"Trump and the Future of American Power"

A very interesting conversation in Foreign Affairs with my Hoover colleague Stephen Kotkin. The first several paragraphs:

Stephen Kotkin is a preeminent historian of Russia, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and the author of an acclaimed three-volume biography of Joseph Stalin. (The third volume is forthcoming.) Kotkin has also written extensively and insightfully on geopolitics, the sources of American power, and the twists and turns of the Trump era. Executive Editor Justin Vogt spoke with Kotkin on Wednesday, November 6, in the wake of Donald Trump's decisive victory in the U.S. presidential election.

You've written a number of times for Foreign Affairs about the war in Ukraine and what it means for the world and for American foreign policy. So let's start with an obvious question. It's impossible to know, of course, but what do you imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin is thinking right now, with Donald Trump poised to return to the White House for a second term?

I wish I knew. These opaque regimes in Moscow and Beijing don't want us to know what they think. What we do know from their actions as well as their frequent public pronouncements is that they came to the view that America was in irreversible decline. We had the Iraq War and the shocking incompetence of the follow-up, where Washington lost the peace. And we lost the peace in Afghanistan. We had the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession. We had a lot of episodes that reinforced their view that we were in decline. They were only too happy to latch onto examples of their view that the United States and the collective West, as they call it, is in decline and, therefore, their day is going to come. They are the future; we are the past.

Now, all of that happened before Trump. True, it looks like Trump is potentially a gift to them, because he doesn't like alliances, or at least that's what he says: allies are freeloaders. But what happened under Biden? It's not as if American power vastly increased under Biden, or under Obama, for that matter. So Trump may accelerate what Moscow and Beijing see as that self-weakening trend. But he's unpredictable. They may get the opposite. And they have revealed a lot of their own weaknesses and poor decision-making, to put it mildly.

On Ukraine, Trump's unpredictability could cut in many directions. Trump doesn't believe one thing or the other on Ukraine. And so in a way, anything is possible. It may turn out to be worse for Ukraine, but it may turn out to be better. It's extremely hard to predict because Trump is hard to predict, even for himself. You could even have Ukraine getting into NATO under Trump, which was never going to happen under Biden. Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen. I'm not saying there's even a high probability—nor am I saying it would be a good thing, or a bad thing, if it happened. I'm just saying that the idea that Trump is some special gift to our adversaries doesn't wash with me. And he may surprise them on alliances and on rebuilding American power. It might well cut in multiple directions at once.

OK, but if you had to give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky advice right now, what would it be? …

For more, see here.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're misinterpreting what Trump was saying about our allies. He wasn't claiming that allies are, by definition, freeloaders. He was claiming that our allies, specifically in NATO, are being freeloaders, because they're not carrying their share of the burden of an alliance which is, after all, primarily for their benefit, not ours. (Movies aside, Russia is not likely to invade the territorial US.)

And this is arguably true of many of them. (Graph #4)

[CountmontyC]

And immediately after President Trump mentioned that if the other NATO members didn't start meeting their financial obligations to the military alliance that the USA wouldn't feel obligated to protect those NATO members from Russia those members started meeting their financial obligations to the military alliance.
An alliance where only one member fully meets it's obligations isn't really an alliance.

[David Nieporent]

those members started meeting their financial obligations to the military alliance.

Once again: those "financial obligations" let alone "to the military alliance" don't exist.

(Nit: there is a tiny amount of money for actual NATO infrastructure, but nobody is saying they don't pay their share of that. What people are talking about is defense spending, and that defense spending is (a) not an obligation for NATO membership; and (b) isn't paid to NATO.)

[Lee Moore]

Nevertheless Mr Nit, 2% of GDP was an agreed commitment made by each NATO country in 2014, repeating an earlier commitment, also to 2% in 2006.

Most of them welshed.

[Martinned2]

Donald Trump is inherently unable to understand the concept of a mutually beneficial arrangement. So if the US is giving something up, ipose facto everyone else is a freeloader.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you understand the circularity of your arguments against Trump?

And I just pointed out the actual numbers: The US is carrying most of the financial burden for NATO, both on a total basis, and as a percentage of GDP, despite the fact that it's actually an alliance to defend Europe, not us.

That made some sense right after WWII, when Europe was devastated, but at this point it's questionable why we're supporting them when they've got healthy enough economies, and Russia is a much smaller threat than it was then.

[Krayt]

Russia is on the march. But for the US sending equipment, a whole European nation would have fallen to them.

[Don Nico]

Actually, just the majority Russian speaking Dombass would have fallen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Feh. Just because you take one bite at a time doesn't mean you don't intend to consume the entire meal.

[Don Nico]

Putin's interest in the Donbass. But remember this conflict was instigated by US driven regime change in 2014

[Commenter_XY]

Yes. Obama tried some hanky panky. Didn't work. Crimea was blowback. So is this.

[Michael P]

Russia made a concerted effort to capture Kyiv early on. Kyiv is nowhere near the Donbas.

[Don Nico]

Of course, because that would have toppled the Ukrainian government and ensure Ukrainian neutrality.

[Randal]

That's still what Putin wants.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. But the EU has 9 times the GDP of Russia, and better than twice the per capita GDP.

So, why can't they just BUY that equipment, if they don't want to manufacture it locally?

Again: NATO's purpose was to safeguard Europe from the USSR at a time when the USSR was an international military superpower, and Europe was still impoverished by WWII. Today neither justification remains.

It's time for the US to stop being a military superpower that carries the free world on its shoulders, and to return to being just another country. It's time for the kids to grow up and move out of our basement.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Didn’t realize you had so much in common with Barack Obama!

[David Nieporent]

it’s actually an alliance to defend Europe, not us.

False. It's a mutual defense alliance. Indeed, the only time Article 5 was ever invoked was after 9/11.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can scarcely comprehend just how ignorant of history someone would have to be, to NOT understand that NATO was a defensive alliance protecting Europe from a land invasion by the USSR.

Sure, it was phrased as a mutual defense alliance, but that was mostly face saving for Europe. It was really to protect Europe from the USSR, any other uses were incidental.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why would the Iranians be willing to spend so much to murder Trump?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

This is what's so frustrating about the self-proclaimed "intelligentsia". Their smarmy proclamations are built upon a house of lies.

It was obvious to everyone who didn't have TDS what Trump was saying about NATO. His words were clear and plain. Yet, the entire establishment crowd and all their bootlickers morphed it into something else and then completely erased the truth from their minds.

[Lee Moore]

OK, but if you had to give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky advice right now, what would it be? …

"Make peace you idiot !"

(Hat tip : Field Marshal von Runstedt)

[Dan Schiavetta]

The U.S. will be isolated. Who would make a deal with an idiot who doesn't honor commitments and (according to those who've worked under him) acts on a childish whim? We will be an international laughingstock. Every world leader he deals with will be better prepared than him, better informed, less susceptible to flattery and manipulation, and better able to control himself.

[Lee Moore]

The U.S. will be isolated.

I am reminded of the ancient (but sadly apocryphal) Times of London headline :

FOG IN CHANNEL – CONTINENT ISOLATED

[Lee Moore]

We will be an international laughingstock.

And yet, the Russian occupation of Crimea happened during the Obama administration, and the Russian attack on Ukraine and the Hamas attack on Israel during the Biden administration. Not during the administration of the Yahoo from Queens.

What price sophisticated American soft diplomacy, conducted by Ivy League folk with fine creases in their pants, and pallets of cash for Iran ?

[bernard11]

What makes you think Trump would have prevented those attacks?

I know there is a myth that Trump is "strong," but is that anything other than RW propaganda?

[Lee Moore]

Just guessing. On the basis that in his first 4 year term he miserably failed to start any wars, eff up a withdrawal from Afghanistan, waste $400 million and Sgt. Quandarius Stanley's life on a collapsing pier to keep Hamas supplied, send $1.7 billion in cash to Iran, impotently watch Vlad invade first Crimea and Ukraine, and equally impotently watch Hamas kill more Israelis in a single day than the Allies managed to kill Germans on D Day.

Maybe he really is a prize foreign policy fool and military bungler, but on the evidence so far, he seems more successful than those who form or follow the received "expert" opinion.

Maybe it was just luck. But as Mazarin (and probably not Napoleon) said - it's better to be a lucky General than a skilful one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He did manage to kill a bunch of Russians.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

How utterly bizarre is it for these people to pretend we don't have four years of Trump as a reference point?

[Don Nico]

He would not have instigated the Maidan revolution in the first place.
The US seems to have a passion for "regime change." And it f*cks up the victim country each time.

[SRG2]

I know there is a myth that Trump is “strong,” but is that anything other than RW propaganda?

No.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They got the impression of "strength" from Trump playing a part in a TV show. Hard to believe, but true.

[David Nieporent]

People have said for years that Trump is a dumb person's idea of a smart person, and a poor person's idea of a rich person. Well, he's also a weak person's idea of a strong person. He's a bully — which some people misperceive as strength — but, like all bullies, a coward. So he can be forceful against the powerless, can push them around, but he folds whenever he's faced with someone who fights back.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, this has become a characteristic cognitive fault on the part of 'liberals', which explains why you have so much trouble dealing with Trump: You have trouble imagining somebody who holds views different from your own, you think bad views, who isn't bad in every possible way.

Once you've decided that somebody isn't virtuous in a moral sense, you can't accept that they have any virtues at all. They have to be ugly, stupid, poor, it goes on and on. You compete with each other over how awesomely awful they are, and the loser is whoever admits they've got anything going for them at all.

So, Wham! The stupid ugly poor guy who has BO and is incapable of planning, just lurches around randomly, keeps beating you. Because you can't stop believing your own trash talk, no matter how often it blows up in your face, you respond to him as though your trash talk was actually true.

[Randal]

You can’t read. David didn’t say Trump was poor or stupid. Or ugly or smelly.

Just a con man and a bully.

[Krayt]

Assuming it wouldn't have happened under Trump, which is an assertion, not a fact, you get the country you get, not you wish you got.

What will he do moving forward? Every indication is pulling back from supporting Ukraine. This is not "peace". This is capitulation. This is allowing a dictatorship to expand militarily...in Europe!

And saying, "eh, stop where you are and you can just have it" is not the right answer, either. Do you want to roll the dice it will even work? Is that even the plan?

[Don Nico]

" This is not “peace”. This is capitulation."
So you prefer that many more Ukrainians have died or will die rather than permitting Zelenshy to reach a diplomatic settlement in 2022.
Mr Biden's foreign policy has been a gross catastrophe.

[Absaroka]

"So you prefer that many more Ukrainians have died"

There is surely a decision to be made about how many Ukrainian lives are worth spending to not again be ruled by Moscow - freedom isn't free, as the saying goes. But I think that is a decision to be made by the Ukrainians, not us. A woman facing a rapist may decide to submit rather than risk her life fighting back, or to risk her life fighting back. I have no place telling her which decision to make.

"permitting Zelenshy to reach a diplomatic settlement in 2022"

How did we prevent Zelensky from making any settlement that his country wanted?

[Don Nico]

Do your ho,me work. The Biden/Johnson intervention is very widely known.

[Joe_dallas]

Good point
Appears that Russia/putin was seeking a way out of the war, and the Biden adminstration nixed the settlement. The opposite occurred / is occurring in Gaza, the Biden administration is trying to force a cease fire so that Hamas is not destroyed

[Lee Moore]

This is not “peace”. This is capitulation.

Peace often takes the form of capitulation. See Germany and Japan in WW2. Not to mention France. Most wars end with one side capitulating, or giving concessions.

Obviously it’s very disagreeable if the aggressor gets a slice of cake, when morally he ought to get squat, and a penalty. But reality is reality.

Short of regime change in Russia, nothing’s going to get the Russians out of the Donbass. And even with regime change in Russia, that’s still not likely to happen.

The trouble with our “realist” foreign policy “experts” is that they’re totally unrealistic.

[Commenter_XY]

captcrisis, the current policy has failed.

Now what?

[edbeau99]

There is a reasonable chance this will work out much better for Ukraine. Trump will not hesitate to use the very best weapon against Russia: massive U.S. production of oil and gas for export. How will Russia continue the war if their foreign currency earnings drop by 75%? And President Xi, as much as he wants to prop up Russia, can't afford to pay $80 a barrel if the world price is $20 a barrel.

That, plus the possibility that Trump might cancel the Biden policy of slow walking weapon deliveries to Ukraine and putting serious restrictions on the use of those weapons, will further worry Putin.

With those high cards in hand, Trump could propose two alternatives: if Putin insists on keeping the conquered territories, Ukraine gets to join NATO immediately and Russian aggression must stop. Alternatively, if a neutral Ukraine is more important, he must give back the eastern territories. In either case, both sides could claim a win.

[bernard11]

This is interesting, but I wonder what your projections of oil prices is based on.

How much can the US produce? What is the elasticity of price? How realistic (not at all, IMO) is a 75% price drop? And if prices drop significantly why won't OPEC cut production to support them.

[Lee Moore]

How much can the US produce?

Very little, if federal judges can block new drilling because of a speculative risk to the Lesser Dakotan Horned Buzzard.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The idea of Trump standing up to Putin is pretty funny. There's a reason Putin went to such lengths to have Hillary Clinton defeated in 2016.

[Roger S]

Discredited. It is not know that Putin made any effort to defeat Clinton in 2016.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was the unanimous view of our intelligence agencies. Of course, you are free to disagree with people who know what they’re talking about.

Trump’s people also did their best to play ball with the Russians to defeat Hillary. Look up the “Trump Tower meeting”.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>It was the unanimous view of our intelligence agencies. Of course, you are free to disagree with people who know what they’re talking about.

lmao wow, the same agencies where those 51 experts came from on the Hunter Biden laptop.

>Trump’s people also did their best to play ball with the Russians to defeat Hillary. Look up the “Trump Tower meeting”.

Don’t forget the Steele Dossier! lmao wow

You're illegally undermining our Sacred Democracy by suggesting Trump wasn't elected fairly in a secure and fair election in 2016.

[SRG2]

It was the unanimous view of our intelligence agencies. </i<

And the Republican-lead Senator Defense Committee. Trump explicitly took Putin's word for it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the unanimous view of our intelligence agencies that Trump proposes to clean house, and they don't want their houses cleaned.

[Randal]

We all know that Putin chipped in to help Trump against Hillary and Kamala (and probably Biden too although I don’t remember any specifics). Denying it just makes you look dumb.

Remember just a few weeks ago when it turned out that half the right-wing podcast community was on Russia’s payroll?

[Swede425]

Good god.
It was the "unanimous view of our intelligence agencies" that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian Psyop.
Just kidding!
They knew it was real, but they lied to the world anyway.
Because Orange Man bad.
But they'd never lie about anything else. Pinky Swear!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Trump has a long history of disappointing those who partner with him. What makes you think Putin is any different?

[Dan Schiavetta]

He also has a long history of being taken for a fool. That’s the more plausible scenario.

[SRG2]

Because Putin isn't partnering Trump, he's playing with him.

[Don Nico]

Putin hated Clinton for many reasons independent of Mr Trump.

[Joe_dallas]

Icaptcrisis 10 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
The idea of Trump standing up to Putin is pretty funny. There’s a reason Putin went to such lengths to have Hillary Clinton defeated in 2016."

We all realize that is a significant belief of leftist, yet it simply defies any logical sense or geopolitical sense. Throw in the bogus russian hoax which was started and funded by the Clinton campaign, and it should be clear to everyone how inane that belief is.

[Randal]

There's loads of proof for anyone to look at who actually wants to know the true answer and not just the politically expedient one.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal - you are absolutely correct - you should try it some time

[loki13]

There is one problem with this idea.

The US is not good for flooding the market with oil. Our cost to produce is one of the highest- meanwhile, Russia's is one of the lowest (not as low as Saudi and Kuwait, but close). Flooding the market doesn't work for oil- that's what happened domestically when the price cratered. Remember?

We are really good at producing natural gas, but that has transportation issues, and ... Russia is still lower cost.

[SimonP]

Trump can't command anyone to drill for oil. If oil companies don't find it profitable, they're not going to add to supply for the sole purpose of driving prices down (whether to benefit the American consumer or hurt Russia). Drill, baby, drill! is one of the more economically illiterate talking points Trump returned to.

And the U.S. is already a top global oil producer.

[Commenter_XY]

The US should ramp up oil and gas production immediately, meaning January 22, 2025. There is the ME dimension to layer over this. If we tank oil and gas prices, then Iran has a big problem, but Japan and our allies will greatly benefit from lower energy cost.

We have the fracking capacity to do it, and AK can be developed in very short order (<1 year) with a very small production footprint. You don't need a lot of physical space to frack, or trap nat gas.

When prices dropped the last time we ramped up capacity, there were record profits. Why would this time be any different? Our energy companies will make a bonanza. That helps everyone who has a 401K.

[loki13]

That's not accurate. We ramped up capacity before the prices cratered (there is a long lead time to that).

The prices cratering caused a lot of the smaller players to go POOF and a lot of projects to end- and some to just stop producing.

America's cost to produce oil is not competitive when the price of oil is really low. Different type of oil, and different methods of extractions, have different costs. Saudi and Kuwait are blessed (or cursed, depending on how you look at it) with light sweet crude in abundance that is easy and cheap to extract. We have benefitted from the ability to extract oil, but at a higher cost.

It's like the tar sand issue- you can get oil, but it costs more to extract.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, I am fine with higher cost producers going out of business. To me, that is capitalism at work: creative destruction. The extraction cost for fracking is far below the current price of ~80. In the Permian basin, extraction cost is 30-35. In AK, the potential is enormous.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/748207/breakeven-prices-for-us-oil-producers-by-oilfield/

Look, if you really want to put the 'hurt lock' on RUS and IRA, tank the price of oil to ~40 for 3 years. Watch what happens. We still make beaucoup $$$ at ~40. They (RUS, CHN) don't.

KSA extraction cost is pretty low. They'll be fine.

[Brett Bellmore]

"OK, but if you had to give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky advice right now, what would it be?"

Watch your back for the next 2-3 months. Biden/Harris are not your friends, and they've still got time to screw you over.

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh, glad I read the entire conversation. Aside from occasional sniping and grousing about President Trump's re-election, a good read.

What would I advise President Zelensky?

It is long past time to make a deal, just as Kotkin and Haas have been saying for 2 years. Land will be given up, but you must preserve access to Black sea, independent of Crimea. NATO will not accept UKR, and neither will the EU, with UKR being the way it is (a fiscal basket case, and 2nd most corrupt economy in Europe, after RUS). They are not even part of the Schengen Agreement, and cannot meet those low hurdles from that agreement. That door is just not open to you at this stage.

It will be a herculean task to rebuild your entire infrastructure. Don't let petty corruption derail that rebuilding effort.

[SimonP]

Eugene, isn't the "Hoover Institution" supposed to be a "think tank"? This excerpt of the conversation is devoid of anything thoughtful or interesting.

We know what Trump's plan for Ukraine is. He has mentioned it multiple times. It is along the lines of the Russian/Chinese proposal, which involves ceding a large amount of territory and and control over existential questions regarding Ukraine's national security to Russia. Trump doesn't have some trick up his sleeve that will get Putin to back off. Trump is just looking to win peace for a few years. That's plenty for Putin. Putin will use that time to rebuild and gear up for the next land grab, whether it's Ukraine itself or parts of other countries. And even if that wasn't precisely Trump's plan, that's where Republicans in Congress will force the policy - again based on many, many statements to that effect.

What do they pay you people to do over there, at Hoover? Eat and bloviate?

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't that what think tanks do? Eat and bloviate?

[jdgalt1]

Trump would never have started the conflict in 2014 by allowing Soros to sponsor the "Orange Revolution" in the first place. When Soros did (and did similarly in Georgia and other places), he made fools of us in the eyes of the rest of the world.

At this point our country *is* a laughingstock, and is unlikely to win even a regional conflict if we were to get into one. I would, and I'm sure Trump will, advise Zelensky to offer unconditional surrender before more of his population die for no purpose.

I would also advise Trump to withdraw from alliance with any countries outside the Americas. We are woefully unready to defend even ourselves, much less others, should Russia or China attack now. Most of our weapons have been expended on this boondoggle already and we'll be years replacing them at best.

[David Nieporent]

Trump would never have started the conflict in 2014 by allowing Soros to sponsor the “Orange Revolution” in the first place. When Soros did (and did similarly in Georgia and other places), he made fools of us in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Antisemitic comments about Jews secretly pulling the strings certainly help prove your case. Especially when you misplace those events by a decade.

[Randal]

When was the last regional conflict we did win?

Our inability to win regional conflicts has nothing to do with our munitions manufacturing capacity and everything to do with mission creep.

[Commenter_XY]

Grenada = When was the last regional conflict we did win?