Trump's Shameful Betrayal of Ukraine

It's a terrible decision for both moral and pragmatic reasons.

(Denys Bozduhan | Dreamstime.com)

Today is the third anniversary of the beginning of Russia's full-blown assault on Ukraine, on February 24, 2022. Sadly, over the last few weeks, the Trump Administration has moved towards abandoning Ukraine to its brutal enemy. Trump has essentially adopted the Kremlin line on the war - blaming Ukraine for Russia's aggression, and made a series of concessions to Vladimir Putin (foreclosing Ukrainian membership in NATO, letting Russia keep the territory it occupied, etc.), without demanding anything from Russia in return. The Administration has been trying to make a deal under which the US will have rights to much of Ukraine's mineral resources. But they aren't offering any security guarantees or continuation of military aid in return. On top of that, as part of a broader assault on legal immigration,  Trump has suspended the highly successful Uniting for Ukraine program, under which Americans are able to sponsor Ukrainian refugees to live and work in the US.

This shift is reprehensible on both moral and strategic grounds. Most conservatives back US support for Israel's war against Hamas, because of the horrific atrocities of the latter. Russian atrocities in Ukraine are comparably awful, and on a much larger scale.  Russian forces have brutally massacred civilians, tortured and executed prisoners, and kidnapped thousands of children.

Don't take my word for it. Take that of the millions of people who voted with their feet seeking to escape oppressive and murderous Russian occupation.  When Russia has taken territory, millions flee. When Ukraine is able to regain it, only a handful of collaborators do the same. That should tell us all we need to know about which side is in the right in this war. Volodymyr Zelensky's government has some serious flaws. But it is a liberal democracy vastly superior to Putin's increasingly repressive dictatorship.

As regular readers know, I am a native speaker of Russian, a language also known by most Ukrainians. Over the last three years, I have spoken to numerous Ukrainian refugees with a wide range of backgrounds: Christians, Jews, and Muslims; ethnic Ukrainians and members of minority groups (including ethnic Russians); supporters of President  Zelensky, and supporters of opposition parties. They differ on many things. But all agree on the horrific brutality of the Russian government, and that Ukrainian rule is far preferable to it. We should listen to these people, not the propaganda emanating from the Kremlin, and now echoed by the White House.

Letting Russia take more territory will predictably result in more atrocities of the kind we have already seen. And the survivors will be subjected to horrific oppression.

The pragmatic case for backing Ukraine is also compelling. Letting Russia win will predictably incentivize further aggression. Moreover, a Russian victory will give a boost to authoritarians worldwide and weaken the forces of liberal democracy.

The idea that Ukraine and the West, rather than Russia, are at fault for the war is utterly ridiculous. Those who claim that Russia attacked because of the possibility that Ukraine might join NATO have the causation reversed. Ukrainian interest in joining NATO was a product of Russian aggression, beginning with the seizure of Crimea and part of the Donbass in 2014. If Putin's goal was to prevent Ukrainian NATO membership, he could have "achieved" it simply by leaving Ukraine alone. But his real objective is to bring all of Ukraine under Russian control. Don't take my word for it. Take Putin's own words outlined in his numerous statements to the effect that Ukraine has no right to exist outside Russian dominance.

Putin's regime is one of the main enemies of the United States and the West. Any Russian forces damaged or destroyed in Ukraine are ones we don't have to face elsewhere. From that perspective, US expenditures in Ukraine are actually a bargain. Since January 2022, the US has given Ukraine approximately $119 billion in assistance, less than 1% of the federal budget (about $7 trillion per year), and a tiny fraction of  the US defense budget (which is about $841 billion per year, as of 2024).  Thanks in part to US aid, the Ukrainians have killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of Russian troops, and destroyed large quantities of equipment. There is no other way that the US could have so greatly weakened one of our major enemies at so little cost.

The US and its allies could reduce costs still further by funding Ukraine with the $300 billion in Russian government assets currently frozen in the West.

Claims that Ukraine must give up because they cannot win run up against the evidence that Ukrainian forces perform well when given the supplies they need. Over the last year, Russian forces have suffered huge casualties and made only modest gains, despite the fact that Ukrainian forces were hamstrung much of the time by a suspension of US aid engineered on specious grounds by congressional Republicans.  The Ukrainians have even managed to capture substantial Russian territory in Kursk, and hold it against repeated counterattacks. With more assistance, Ukrainian forces could do better.

Even if some sort of negotiated ceasefire is unavoidable, it makes no sense to make preemptive concessions in advance without demanding anything from Russia in return. At the very least, we should demand Russia withdraw from at least some of the territory it has occupied, and return Ukrainian prisoners and kidnapped children.

Nor can Trump's move be defended on the grounds that it will bring "peace." Any ceasefire without reciprocal Russian concessions is likely to be only a prelude to a renewal of the war after Russian replenishes its forces. Such an arrangement would not give Putin any incentive to give up his goal of taking all of Ukraine.

Those who claim helping Ukraine is a diversion from countering China in the Pacific would do well to remember that our Asian allies - including Taiwan - believe helping Ukraine is in their strategic interest. They know that weakening Russia also weakens China (for whom Russia is a key ally), and that showing resolve in Ukraine helps deter China, as well.

In addition to rewarding Russian aggression, Trump's betrayal of Ukraine has also poisoned relations with our European allies, most of whom strongly support Ukraine and fear further Russian aggression against themselves. Losing their trust and support far outweighs any possible gains from a deal with the Kremlin. It isn't Making America Great Again. To the contrary, it is weakening and isolating us.

The outcome here isn't cast in stone. Trump might perhaps at least partially reverse course. Ukraine might be able to persist with European support only.  Despite Trumpian claims to the contrary, the Europeans actually have given more aid to Ukraine than we have. They would do well to seize the $300 billion in frozen Russian state assets (most of which are held in Europe) and use them to at least partially fill the gap created by  withdrawal of US aid. Still, the Europeans cannot quickly - if ever - fully substitute for US support.

There is still time to change course. But if Trump persists in withdrawing support from Ukraine without demanding any reciprocal concessions from Russia, the consequences for both Ukraine and America are likely to be dire.  The reversal may well go down in history as one of the worst American foreign policy decisions, simultaneously evil and stupid.