One of the issues that concerns me about a Trump presidency is his apparent position on the war in Ukraine. I have repeatedly written that it is essential for America’s and the various NATO nations’ security — and American leadership in the world — that Putin be totally defeated.
With that goal in mind, I have criticized President Biden’s too little/too late policy in providing support and aid to Ukraine. In fact, I believe that Putin could have been stopped before he invaded had Biden taken stronger action as Russian troops were assembling on the Ukrainian border.
I defined victory as all Russian troops being withdrawn from Ukrainian sovereign soil – including areas that they currently occupy in the Donbas Region and the Crimea … that Russia be forced to pay reparations for the physical damage and human cost of the war …. and that Ukraine be admitted to NATO immediately. I would also like to have Putin removed from office, but that would only be a sweetener in the deal.
Trump does not seem committed to that goal. His position is that the war is costing too many lives and too much treasure. That there is a face saving resolution for Putin that would give him a partial victory. But there must be concessions on his part.
So, what would a Trump plan look like? I do not believe that he would stand aside and allow Putin to take over Ukraine, as Trump’s political adversaries claim. That is just campaign rhetoric.
If a total victory is not the goal, the most logical – and marginally acceptable – plan would be to have Ukraine cede portions of the Donbas Region to Russia (as little as possible), but not the Crimea.
Conversely, Putin would accept the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders as defined in the agreement. BUT (ß A very big but) … nothing would be ceded until the new Ukraine was ADMITTED into NATO. Not proposed or planned for some time in the future, but admitted – signed, sealed and delivered — as a full member. I also would personally require some level of reparations from Russia.
Personally, I still believe that such a plan would provide Putin with too much of a victory, but there is a degree of unfortunate pragmatism that comes to play. It would end the war and save human lives. It would remove a significant cost burden for the United States and NATO members. It would get Ukraine into NATO. If that had been done earlier, there would likely not have been a Russian invasion.
One of the possible obstacles to Ukrainian membership in NATO is the requirement that all member nations must approve each new member. The leader with the closest friendship with Putin is President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey. In a normal situation, he could be expected to vote “no” on Ukraine’s membership. After all, it took a lot of backroom negotiation to get Erdoğan to agree to admit Finland and Sweden. However, if Putin were to agree to the terms of the peace proposal, Erdoğan would be hard pressed to block Ukraine’s admission.
Any deal that would cede any land to Putin MUST include Ukraine entering NATO as a non-negotiable precondition. Without that, giving Putin any land without some concession on his side is a clear victory for the Madman of Moscow – and a license to continue his aggressive ambition to recapture the nations of the old Soviet Union.
In addition, America and the world democracies would have to take strong symbolic and real actions to demonstrate to other potential aggressors – such as China and North Korea – that any invasions will be met with unified opposition – potentially including military force.
As much as it would not be my preference, I could live with such an unholy pragmatic deal on Ukraine as opposed to surrendering the entire nation — and other nations in the future — to Putin’s aggressions. The deal would end, temporarily at least, the bloodshed and destruction. It would enable Ukraine to return to being a secure democracy. It would also enable America and our allies to devote more resources in support of Israel’s war on world terrorism.
It should not signal a withdrawal of American leadership in the world, but a realignment designed to exert leadership by pushing back against Iran-sponsored terrorism – and any ambitions China and North Korea might entertain in the belief that America lacks the power or resolve to stop them.
So, there ‘tis.
