Trump is Doing Putin’s Negotiating for Him to End the Ukraine War and That Matters to Issues Beyond Ukraine
American Eclectic posts articles twice a month, on the 1st and 15th. This is the third year of publication; previously published articles can be found on my site.
March 15, 2025
I was in Tbilisi, the capital of the Republic of Georgia, in 2023, and Francis Fukuyama came to give a talk. The talk was mainly about his latest book (Liberalism and Its Discontents, published the year before). After he was done, I asked him the first question. I asked if his latest book was a reaction to or a change in his thinking since he published The End of History and the Last Man (published in 1992, the year after the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the year often used to date the beginning of the post-Cold War). I said that that 1992 book seemed so optimistic about the future. He expressed annoyance that I had seen the book as an optimistic view of the future and that others, besides me, had missed some of the other parts of his book where he was more cautious about where the future was headed. I reread the book soon after this event, and I still must have missed the parts where he expressed some cautious feelings about the future. The next day, I went over the previous evening with a former high-ranking Georgian government official, and we both discussed Fukuyama’s The End of History book. He had the diplomatic skill not to do a follow-up to my question but was under the impression that Fukuyama’s view of the world and where it was headed back in those early days of the post-Cold War was well off the mark. This official was involved with the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, when Russian tanks came within miles of Tbilisi.
I thought of Fukuyama and, at least, my understanding of his 1992 book when I listened to some ten minutes of exchange at the White House between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy *, President of Ukraine. In that very strange and uncomfortable interaction, Trump said the following, which stood out to me:
I think it’s important for the American people to see what’s going on. That's why I kept this going so long [to Zelenskyy]. You have to be thankful you don‘t have the cards. Your people are dying. You‘re running low on soldiers... Then you tell us. I don‘t want a ceasefire. I don‘t want a ceasefire… I look, if you could get a ceasefire right now, I tell you, you take it. So the bullets stop flying and your men stop getting killed…
…That wasn‘t with me. That was with a guy named Biden who was not a smart person. That was with Obama. Excuse me? That was with Obama, who gave you sheets and I gave you javelins. Yes. I gave you the javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. In fact, the statement is Obama gave sheets and Trump gave javelins. You got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don‘t have the cards with us. You have the cards, but without us you don‘t have any cards.
First, regarding the Javelins. The Javelin is an antiarmor missile, usually used against tanks. There is some truth in what Trump says; Barack Obama disapproved of giving Ukraine lethal weapons. However, between 2014 and 2016, when Obama was president, more than $600 million in security assistance was sent to Ukraine. Well, that was, at least, something. Second, while Trump pointed to the Javelin, he ignored that he withheld aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Because of that, the House of Representatives impeached Trump in 2019.
Beyond the weapons issue, Trump's statement had to please Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader. There is an expression jokingly thrown around about negotiating, usually when two individuals need to address a disagreement: What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable. Listening to this part of Trump’s interaction with Zelenskyy, reminded me of that expression. Putin does not need to do the heavy lifting in negotiating an end to the Ukraine War, Trump is doing it for him.
Interestingly, the Republican Party has evolved from its Cold War years (1947—1991) into the post-Cold War era. The expression “soft on communism” used to be something politicians never wanted to have hung around their necks, but Trump is different, and this is a different Republican Party. Trump and his very foolish remarks sound like he is in those early days of the post-Cold War, when Fukuyama (at least my understanding of what he wrote) optimistically saw the post-Cold War headed toward a better tomorrow but, at the same time, he is part of the isolationist thinking that could be seen in the Republican Party in the 1930s and then again in the early years immediately after the Second World War ended in 1945.
Republicans need to remember their criticism of Biden when he was President and the moment Russia invaded Ukraine. Then House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R, CA) said:
Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch a renewed invasion of Ukraine is reprehensible. Sadly, President Biden consistently chose appeasement and his tough talk on Russia was never followed by strong action.
Well, that was then, and this is now. Trump has no reason to get any blowback from Republicans in Congress.
The 1930s showed us isolationism in spades. Senator Robert Taft (R, OH) was in the Senate from 1939 until 1953. Taft often articulated an isolationist position for the United States. Taft was usually referred to as “Mr. Republican,” and represented the views of many Republicans that the United States needed to have an isolationist position regarding foreign affairs in the early years after the Second World War ended in 1945. However, the term used by the 1940s and 1950s was “non-interventionists,” as though they were different than the isolationists of the 1930s.
Listening to Trump speak is to listen to a Republican reach back into the past and connect with earlier Republicans who voiced views similar to his. Taft once said of war, “[w]e should never forget what an awful catastrophe war is.” How different is that of Trump and his exchange with Zelenskyy saying, “You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War Three. You're gambling with World War Three.” At least from reading about him, Taft showed an intellect that Trump, as expressed by his ghostwriter, lacks. Tony Schwartz, Trump’s ghost writer for his book, The Art of the Deal, said of Trump, “[He possesses] a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.”
Putin has repeatedly expressed the view that Ukraine is not an independent country, and Trump supports that view. As one Russian analyst put it, regarding Trump during his first term as President, “Trump made it clear that he thought, you know, that Ukraine, and certainly Crimea, must be part of Russia.”
Some of this view of the world around him is more than concerning. In Trump’s White House remarks, he demonstrated a surprising lack of self-awareness that what he was saying could affect Russia's approach to negotiating an end to the Ukraine War on terms that are favorable to them. What's mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable. But, beyond Russia, is how Trump is seen by allies such as the Philippines and adversaries like China. The Ukraine War has raised concerns that developments regarding this war, both for the United States and Europe, matter to issues worldwide. One analyst stated:
Much of the U.S. role, as leader of the system that emerged after ’89, has depended on some level of enlightened self-interest. And if everything is going to turn into a bilateral tussle and battle of wills, including with countries that are formidable (like Russia and China), it’s going to be hard to bind others to a system the United States leads. I think we’re going to see a lot more people straying.
The early days of the post-Cold War are gone. While that is not particularly earth-shaking to most people who study world affairs, it seems as though Trump is stuck in the past: Again, a past that is a combination of isolationist Republican thinking combined with a belief we are in 1991. A U.S. Army Training and Document Command (TRADOC) study from Trump’s first term as President indicated that those early days of the post-Cold War were long gone by the time Trump was beginning his first term:
A revisionist Russia is increasing its military capabilities and threatening U.S. allies and partners across Eurasia and the Middle East. In multiple theaters Russia is conducting sophisticated campaigns that combine economic pressure, disinformation, cyberspace activities, and the use of conventional and unconventional military forces to influence neutrals and intimidate U.S. allies and partners. It is likely that a perceived reduction in the United States’ comparative military advantages emboldens Russian actions.
Trump’s foolish remarks from his exchange with Zelenskyy create an issue beyond the Ukraine War: Dealing with China. Xi Jinping, Chinese President, met with then President Obama at the White House in 2015 and said regarding Chinese activity in the South China Sea:
Relevant construction activities that China is undertaking in the Nansha (Spratly) Islands [in the South China Sea] do not target or impact any country and China does not intend to pursue militarization.
Fifteen months later, satellite imagery showed that was false and that the Spratly Islands showed signs of military construction. A report released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a prestigious research institute in Washington, stated:
China appears to have built significant point-defense capabilities, in the form of large anti-aircraft guns and probable close-in weapons system (CIWS) at each of its outposts in the Spratly Island.
By 2022, the U.S. Indo-Pacific commander said that China had fully militarized three of several man-made islands in the South China Sea. This commander stated, “They have advanced all their capabilities, and that buildup of weaponization is destabilizing to the region.” The Spratly Islands are some 30 nautical miles from the Philippines and more than 400 miles from the Chinese coastline. This part of the world may seem too removed for most Americans, but somewhere between one-quarter to one-third of global trade that uses commercial shipping travels through the South China Sea. For the United States, about 6 percent of the trade traveling through this sea is ours, but for Japan, it is as much as 20 percent, and European countries make up about 30 percent.
I suspect Trump only sees trade issues regarding China as all he will deal with.
In that White House exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy, Zelenskyy referred to an ocean, and he stated:
you have a nice ocean [in between], and don’t feel it now, but you will feel it in the future. God bless you.
I doubt he was thinking of the South China Sea, but you should. Trump seems to view America as geographically located free from the world’s concerns because of oceans on both sides. Shortly before he met with Zelenskyy, Trump said:
this war is far more important to Europe than it is to us, and that there’s a very big, beautiful ocean as separation. This is — you know, we’re helping Europe. We’re trying to help Europe.
While Trump is doing Putin’s negotiating for him, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth added his bit to help Putin, stating, “The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.” This is just another little assist to Putin. Why did Hegseth need to give up a bargaining issue before negotiations? Maybe he can explain this someday.
To say this is odd is an understatement: An American administration is presenting the Russian positions, and you have to wonder what is left to negotiate. But Ukraine and the foolish and dangerous way that Trump is approaching trying to end this war with his intention that Ukraine is just a nuisance that he needs out of the way so he can develop a glorious relationship with Russia is more than short-sighted. Trump, a little more than a week after his meeting at the White House with Zelenskyy, added to his approach to help Putin, stating of Ukraine:
Well, it may not survive anyway. But you know, we have some weaknesses with Russia. You know, it takes two. It was not gonna happen, that war. And it happened. So now we're stuck with this mess.
Just more dangerous talk. This statement had to please Putin even more. How should this be interpreted? Are we to assume that even if a peace deal is reached, it will not hold since Russia can continue to press to take all of Ukraine? I have to believe that Trump is telling Putin that a peace arrangement is more of a temporary pause, and after some acceptable time, they can push their offensive to take all of Ukraine, and the United States will not assist Ukraine in any way. Days ago, Trump made a statement that seemed to add to the concern about the period after any ceasefire or peace agreement is reached. Trump stated:
I believe [Putin]. I think we're doing very well with Russia [despite that] they're bombing the hell out of Ukraine.
Go ahead, Russia, do what you want: The Donald endorses whatever you want to do.
The Trump administration supported the Philippines by restoring over $400 million in military assistance in February. However, Trump’s often flippant remarks regarding how he looks at allies are still an issue in the Philippines, which has an ongoing issue regarding China’s military presence in the South China Sea. A former judge on the team that took China to an international tribunal at the Hague and won in 2016 stated, “We have to prepare for the day when the U.S. could withdraw from the South China Sea.” The ruling at the Hague was that China had no claim to its position that 90 percent of the South China Sea belongs to them: China could care less about the court’s ruling. One Chinese analyst said of China’s leader, “Xi Jinping is different. He does not want to be part of the world as it is. What he wants is to be much more dominant in the way the world is run.” And he added, “Xi Jinping speaks all the time about hostile foreign forces. That is the core of his sense of the U.S. and China relationship. It’s hostile.”
A Chatham House report on the South China Sea addressed the issue of where the Trump administration currently is regarding that part of the world. Chatham House is well-respected and associated with the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. The Chatham House report stated:
Incoming US President Trump is known for his belligerent rhetoric on China. But while his stance on economic competition is clear, his stance on security issues – including defence of Taiwan and guarantees to US military allies like the Philippines – is not. Meanwhile, despite ongoing corruption scandals Beijing is proceeding apace with military modernization, its aim being to outclass the US in the East and South China Seas while also expanding and modernizing its nuclear arsenal.
The Trump-Zelenskyy exchange at the White House reached a global audience, and adversaries and allies are still processing what they heard and how they understand what it means to them in dealing with the Trump administration. A CNN analyst, Jim Sciutto, has his take on where the post-Cold War is headed, which places the Trump-Zelenskyy exchange in a broader setting. As Sciutto wrote:
The new order of three great powers is lengthening and hardening dividing lines among the powers while breaking diplomatic and economic ties among them. It is sparking military expansions while reducing military-to-military communications. It is inflating nuclear arsenals and new categories of weapons while dissolving the treaties that regulate such weapons. It is drawing in middle powers and regional interests in unexpected, inconsistent ways. The return of great powers has upended the post-Cold War global order and replaced it with a new, less stable one.
Trump is the wrong person to have in the White House at a time when some degree of intelligence is needed. We do not need his ego, thin skin, or easily hurt feelings to matter more than how he should look at the world around him and America’s role as part of that world, and yet the 2028 election seems like an eternity away. Of Trump, one opinion columnist wrote, “no U.S. president has been so incompetent in putting his own ideas into practice.” David Brooks, an insightful columnist for the New York Times, wrote of Trump:
Trump is a leader who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. …He said that he would lift tariffs on Canada when opioid death rates fell, but they were already falling sharply. A truly magnanimous leader would be embarrassed to be so ignorant.
A former NATO Secretary-General said of Trump, “The president of the United States has a 12-second attention span.” One of Trump’s Secretaries of Defense, James Mattis, described Trump as acting more like a “fifth or sixth grader.” The following passage illustrates an account of Trump’s ability to focus on an issue:
One former high-ranking government official…[said] that their hour-long conversation was really a series of 60 one-minute conversations. This was because [Trump’s] attention wandered constantly.
People can point to personality issues associated with any president, but they appear to be worse with Trump. Looking at the people who surround him now is a study in contrasts with the people from his first term: Trump certainly learned what type of people he wanted during his second term; just read Vice President J.D. Vance’s comments as he displays an obsequious demeanor during this Trump-Zelenskyy exchange at the White House. A vice president is expected to toe the line and stand in-step with their president, but Vance’s interaction with Zelenskyy was more of an audition to get the nod that Trump will endorse him to run for President in 2028. I doubt that will happen. Trump does not give the impression that anyone can succeed him, the problem of being a king.
Trump’s first term saw a high turnover rate. One study noted that two-thirds of the presidential assistants had departed the White House by the end of the first year. We are still in the early months of Trump’s second term, and contrasting the turnover rate during the first years of his first and second term may tell us something. My concern is what it may say to us is that people that tried to talk directly to Trump in his first term in ways he did not want to hear but needed to hear, like Rex Tillerson, who served as a Secretary of State, James Mattis as Secretary of Defense, and H.R. McMaster as National Security Affairs Advisor, not one of these three lasted long, are not there this time around. They have been replaced in Trump’s second term by figureheads who may survive because they let the “King” do what he wants and offer no wise counsel. They will make no effort to do anything but think about personally surviving with little thought about standing for positions they should responsibly stand for. Again, read the transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy White House meeting and focus on Vance’s remarks. His remarks tell a lot about how people around Trump are talking to him now. A book titled “Toddler-in-Chief” described Trump in his first term, unfortunately, it can be assumed this book also applies to Trump’s second term. Issues critical to America’s future should matter to a President of the United States. With all his shortcomings, Trump's personality may get in the way of seriously addressing some of those issues.
* I am spelling Zelenskyy with two y’s, which appears to be Ukrainian use, but it is not how it appears in American publications with one y.
As I finished this article, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. We are waiting for the Russian response. This is supposed to lead to a more comprehensive agreement. I will have to do a piece on where negotiations are headed and how interested parties (such as NATO countries) will look at these negotiations.
NOTES
Adam Bartley, “Where There are no ‘Adults’ Left, Who Will Run a Second Trump Administration?” Australian Institute of International Affairs (March 1, 2024): https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/when-there-are-no-adults-left-who-will-run-a-second-trump-administration/
Natasha Bertrand, Clare Sebastin, and Haley Britzky, “Hegseth rules out NATO membership for Ukraine and says Europe must be responsible for country’s security,” CNN (February 12, 2025): https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/12/politics/hegseth-ukraine-rules-out-nato-membership/index.html
Gregory Bresiger, “Robert Taft and His Forgotten ‘Isolationism’,” Mises Institute (March 8, 2014): https://mises.org/mises-daily/robert-taft-and-his-forgotten-isolationism
David Brooks, “An Angry Little Boy on a Great White Horse,” New York Times (March 6, 2025): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/opinion/trump-speech-approval.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Eric Ciaramella, Michael Kofman, Aaron David Miller, Alexandra Prkopenko, and Andrew Weiss, “The Uncertainty Surrounding Russia’s War in Ukraine, Three Years In,” Emissary (February 27, 2025): https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/02/russia-ukraine-war-us-support-peace-deal?lang=en
China, the U.S. & the Rise of Xi Jinping,” transcript, Frontline, PBS (November 26, 2024): https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/china-the-u-s-the-rise-of-xi-jinping/transcript/
Daniel Drezner, The Toddler in Chief: What Donald Trump Teaches Us About The Modern Presidency (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2020)
Jim Gomez and Aaron Favila, “AP Exclusive: US admiral says China fully militarized isles,” AP (March 21, 2022): https://apnews.com/article/business-china-beijing-xi-jinping-south-china-sea-d229070bc2373be1ca515390960a6e6c
How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea? China Power (March 10, 2025): https://chinapower.csis.org/much-trade-transits-south-china-sea/
BG Peter L. Jones, MG Ricky Waddell, MAJ Wilson C Blythe, Jr., Mr. Thomas Pappas, Russian New Generation Warfare (no date): https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/online-publications/documents/RNGW-Unclassified-Summary-Report.pdf
William Matthews, “Trump’s ambiguous stance on China raises the risk of accidental conflict in the Indo-Pacific,” Chatham House (January 16, 2025): https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/01/trumps-ambiguous-stance-china-raises-risk-accidental-conflict-indo-pacific
Ankit Panda, “It’s Official: Xi Jinping Breaks His Non-Militarization Pledge in the Spratlys,” The Diplomat (December 16, 2016): https://thediplomat.com/2016/12/its-official-xi-jinping-breaks-his-non-militarization-pledge-in-the-spratlys/
David Sanger with Mary K. Brooks, New Cold Wars: China’s Rise, Russia’s Invasion, and America’s Struggle to Defend the West (New York, Crown, 2024)
Jim Sciutto, The Return of Great Powers: Russia, China, and the Next War (New York, Dutton, 2024)
Jeff Seldin, “Trump confident Putin wants peace despite ‘bombing the hell out of Ukraine,’” VOA (March 7, 2025): https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-intensifies-attacks-as-us-ukraine-prepare-for-talks/8002466.html
Amy Sherman, “Fact Check: Did Trump send Ukraine weapons that Obama and Biden withheld?” WRAL/NEWS (July 5, 2024): https:// www.wral.com/story/fact-check-did-trump-send-ukraine-weapons-that-obama-and-biden-withheld/21510033/
Bret Stephens, “Democracy Dies in Dumbness,” New York Times (March 11, 2025): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/opinion/trump-tariffs-recession-ukraine.html
Ira Stoll, “The ‘Ocean’ Myth,” The Editors (March 2, 2025): https:// www.theeditors.com/p/the-ocean-myth-trump-ukraine-zelensky-big-beautiful-ocean-nice-ocean
Sui-Lee Wee, “As Alliances Fray Under Trump, This Nation Is Confident of U.S. Ties,” New York Times (March 5, 2025): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/world/asia/us-trump-philippines-china.html,’” yahoo!news (March 9, 2025): https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ukraine-possibly-not-surviving-155758005.html
Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Ben Kamisar, Bridget Bowman, and Alexandra Marquez, “GOP finds a consensus on Russia-criticizing Biden,” NBC News (February 23, 2022): https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/gop-finds-consensus-russia-criticizing-biden-n1289598
Kateryna Tyshchenko, “Trump on Ukraine possibly not surviving without US aid: ‘It may not survive anyway,” Ukrainska Pravda (March 9, 2025): https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/03/9/7502009/
