part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine and Russia revolve in the same orbit and share a common heritage going back centuries. Ukraine is simply not vital to American national security or sovereignty. And while the war hawks press their demand for continuing the Ukrainians' futile bid to win an unwinnable war, public surveys consistently reveal the opposite: Americans still reeling from disastrous wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are overwhelmingly in support of Trump’s bid for peace.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
