Why Is Trump Trying to Make Ukraine Lose?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The former president isn’t in office—but is still dictating U.S. policy.
Nearly half a year has passed since the White House asked Congress for another round of American aid for Ukraine. Since that time, at least three different legislative efforts to provide weapons, ammunition, and support for the Ukrainian army have failed.
Kevin McCarthy, the former House speaker, was supposed to make sure that the money was made available. But in the course of trying, he lost his job.
The Senate negotiated a border compromise (including measures border guards said were urgently needed) that was supposed to pass alongside aid to Ukraine. But Senate Republicans who had supported that effort suddenly changed their minds and blocked the legislation.
Finally, the Senate passed another bill, including aid for Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, and the civilians of Gaza, and sent it to the House. But in order to avoid having to vote on that legislation, the current House speaker, Mike Johnson, sent the House on vacation for two weeks . That bill still hangs in limbo. A majority is prepared to pass it, and would do so if a vote were held. Johnson is maneuvering to prevent that from happening.
Maybe the extraordinary nature of the current moment is hard to see from inside the United States, where so many other stories are competing for attention. But from the outside—from Warsaw, where I live part-time; from Munich, where I attended a major annual security conference earlier this month; from London, Berlin, and other allied capitals—nobody doubts that these circumstances are unprecedented. Donald Trump, who is not the president, is using a minority of Republicans to block aid to Ukraine, to undermine the actual president’s foreign policy, and to weaken American power and credibility.
For outsiders, this reality is mind-boggling, difficult to comprehend and impossible to understand. In the week that the border compromise failed, I happened to meet a senior European Union official visiting Washington. He asked me if congressional Republicans realized that a Russian victory in Ukraine would discredit the United States, weaken American alliances in Europe and Asia, embolden China, encourage Iran, and increase the likelihood of invasions of South Korea or Taiwan. Don’t they realize? Yes , I told him, they realize . Johnson himself said , in February 2022, that a failure to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine “empowers other dictators, other terrorists and tyrants around the world … If they perceive that America is weak or unable to act decisively, then it invites aggression in many different ways.” But now the speaker is so frightened by Trump that he no longer cares. Or perhaps he is so afraid of losing his seat that he can’t afford to care. My European colleague shook his head, not bec ause he didn’t believe me, but because it was so hard for him to hear.
Since then, I’ve had a version of that conversation with many other Europeans, in Munich and elsewhere, and indeed many Americans. Intellectually, they understand that the Republican minority is blocking this money on behalf of Trump. They watched first McCarthy , then Johnson , fly to Mar-a-Lago to take instructions. They know that Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent figure at the Munich Security Conference for decades, backed out abruptly this year after talking with Trump. They see that Donald Trump Jr. routinely attacks legislators who vote for aid to Ukraine , suggesting that they be primaried. The ex-president’s son has also said the U.S. should “cut off the money” to Ukrainians, because “it’s the only way to get them to the table.” In other words, it’s the only way to make Ukraine lose.
Many also understand that Trump is less interested in “fixing the border,” the project he forced the Senate to abandon, than he is in damaging Ukraine. He surely knows, as everybody does, that the Ukrainians are low on ammunition. He must also know that, right now, no one except the U.S. can help. Although European countries now collectively donate more money to Ukraine than we do (and the numbers are rising), they don’t yet have the industrial capacity to sustain the Ukrainian army. By the end of this year, European production will probably be sufficient to supply the Ukrainians, to help them outlast the Russians and win the war. But for the next nine months, U.S. military support is needed.
Yet Trump wants Congress to block it. Why? This is the part that nobody understands. Unlike his son, Trump himself rarely talks about Ukraine, because his position isn’t popular. Most Americans don’t want Russia to win.
Often, Trump’s motives are described as “isolationist,” but this is not quite right. The isolationists of the past were figures such as Senator Robert Taft, the son of an American president and the grandson of an American secretary of war. Taft, a loyal member of the Republican Party, opposed U.S. involvement in World War II because, as he once said, an “overambitious foreign policy” could “destroy our armies and prove a real threat to the liberty of the people of the United States.” But Trump is not concerned about our armies. He disdains our soldiers as “suckers” and “losers.” I can’t imagine that he is terribly worried about the “liberty of the people of the United States” either, given that he has already tried once to overthrow the American electoral system, and might well do it again.
Trump and the people around him are clearly not isolationists in the old-fashioned sense. An isolationist wants to disengage from the world. Trump wants to remain engaged with the world, but on different terms. Trump has said repeatedly that he wants a “deal” with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and maybe this is what he means: If Ukraine is partitioned, or if Ukraine loses the war, then Trump could twist that situation to his own advantage. Perhaps, some speculate, Trump wants to let Russia back into international oil markets and get something in return for that. But that explanation might be too complex: Maybe he just wants to damage President Joe Biden, or he thinks Putin will help him win the 2024 election. The Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee was very beneficial to Trump in 2016; perhaps it could happen again.
Trump is already behaving like the autocrats he admires, pursuing transactional politics that will profoundly weaken the United States. But he doesn’t care. Liz Cheney, one of the few Republicans who understands the significance of this moment, describes the stakes like this : “We are at a turning point in the history not just of this nation, but of the world.” Once the U.S. is no longer the security guarantor for Europe, and once the U.S. is no longer trusted in Asia, then some nations will begin to hedge, to make their own deals with Russia and China. Others will seek their own nuclear shields. Companies in Europe and elsewhere that now spend billions on U.S. energy investments or U.S. weapons will make different kinds of contracts. The United States will lose the dominant role it has played in the democratic world since 1945.
All of this could happen even if Trump doesn’t win the election. Right now, even if he never regains the White House, he is already dictating U.S. foreign policy, shaping perceptions of America in the world. Even if the funding for Ukraine ultimately passes, the damage he has done to all of America’s relationships is real. Anton Hofreiter, a member of the German Parliament, told me in Munich that he fears Europe could someday be competing against three autocracies: “Russia, China, and the United States.” When he said that, it was my turn to shake my head, not because I didn’t believe him, but because it was so hard to hear.
Tags
Who is online
478 visitors
... to add merited injury to insult:
[deleted] Hot tip, Putin won't be allowing political refugees .
Yeah right. What he is against it is the lack of action on the border since they decided to tie them together.
Trump's first lesson, and he took it as gospel, was 'bullshit baffles brains'! Unbaffle me this: why is he going to Hungary?
Open a new McDonalds? LOL
¯\_( ツ)_/¯
To see if Victor's bag tastes anything like Putin's . Needs assistance deciphering Putin's thoughts on regime change .
You're assuming that Ukraine can win, which seems less likely. I fully support Ukraine being able to drive the Russians back to the previous borders, but it appears that is not going to happen, since Russia has more resources and staying power and its citizens have not rallied against the war.
Eighty some years ago we become fully involved in a European war and forced into one in the Pacific. We simply don't have the resources, material wise or human, to keep supplying he Ukrainians indefinitely.
The Europeans are going to have to step up and resolve this conflict on their own this around.
Of course we do.
They have committed more $ and actual vehicles and airframes than we have to this point. France is now talking about committing troops starting with "adviors" to operate their donated high tech equipment; they know all too well that Ukraine is the front door and the Baltics are the back door.
Luckily the Soviets are piss poor offensively They lost in WWl , Chechnya, Afghanistan, Russo Japanese War, February Revolution, October Revolution, Finnish Civil War, Sochi, Latvian War, 4 more Baltic losses, the Spanish Civil War and on and on
They only win when their country is invaded ( Napolean & Hitler ) or they bully their way into taking a few Counties away from Georgia like Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
FFS they have been trying to expand their foothold in Ukraine for ten years.
Having to buy munitions from South Korea and other countries states otherwise.
Neither does Europe which is begging the US for munitions- some allies they are.
Committed yes, actually sent- hell no. France is lagging behind Germany for commitment to Ukraine- and Germany isn't even close to meeting it's commitments. They aren't alone- that applies to all of Europe.
Talk is cheap; and when it comes to war Europeans are great at talking.
If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons the US would already be in Moscow (NATO would tag along for the ride). Russia wasn't a threat to Europe before; and it sure as hell isn't a threat to Europe now. They are sending tanks that were in moth balls to the front lines; they are having to buy missiles, drones, and munitions from China, North Vietnam, and Iran; and the Russian meat grinder is eating through raw recruits at record pace. The Russian economy is shot; and it is nothing more than a vassal state of China now. The goal in Ukraine was to remove Russia as a military threat to Europe; unfortunately Brandon doesn't know when he has won- so refuses to let Ukraine negotiate it's way out of the war. Cutting off US funding/munitions would force the faux John Wayne Zelensky to negotiate. They will never get Crimea back- it was never really theirs to begin with. They will lose some mostly Russian provinces- who would never accept rejoining Ukraine anyways.
Thank you for proving my point. Tell that to the soft weak kneed Europeans- who are quaking at the mere thought of Russia. More importantly to Brandon and Democrats who have been screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia" since 2016.
Again proving the point that Russia isn't going to give up; and the faux John Wayne Zelensky is willing to fight to the last damn Ukrainian (at which time he will flee the country with as much US tax payer money as possible).
Bullshit ! U.S. military/industrial state has no equal . Funding for Ukraine would be spent here at home . Ukraine has demonstrated they can whip the Russians and reclaim territory, help them now so we don't have to send troops to Europe . Lead-Follow-or Get Out of the Way !
So now we should get involved in another land war over there, up to and including sending our troops to Ukraine!
Please try to read what you respond to.
You don't have to worry about that, D.J. and you can compare bone spurs !
Read post 3.1.1 very carefully- and follow the links. We can't even supply munitions for ourselves right now. So no, not all funding for Ukraine is being spent at home. Also, heard of inflation? Know what it is caused by? Unfunded bloated government spending.
Really? What happened to Ukraine's last two offensives? Do some damn research!
It really looks like they are winning./S
Why don't you and the rest of that care more about Ukraine's borders than our own renounce your citizenship and go join the Ukraine military? They are taking all volunteers- and can use anyone and everyone at this point. Just be careful which unit you get assigned to; or you might find out what a real fascist is.
Hurry, don't wait too long or you might miss your spot in the Russian meat grinder. It runs in both directions; and never gets clogged.
That's an arrestable offense in Russia.
So is attending a funeral or laying flowers at random tribute sites for Navalny.
Is Trump responsible for Ukraine's lack of troops and it's inability to dislodge a larger army from fortified positions?
Of course it’s a private citizen’s fault that Biden is a worthless idiot and the Senate can’t do shit.
You damn right it's a "private citizen's" fault ! Trump and his MAGA [deleted in the House !]
So it's Trump fault that Brandon and the Democrats care more about Ukraine's borders than our own?
I
In the real world, the EU countries have given more to Ukraine than the US, I posted the chart a few times already and they are continuing while our congress is stuck with it's head up its ass. The total amount that the US has supplied Ukraine with $68 billion over 2-plus years of war.
The Ukrainians without a Navy have damaged the Russian Black Sea Fleet tremendously and just sunk another Russian warship 3 days ago. Ukraine with an outdated and much smaller Air Force has denied the Russian air superiority. The list goes on and on NATO equipment is much better, the Ukrainian soldier is a much better soldier than the Russian as is Ukraine's leadership.
The US yearly defense budget is around $800 billion and for less than 10% of that we and Nato have shown Russia to be pretty much a overrated army/navy/air force with piss poor leadership.
NATO and non-NATO countries are ordering billions of dollars of US arms.
The number of F 35 fighters being ordered by NATO countries is huge. Finland, a country of 5/6 million people ordered 54 F 35's.
Good of you to show the numbers, unfortunately we're dealing with Kelly-Anne's cheerleaders, the "Alternate Facts".
Committing is not the same as giving.
Read post 3.1.1. Europe is not meeting their commitments- not even close.
In addition, the EU is a multitude of nations, not just one. Break that graph down to each individual country, and you will see a much different picture.