Donald Trump said he can end the Russian war on Ukraine. But so far there is no progress while Ukranians suffer

 Trump risks unraveling world order with his Ukraine approach.

Will Trump concede America’s great source of strength or nourish it? An echo essay published in the Boston Globe by Timothy Snyder.

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump was vague on foreign policy, claiming only that he would be strong and that other leaders were his friends and would listen to him. Now that he is president-elect, those words and those expectations begin to make contact with reality. Among many other boasts, Trump declared that he could end the war in Ukraine immediately. The outlines seem to involve giving the Russians what they want and then expecting the Ukrainians to concede.

In other words, Trump’s idea is to be weak, export weakness, and see what happens. What happens will not look like strength. Were Trump to fail to achieve such a deal, Russia would be in a better position thanks to Trump’s concessions and Ukrainians would be dying in greater numbers to defend their country.

Should Trump manage to force Ukraine into a weaker position where it loses the war, this would be more disastrous still.

It’s easy to take things for granted, especially for Americans. We tend to see other people as problems, not solutions. We imagine that somehow we are the ones doing the real work in Ukraine, when the truth is that Ukrainians are fighting a war of unimaginable cruelty with an endurance that has protected our own way of life. The simple strength of what they are doing is undeniable: They are fulfilling the entire NATO mission on their own, doing all the fighting, supported by American and European aid.

Thanks to Ukrainians, the international legal order is sustained. It depends on the principle that borders are inviolable, which they are defending. Thanks to Ukrainians, nuclear war is less likely. Because they resist the nuclear threats of a nuclear power with an effective conventional response, other countries are not building nuclear weapons. Should Americans choose to weaken Ukraine, this will change quickly. And Ukraine is deterring China from offensive actions in the Pacific by showing how difficult such operations are.

The connection between Ukraine and Taiwan is important. As the Taiwanese know very well, and as they keep trying to explain to Americans, Ukraine is doing something very special for the stability of East Asia. Ukraine deters China without provoking it in any way. That is something that the United States cannot do — any action we take toward China can be seen as provocative. But in aiding Ukraine, the United States can keep China at bay — and make less likely a whole series of other disastrous scenarios. Supporting Ukraine is the anchor of any sound and effective China policy.

If Trump sells out Ukraine, in other words, the present world order collapses around him, and he will look weak, for the very good reason that he has behaved like a weakling. He might well think that he can change the subject from Ukraine after he betrays it — and it seems he has already prepared for that with his notion that Ukraine is already completely destroyed. If people believe that lie, then they wouldn’t worry — Trump could hope — about the destruction that actually follows when Trump abandons Ukraine.

And the consequences beyond Ukraine will be far greater. The legal order will be ignored; nuclear weapons will proliferate; Russia will triumph; and China will rejoice.

No doubt Trump could persuade some of his more ardent followers that none of this matters, at least for a while. But even they will suspect that Trump’s actions on Ukraine are not at his own initiative.

Elon Musk is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most important apologist, and Trump is spending time with Musk and bringing Musk onto a phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. That looks not only strange but weak. It is not clear whether Putin will even take a call from Trump. Trump claims that he spoke to Putin and demanded de-escalation; the result was an official denial that such a call had taken place, the destruction of a dam, and one of the largest drone and missile attacks of the war. Putin seems to be trying to intimidate Trump.

In Russia, the media and politicians make no secret of their conviction that Trump is their water boy — their “Trumpushka.” Russian television has aired naked photographs of Trump’s wife, which is a curious welcome. 

Putin’s great hope for winning that war has always been Trump. He expects Trump not only to surrender Ukraine but to initiate the phone call himself.

Trump is being played as a weakling by people who laugh at him as such. None of this, of course, has to happen. Trump calls himself a dealmaker; he could start acting like one. Instead of announcing that he is in a hurry to seal a deal, thereby giving Putin every incentive to slow things down, he could say that he is working for the best deal.

Then the logic becomes clear. Getting to yes would involve strengthening Ukraine rather than weakening it, because one bargains from strength, not weakness. If Trump actually wanted to look like a competent negotiator, he would plan to arm Ukraine.

It appears that Trump will name Florida Senator Marco Rubio of Florida as secretary of state and Representative Michael Waltz of Florida as national security adviser. Both men are regarded as China hardliners. Both are intelligent enough to know that conceding Ukraine means giving in to China and that helping Ukraine defend itself deters China.

Trump will have plenty of room for maneuver. He is not bound by the various taboos the Biden administration set for itself. Trump could choose to distinguish himself from his predecessor by delivering more weapons, more quickly and by talking about victory for Ukraine. This would not only be good in itself but would also make an actual peace deal far more likely.

It does not matter in the end whether Trump blusters or whether Putin mocks him. What matters is whether Trump concedes America’s great source of strength or nourishes it. The logic of all this is simple and strategic. It goes beyond the personalities concerned. Trump’s problem, though, is that he cannot seem to get beyond his own personality. And so while we might hope for strength from Trump, we cannot expect it.

Timothy Snyder is the Levin Professor of History and Global Affairs at Yale University and the author of a number of books, including “On Tyranny” and “On Freedom.”