Opinion
The Opinions
Trump’s
Bargain With Putin Is ‘Shameful’
Turning our
back on Ukraine would only weaken America.
Feb. 24,
2025
By David
French and Kori Schake
Produced by
Vishakha Darbha
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/opinion/trumps-putin-shameful-ukraine.html
The Trump
administration may be considering negotiating a peace deal with Russia that
would end the war in Ukraine. “No American president in the last 80 years and
probably 100 years before that would have made this bargain,” Kori Schake, the
director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise
Institute, tells the Opinion columnist David French.
Trump’s
Bargain With Putin Is ‘Shameful’
Turning our
back on Ukraine would only weaken America.
David
French: Trump’s foreign policy strategy so far has largely involved alienating
or attacking America’s long standing allies while embracing Vladimir Putin.
I think
we’re all coming to terms with Donald Trump’s turn against Ukraine.
Audio clip
of Donald Trump: A dictator without elections, Zelensky better move fast or
he’s not going to have a country left, gotta move, gotta move fast.
News Clip:
Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelenskyy is appealing to the Trump administration
as the U.S. looks to thaw its relationship with Russia.
Clip of
Trump: We’re successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia, something
I’ll admit only Trump will be able to do in the Trump administration.
I’ve been
deeply alarmed by this turn of events, and the best person I could think of to
talk to about this with is Kori Schake. She’s the Director of Foreign and
Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative
think tank. She also worked at the State Department, the Department of Defense
and the National Security Council.
Kori and I
have discussed foreign policy before and I wanted to get her perspective on
Trump’s shift toward Russia and against Ukraine. I’m also going to ask her if
the Republican Party has really permanently changed its foreign policy
position.
Kori, thank
you so much for joining me.
Kori Schake:
It’s a great pleasure, my friend.
French:
You’re joining us after a week in which we’ve probably seen more dramatic
diplomatic developments in the Ukraine conflict than in the past couple of
years.
Before we
dive into all of the twists and turns, it might be helpful to take a step back
and remind listeners why so many of us care about Ukraine’s fate and the fate
of its people — why this matters not just for Ukraine’s national security, but
for the United States as well.
Schake: I
would say two things, David. First there is honor in standing alongside people
fighting for their freedom and human dignity.
For the last
hundred years the United States has viewed American foreign policy as a way to
make our country safer and more prosperous by supporting and expanding freedom
in other countries. Free societies may fight many wars, but they don’t fight
each other. An example of two democratic
countries fighting each other is Iceland and Britain — a couple shots fired
about fishing rights.
Ukraine’s
safety portends greater safety, not only in Europe, but beyond.
French:
Let’s briefly discuss Vladimir Putin’s ambitions, because many people view this
war as extremely limited. In other words, if Putin gets what he wants in
Ukraine, driven by his animosity toward Ukrainian independence, there wouldn’t
be broader implications of Ukrainian defeat.
Schake: I
agree with you, that’s a mistake. Putin believes there is no such thing as
Ukraine — no such culture — therefore they deserve to be subjugated by Russia.
Sign up for
the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert
analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every
weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
It’s not
just Ukraine — Putin feels the same about NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia. Russia has historically viewed Poland in the same light. What we’ve
seen Russia doing in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine is part of a pattern over
the last 15 years. I don’t think we should have confidence that conceding
Ukraine to Russian villainy is going to satisfy Russia’s appetite.
French: So,
Kori, what’s the current state of the war right now?
The
perception is that Russia is moving forward slowly but steadily, at a terrible
cost to itself. We know Ukraine is under pressure, and Russia is losing many
men, but what’s the actual state of the conflict? Is there a way we could say
definitively who’s winning or losing at this moment?
Schake: No,
we can’t definitively say it. But here’s the situation: Russia controls Crimea
and much of the Donbas, and the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, and Zaporizhia.
Ukraine holds a small portion of Russian territory. Russia is slowly, steadily
making advances further into Ukrainian territory, but at about half the pace
they were in the fall. Their momentum is slow and is slowing further. Russia
has taken more than 600,000 casualties and is having to pay increasing prices
in order to get recruits. Meanwhile, North Korea has lifted the manpower
constraint by offering their own soldiers to fight.
Iran and
China are supplying commercial and military materials to Russia. Ukraine has
inflicted 600,000 casualties on Russia and is fighting the Russian army to a
large standstill — for 4 percent of the U.S. defense budget in the last three
years. That’s a great investment in the security of the West.
French:
Let’s walk through the options going forward. What are Ukrainian defense
capabilities if the Trump administration exerts maximum leverage, meaning,
tries to strip Ukraine of all U.S. support and funding. Can Ukraine stay in the
field without us?
Schake: Yes,
they can, but they won’t be able to fight the way they are fighting now.
The truth
is, sand is slipping through the hourglass for both Ukraine and Russia. Russia
has already used about half of the entire tank and armored personnel carrier
stockpile the Soviet Union accumulated since the 1940s. The main way they’re
inflicting damage on Ukraine is through long range strikes on civilian
population centers and energy production.
They’re
trying to freeze and darken Ukraine into submission. Without American
assistance, Ukraine won’t have the air defenses to protect their civilian
population. They will likely still have the ability to fight on the
conventional battlefield. Two-thirds of the Russian casualties are now being
caused by drones, which are domestically produced by Ukraine’s defense
industry. It’s not necessarily a positive sign, though. The fact that drones
are so destructive suggests that Ukrainian infantry and tanks aren’t being as
effective.
French: So,
into this situation steps the Trump administration, and over the last week
we’ve seen really a frenzy of diplomatic activity globally, a shift in posture
toward our own allies, and a change in posture toward Russia.
Let’s break
this down into separate parts. First let’s talk about the Trump
administration’s posture right now toward Russia. I believe there was a Russian
lawmaker who said after the initial Trump Putin call that the diplomatic
blockade has been broken. Meaning a diplomatic blockade.
So, what’s
the substance of the Trump administration’s overture toward Russia?
Schake: I
certainly think Trump’s policy is trending toward what he views as a great
power condominium — where the U.S. and Russia are making deals about European
security without involving European countries.
The most
recent indicator of this is the Trump administration’s refusal to allow the
term “Russian aggression” in a G7 communiqué, issued by the world’s most
powerful economies. Early signs suggest the Trump administration is prepared to
compromise the sovereignty of Ukraine in order to benefit Russia, and that’s
shameful. No American president in the last 80 years, and probably not in the
100 years before that, would have made such a bargain.
The economic
sanctions on Russia are truly constricting, and it’s likely Russia cannot
sustain the war effort through 2025 in its entirety. This means that Donald
Trump is on the verge of losing Ukraine and benefiting Russia, a country that
is a major destroyer of the international order that has kept the United States
safe and prosperous.
French:
We’ve also seen obvious overtures toward Russia, including hints or implication
that a new economic relationship between the United States and Russia could be
on the horizon. At the same time, we have seen this extraordinary turn against
our European allies.
JD Vance
gave a speech in which he scolded many of them on free speech issues. While I’m
not a defender of Western European free speech regimes, the focus on that,
relative to the gravity of Russian aggression in Europe strikes me as
disproportionate.
So, what is
the current posture of the Trump administration toward our allies and NATO
right now?
Schake: I
think this is unchanged in kind, only in degree, from Trump’s first term.
President Trump has long mistakenly believed that America’s allies are leeches
on the nation’s strength, rather than seeing them as a major source of American
power internationally.
No dominant
power has ever received as much voluntary assistance as the United States does
from its allies helping us pursue our goals across the globe. It’s really
shocking that President Trump is squandering the good will that American
idealism and policy have bought for our country over the past 80 years.
Literally
everything we try to accomplish in the world is going to get harder and more
expensive because countries won’t trust us to advance common interests.
French: Let
me try to steelman a Trump position here and get your reaction to it. We
understand that the Western alliance has benefited us in many ways, but we also
believe that we’ve been exploited by it. A percentage of NATO countries don’t
meet the two percent defense spending target. Many have had more than two years
since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to ramp up their own domestic arms
production, yet many of them haven’t done it sufficiently. We face a growing
challenge from China, and while we are powerful, we aren’t infinitely powerful.
It makes sense to begin to move our emphasis of our national defense strategy
to the Far East, where we’re more vulnerable to a rising China, and leave
Europe, which has the capacity to support Ukraine, to take on more
responsibility. If they really care, they’ll need to step up now.
Schake:
That’s true as far as it goes. Europeans collectively have an economy ten times
the size of Russia. If the Ukrainian army can fight the Russians to a near
standstill, imagine what Poland and Finland could do together. Russia would
unquestionably lose that war.
But that’s
only part of the story. To affect China’s choices at an economy-of-scale level,
we actually need the help of European countries. We need their export controls,
market access provisions, investment restrictions and their willingness to send
military forces to the Pacific.
It’s
increasingly doubtful whether Europeans, who are fearful about abandonment by
us, will believe they have the bandwidth to do anything we need if they don’t
feel like we’re willing to help them.
French: Let
me ask you about the current state of what passes for negotiations. We’ve seen
a meeting between American and Russian diplomats, but Ukraine has not been at
the table yet. Zelensky has indicated he’s not going to consider any agreement
unless Ukraine is part of it. Still, there have been some talking points and
basic provisions outlined for a potential deal between the U.S. and Russia.
The outlines
appear to be that the U.S. is acknowledging that it’s not feasible to ask
Russia to give up any territory that it has already taken. It also appears to
be willing to guarantee that Ukraine won’t join NATO. There’s also talks about
forcing elections in Ukraine.
Let’s take
these points in reverse order.
First, let’s
talk about the idea of forcing elections. The reason I bring this up, Kori, is
that when I talk to politically informed citizens who are following this, many
of them have immediately said: What’s wrong with elections? I didn’t know
Zelensky isn’t standing for re-election right now. What’s going on? Why would
we be supporting a country that’s not holding elections?
So Kori,
let’s take a moment to talk about this. Why haven’t there been elections? Why
would that be a problematic point of a deal to begin with?
Schake:
They’re not holding elections because the Ukrainian constitution, which
predates Russia’s invasion, prohibits elections during wartime. For
perspective, Great Britain didn’t hold elections during World War II. So if
Zelensky is a dictator, then Churchill was one too, while fighting for Western
freedom.
But there’s
also a second part of the argument: About 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory is
under Russian occupation. How can you hold a free election in areas controlled
by Russia, where people fear for their lives to express their political
preferences? It’s not just Zelensky’s government that opposes holding elections
during wartime. The opposition doesn’t want to hold elections because they
don’t see how it can be fairly constituted.
It’s similar
to suggesting that Abraham Lincoln should have held elections in the seceded
Confederate states during the American Civil War. How do you organize and
ensure that those elections can happen freely?
French:
Let’s discuss this other point of Ukrainian neutrality. I would say there’s a
spectrum of Ukrainian alliance with the larger West. On one end, the most
aligned position would be a member of NATO. On the other hand, there are
security guarantees that could be exclusively European, such as the Brits have
indicated that they would be willing to put boots on the ground in the event of
a cease-fire to try to maintain deterrence and a peace. This would involve a
European security alliance, but not necessarily NATO.
Within that
spectrum, do you think there is a settlement that could be acceptable? One that
stops short of NATO membership but still brings Ukraine into a European
security framework? And the second part of that question: When you hear the
word neutrality, I think many people imagine a country like Switzerland. But
Vladimir Putin has a different definition of neutrality, one that equates to
subservience. How much flexibility do you think there should be in how Ukraine
is brought into a Western security framework?
Schake: I
think it’s understandable that Western governments are anxious about including
Ukraine in NATO while Ukraine is fighting NATO’s major adversary, Russia. This
is because Article V of NATO’s treaty guarantees that an attack on one member
is considered an attack on all. The second point is that it was Ukraine’s
desire toward joining the European Union in the first place that caused Russia
to try and crush Ukraine.
It’s not a
security issue that caused Russia to try and vanquish Ukraine. It was fear that
Ukraine’s transition to becoming a free and prosperous Western country was so
frightening to Vladimir Putin because the Russians might demand that for
themselves. It’s the color revolution fear that’s driving Vladimir Putin. So I
don’t think there is a European option that puts Ukraine in safety.
When Ukraine
was neutral, in 2014, Russia invaded it for the first time. So I don’t think
neutrality is a stable outcome. There’s a historical precedent. West Berlin was
vulnerable, it was both indefensible and crucial to defend from 1945 to German
unification in 1990.
And what we
in the West believed was that defending Berlin was important to prevent Germany
from becoming neutral, because a powerful neutral state in the center of Europe
was an invitation to Russian and Soviet aggression.
French:
Let’s move to the G.O.P. itself, because this is one of those areas where you
will actually see Republican members of Congress openly disagree with the
president in a way that you don’t on many domestic issues.
We have seen
some open disagreement, where they might not directly criticize President
Trump, but they might say: Stand with Volodymyr Zelensky. Or they might openly
side with Ukraine and openly talk about how Vladimir Putin is a war criminal.
So, is the foreign policy fight in the G.O.P. truly settled? Is it truly over,
and this is just sort of the last gasps of the Reaganite remnant? Or is there
still an actual battle going on? Is this a situation where there is actually
hope that members of Congress — of Trump’s own party — will stand up to him on
this issue?
Schake: Boy,
I hope and believe the fight isn’t over. I think Republicans are beginning to
find their footing after the disorientation of the number of ways in which
President Trump and his administration have overturned traditional conservative
positions and policies.
But I have
to say, David, sometimes I feel like a saber-toothed tiger in a tar pit, as a
Reagan Republican. I do worry, though, that foreign policy is one area where
the president has the widest autonomy.
There are
very few ways that Congress or civil society can prevent a president from
making foreign policy decisions. Where Congress, especially Republicans in
Congress, have stronger leverage is on defense policy. That’s where the
authorities belong to Congress and that’s where the money belongs to Congress.
The last
thing I’ll say about the foreign policy debate in Congress is that I was more
hopeful before Republican senators voted to confirm Tulsi Gabbard, a clear
counterintelligence vulnerability for our country, to lead the 18 intelligence
agencies. And before so many Republicans voted to confirm Pete Hegseth as
Secretary of Defense.
French: Why
precisely would somebody say that Tulsi Gabbard, a presidential appointee
confirmed as director of national intelligence, is a counterintelligence risk?
Schake:
There are three reasons. First, her judgment is unsound. She traveled to Syria
to meet with Bashar al-Assad and denied that Assad used chemical weapons
against the Syrian public, in spite of all 18 American intelligence agencies
reporting he did so.
I think
putting somebody in charge of the intelligence community who willfully refuses
to acknowledge the conclusions of the agencies and the basis for those
conclusions means that she is somebody who is not going to make fair judgments
about emerging or existing threats.
The second
reason I think she should not have been confirmed is she was asked during her
hearing whether Edward Snowden was a traitor to the United States of America.
She refused to acknowledge that the thousands of documents revealing sources
and methods of American intelligence gathering and assessments constituted
treason.
And the
third reason I think she is unsound is that she has been parroting Russian
talking points about Ukraine and about the United States for years.
Audio clip
of Tulsi Gabbard: You hear President Biden say: Well, this is Putin’s war, this
is Putin’s fault. The United States and some of the European NATO countries are
fueling this war.
Audio clip
of Gabbard: What you do hear is warmongers arguing that we must protect
Ukraine, because it’s a quote unquote democracy. But they’re lying, Ukraine
isn’t actually a democracy.
All three of
those things should have been the basis for rejecting the advice and consent of
the Senate to her confirmation, and will be continuing vulnerabilities and
risks. They also give reason for America’s allies — which provide the strategic
depth of intelligence gathering and assessment — to not share their information
and their assessments with the United States.
French:
Kori, you’ve been very generous with your time, and I really appreciate it. But
before we go on, I’m going to ask you for a prediction. Four years from now,
where do you think Ukraine will be?
Schake: Four
years from now, I think Ukraine will still be fighting to try and push Russia
out of currently occupied territories.
French: The
war still continues four years from now?
Schake: Yes.
I don’t see how any Ukrainian government, whether under President Zelensky or
anybody else, could consign Ukrainian people and Ukrainian territory to the
depredations and war crimes Russia has imposed on them.
I think
Ukraine will continue to fight, with or without our assistance. With or without
European assistance until they drive Russia out of Ukraine’s internationally
recognized territory.
French: Well
we’re going to end here on a point of strong agreement, because you and I
traveled to Kyiv together and we saw the will of the Ukrainian people
firsthand. I can’t see them surrendering their sovereignty because Donald Trump
tells them to.
Schake:
Exactly right, David.
French:
Thank you, Kori. I very much appreciate your time.
Schake: It
was a great pleasure. I very much appreciate the good work you do.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário