On Trump, Putin, Zelensky, Orbán, and more
President Trump has a “transactional” view of the world, people say. They are not wrong. Recently, Trump said the following about Ukraine: “We are going to have all this money in there, and I say I want it back. And I told them that I want the equivalent — like, $500 billion of rare earth” (meaning minerals). “And they have essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don’t feel stupid.”
Many of us believe that a defense of Ukraine is in the U.S. interest all on its own — and that a shakedown of an ally under siege, fighting for its national survival, is unseemly (at best). Should a defense of Ukraine make us “feel stupid”? On the contrary. The abandonment of Ukraine ought to make us feel stupid (and other things).
Yes, it is costly to defend Ukraine — costly in money. But a Ukrainian defeat, and a Putin victory, could be costlier still — in money and in blood, too. Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, tweeted, “If Ukraine falls, it will only be a matter of time until Russia invades a NATO ally our troops will be required to defend.”
(It is doubtful, however, that the United States under President Trump would keep any NATO commitment. Article 5 has been invoked only once — in behalf of the United States, after 9/11. The point of collective security is: collective security.)
Here is a question: We have supported Israel as well. Israel, like Ukraine, is fighting for its national survival, its very right to exist (though Ukraine’s survival is more tenuous). What are we demanding from Israel in return? What is its equivalent of “rare earth”? Should we “feel stupid” for not getting payback from Israel?
According to reports — including this one — U.S. officials asked Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to sign a document giving up half of his country’s minerals for no U.S. security guarantees at all. Zelensky declined. Would any president, any patriot, do otherwise?
• Trump has announced that he will negotiate an end to the Ukraine war. That is an interesting concept: to “end” a war. Wars end in various ways. What will be the fate of Ukraine?
The U.S. has already made clear: There will be no return to pre-2022 borders, to say nothing of pre-2014 borders. Russia will get to keep the parts of Ukraine it is currently occupying. Ukraine will not be permitted to join NATO. And, of course, the U.S. will provide no security guarantees.
What kind of power gives away its leverage before negotiations begin?
One of Trump’s former national security advisers, John Bolton, has said,
Putin scored a major victory over the U.S., NATO, and Ukraine this week, which is why Putin did not negotiate with Biden or Zelensky. He waited to negotiate with Trump because he believed the Kremlin would get more out of a Trump deal. And he was absolutely right.
In my view, the United States should affirm, if only in rhetoric, that international borders are not to be redrawn by force. This is elementary, right?
For three years, Donald Trump has said or implied that Ukraine is responsible for the assault on it. Most recently, he said, “I think they have to make peace. That was not a good war to go into.” “Go into”? Russia launched an all-out attack on Ukraine, for the purpose of ruining and subjugating it. The Ukrainians have defended themselves. They are trying to repel an invasion and keep their country: their sovereignty, their independence, their nationhood. Responsibility for the war rests with the Kremlin.
Trump also said, about the Ukrainians, “They may be Russian someday or they may not be Russian someday.” In response, Pence said, “Mr. President, Ukraine will only ‘be Russian someday’ if the United States abandons them to Putin’s brutal invasion.”
• Of keen interest is an article by Paul Sonne, a veteran reporter and scholar now working for the New York Times. It begins,
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia shocked the audience at the annual security conference in Munich in 2007 by demanding the rollback of domineering American influence and a new balance of power in Europe more suitable to Moscow.
He didn’t get what he wanted — then.
Nearly two decades later, during the very same conference, top officials from President Trump’s cabinet made one thing clear: Mr. Putin has found an American administration that might help him realize his dream.
Sonne quotes Andrew S. Weiss, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “Since the dawn of the Cold War in the late 1940s, the Kremlin has dreamed of pushing America out of its role as the cornerstone of European security.”
The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, compared the previous U.S. administration with the current one: “We are much more impressed by the position of the current administration” — which is easy to understand.
A headline from the Associated Press reads, “NATO is in disarray after the U.S. announces that its security priorities lie elsewhere.” This is irksome in that our NATO allies have had a long time to prepare for this. What did they expect from a second Trump administration? MAGA is frank, on most matters. In a 2020 book, Pete Hegseth, now the U.S. secretary of defense, wrote, “The defense of Europe is not our problem: been there, done that, twice.” He further said, “NATO is a relic,” etc.
The security arrangements we have long known are done for. “NATO is the most successful military alliance in world history.” We have heard that a million times. I believe it is true. But the American voter did something very, very consequential last November.
(The AP article whose headline I quoted, above, is here.)
• From Politico, a report begins, “JD Vance met Friday with the leader of the far-right German political party being boosted by Elon Musk.” That party is the AfD, of course. In Brussels, Steve Bannon founded an organization he called “The Movement.” Nigel Farage speaks of “the whole global movement” that “we have built up.”
Aren’t they all one, essentially? Despite their local differences and whatever variations in ideology they may have? Farage, the AfD, the Le Pens, Salvini, Orbán, Trump/Musk/Vance — don’t they constitute a “movement,” as Bannon and Farage say? Would they disagree, the constituent elements I have mentioned?
I don’t think so.
• In my column yesterday, I quoted Alexander Dugin, one of the high priests of Putinism. “Tulsi Gabbard!” he wrote. “You are simply awesome.” Here is some more of him:
• During his first term as president, Trump called for the readmission of Putin’s Russia to the G7, making it the G8 again. Russia was suspended from the group after its invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. Russia had done nothing to earn readmission — but Trump called for it anyway. (Leaders of the other governments disagreed with Trump.)
He has now done the same — call for Russia’s readmission. This despite the fact that Russia has invaded and brutalized a neighbor — committing mass murder, mass torture, mass rape, mass kidnapping — in an effort to subjugate the nation.
Trump is consistent, in this respect.
• A headline: “Hungary’s Orbán predicts Trump will bring Russia back into Western fold after end of Ukraine war.” (Article here.) I imagine he is right.
• Here is another article, highly interesting: “Hungary’s transformation into an ‘electoral autocracy’ has parallels to Trump’s second term.” The subheading is, “U.S. conservatives have looked to Hungary’s Viktor Orbán as an inspiration for a right-wing America, and the prime minister has become a close ally of President Donald Trump.” I wouldn’t call them “conservatives,” but that struggle continues . . .
• On this subject of nomenclature: Many self-described nationalists are blasé about the erasure of one country by a powerful other country — an imperialist neighbor. Indeed, many of these “nationalists” cheer it on. It tends to be “internationalists” who are supportive of Ukraine’s sovereignty and right to exist.
Curious, don’t you think?
• Trump and his people keep saying that Ukraine ought to hold elections — which is not easy, when the country is terrorized by bombing, when large portions are occupied by the enemy, and so on. Be that as it may: Do Trump & Co. ever call for free and fair elections in Russia? Elections in which opposition candidates might survive, physically?
• In First Things, George Weigel has written a (typically) compelling article: “Russia’s Sacrilegious War on Ukraine.”
• Near the top of this column, I referred to Ukraine as an “ally” — an ally of the United States. Russia is an enemy, clearly. At any rate, it is clear to many of us. Do Trump and Vance and their administration regard Ukraine as an ally and Putin’s Russia as an enemy? I doubt they do. This is very important.
If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.