Ukraine and Trump's Art of the Deal
For Trump, Ukraine is the adversary, not Russia
President Donald Trump is bored of Ukraine. He wants to change the channel and stop talking about it. On the third anniversary of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States voted against a United Nations resolution condemning Russia for its aggression in Ukraine and calling for an end to its occupation.
The Trump-led U.S. joined its new allies in voting against the resolution: Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Israel, and several other autocracies sympathetic to Putin. I’ve argued before that the U.S. risked becoming the “ghost at the feast”, but Trump’s latest actions reveal how he’s happy to set the table for Russia to eat whatever it wants in Ukraine.
For Trump, Ukraine is the adversary, not Russia. Many observers are confused as to why Trump is willing to make concessions to Putin before any meaningful negotiations take place. Why Trump is fine with not demanding stronger security guarantees like NATO membership for Ukraine, which as Professor Michael McFaul has argued, would likely lead to a more lasting peace.
What these observers miss is the reality that Trump is not negotiating with Russia. He’s negotiating with Ukraine. From his perspective, he wants to know what the U.S. will receive in return for continued aid and support, with his sights set lately on Ukrainian mineral rights.
The continued peaceful stability of the democratic world order led by the U.S. for the past 80 years is apparently not valuable enough for Trump’s United States. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine marked the first time that borders and state sovereignty were not respected in Europe since 1945. While President Biden led a coalition of European countries and other global democratic allies to counter this Russian aggression, Trump has taken a diametrically opposite course.
Trump views the world as a zero-sum game with winners and losers. From Trump’s perspective, Russia is the domineering winner in its sphere of influence, and therefore it should be free to express its power how it chooses. Similar to how Trump’s U.S. should be able to threaten its neighbors with trade wars and annexation. Hence why Trump has targeted Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal Zone with this new wave of U.S. imperialism.
Trump’s worldview is not only mistaken. It’s dangerous. It sets a precedent for a new world order that takes us back to the early 20th century and to Napoleonic times of emperors and kings. This was a world of instability, constant regional and world war, and suppressed human rights. And Trump may be leading the world back into this abyss by using his “art of the deal” negotiation tactics against Ukraine when they should be directed at Russia.
The art of the deal - Ukraine must surrender sovereignty, mineral rights, or both
One of the main points from Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal, was to maximize leverage in any negotiation. He advocated doing this by thinking big and setting ambitious goals that create psychological leverage, leaving room to compromise while still achieving substantial gains.
This is why Trump has applied pressure by, for example, calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator.” It’s why Trump has demanded rights to Ukrainian natural resources should the United States agree to continue supplying financial support and weaponry. And it’s also why Trump is fine with making bold and factually inaccurate claims like saying the U.S. has provided “$350 billion to Ukraine” and that half the money is “missing.”
The European Union has, in fact, contributed more to Ukraine’s defense than the ~$100 billion provided by the U.S. There are relatively detailed accountings of where these funds came from and where they went, with the U.S. providing most of its aid from weapon stockpiles that its domestic defense industry then replenished (thereby supporting American jobs).
And if Zelensky is a “dictator” according to Trump, surely Winston Churchill was also a dictator during the Battle of Britain when his U.K. government suspended elections while the Nazis bombed the country.
None of these factual or historical points matter for Trump, however. The entire point is maximizing leverage against Zelensky and Ukraine. Trump wants to secure a quick deal and move on from Ukraine, leaving Russia the spoils.
What Trump fails to see or willfully ignores, however, is that these spoils will only embolden Russia more. They will embolden other great powers like China too (looking at you, Taiwan). Yet perhaps Trump is fine with that outcome because the often-described isolationist U.S. President has revealed that he’s anything but isolationist, with grand visions of a U.S.-controlled Gazan Riviera free of Palestinians, constant threats against America’s most peaceful bordering neighbors, and offers to purchase or threats to annex Greenland.
This is the world of autocracy that Trump enjoys as he cozies up to autocrats like Putin and Kim Jong Un while ostracizing allies. When French President Emmanuel Macron recently visited the White House, Trump refused to greet him when he arrived, destroying decades of decorum.
This new world order may seem safe and in the best interests of America in the short term. Cheap natural resources from Ukraine will only enrich the U.S., after all. America’s vast oceans to its west and east protect her from most threats (except ICBMs and the like). So it may appear compelling to Trump and his supporters to give Putin what he wants, to maximize leverage against Ukraine, and to end the conflict as soon as possible, Ukrainian sovereignty be damned.
If history is any indicator, however, this is unlikely to create a lasting peace. When autocrats have been given concessions throughout history, they’ve generally demanded and taken more later. From Napoleon reneging on peace agreements that turned Prussia into a vassal state, to Chamberlain failing to appease Hitler in Munich in 1936, autocrats generally only sense weakness with concessions or appeasement.
The art of the deal must be applied to Putin
Trump is convinced that the threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a European problem; that any territorial ambitions Putin might have, including taking Moldova once he’s done with Ukraine (where Putin already has troops), should only concern European powers. Trump is not alone throughout American history with this thinking. It may surprise some to learn that America pre-1941 was very isolationist.
Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (two Democrats) catered to anti-interventionist and pacifist sentiments ahead of both world wars. This created a power vacuum in Europe that allowed an expansionist Germany to act aggressively similar to Putin’s Russia today. As Germany received more concessions and made additional peace treaties with European powers, it continued to renege and defy each deal, becoming more emboldened, leading the continent into years of war.
This is why President Joe Biden attempted to enforce a foreign policy of peace through strength. He understood that a strongman autocrat like Putin required a tough foreign policy that applied leverage through sanctions and support for Ukraine (the latter of which probably did not go far enough in the early days of the war).
But President Donald Trump does not see this threat posed by Putin. He does not appreciate this history, or somehow thinks it does not apply in Putin’s case. Trump has many people in his ear like his new Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard who thinks NATO is primarily to blame. Even though NATO is a defense alliance that has never offensively exerted force ever. Ukraine was also nowhere near NATO membership at the time of Russia’s 2022 invasion.
If anything, NATO only gained strength since Russia invaded Ukraine. The Alliance picked up two new members in 2023: Sweden and Finland (note: Finland has an 833-mile border with Russia). If NATO was such a threat, why has Putin not attacked Sweden or Finland? Could it be that NATO’s Article 5 guarantees the mutual defense of its member states and Putin is deterred? Or perhaps it was never about NATO in the first place — it was always about imperialistic land grabs of former Russian lands that have strategic and sentimental value to the motherland.
These are values that Trump, as a businessman, understands and respects. He admires a seemingly powerful leader who takes decisive action in line with his “might makes right” worldview. But either Trump is not anticipating Putin’s next move or he somehow thinks he can deter it after already making major concessions to Putin with Ukraine.
Trump could apply his classic art of the deal leverage against Putin if he wanted. He could increase supplies and support for Ukraine’s defense. He could demand NATO membership for Ukraine’s defense in exchange for some Ukrainian territory staying with Russia. But he chooses to use none of his leverage while Putin recently executed his largest drone attack on Ukraine ahead of the war’s third anniversary.
Putin knows the end of the war may be near so he’s using Trump’s own art of the deal principles against him; maximizing his leverage by increasing attacks on Ukrainian defenses so they will be quicker to concede and to concede more. This may not concern Trump now, but should Putin follow in the footsteps of his fellow autocrats throughout history, there won’t be any time to apply the art of the deal to Putin.
Trump will have to pull another book from the shelf—The Art of War by Sun Tzu.
On a lighter note…
It’s still freezing here in NYC, although we’ve had a little relief this week. I was inspired to start some spring cleaning after my wife purchased a few flowers to brighten up our apartment.
My son and I also did some book reviews, with me reviewing Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman and Sebastian reviewing three of his favorite reads of late. Enjoy!
Trump is trying to be a mob boss. Thank goodness some people are beginning to notice. The current administration is uninterested in national welfare, only in extracting wealth and power. Thanks for writing about this.
The ‘Art of the Deal’ was about making moves that look good in the short term without considering the long game. If history has taught us anything, appeasing autocrats only makes them hungrier. It’s like handing over your lunch to the bully in school. Next time, he comes back for your lunch money. When we look at past autocrats like Hitler or Napoleon, they didn’t stop after getting what they wanted. They took that first victory as an invitation to push even further. Trump is opening a door for further aggression, not just from Russia, but potentially other powers like China as well. It’s a strategy that may look good in the short term, but it has the potential to backfire on a scale we’re not ready to imagine. Let’s hope the world doesn’t have to learn this lesson again the hard way. Thank you John ...