Wreckage from a Russian missile assault on Kyiv (AFP)
Ukraine, technically, is an ally of the United States, while Russia long has been considered an enemy. But Donald Trump is taking an upside-down approach in his efforts to bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war. So what is Trump thinking? That is hard to say -- on many issues -- but The New York Times (NYT) tries to answer the question at the heart of perhaps the thorniest issue Trump has faced early in his second term.
In an op-ed piece at The Morning newsletter, German Lopez concludes that Trump has two primary goals in mind -- and while his unusual approach has yielded some successes, the wins seemingly have been limited by the "fog of war." Even Trump admits the Russia-Ukraine war has been harder to resolve than he thought it would be. Under the headline "Ukraine’s Next Steps:The U.S. is urging Ukraine to take a deal that favors Russia," Lopez writes:
Russia invaded Ukraine, but you wouldn’t know that from the peace negotiations. At every step, President Trump has pushed the victim to give ground, while the aggressor has given little of substance.
Wednesday brought the latest example. Vice President JD Vance laid out a peace proposal that sharply favors Russia, my colleagues David Sanger, Michael Shear and Mark Landler wrote. Ukraine would have to give up the territory that Russia took during the war as well as any chance to join NATO. Vance said the Trump administration would walk away if both sides didn’t accept its terms. The comments clearly targeted Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who said this week that he would not preemptively cede Crimea, the region Russia invaded a decade ago.
Trump echoed Vance on social media. Zelensky “can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” Trump said.
Is Ukraine being treated fairly in this peace process? It sure doesn't look that way. In fact, one is reminded that barely two months ago Trump falsely blamed Ukraine for starting the war -- even calling Zelensky a "dictator" -- and his warped viewpoint apparently has not improved much since. Lopez reports:
This is now a familiar pattern in the American-led peace process: The administration frames its terms as demands for Russia and Ukraine, but only Ukraine has to give up something meaningful.
And if Ukraine refuses, the White House lashes out. After Trump took office, he demanded that Ukraine surrender its mineral wealth to the United States in exchange for continued support. After an Oval Office clash between Trump and Zelensky, the United States cut off Ukraine aid.
To make amends, Ukraine said it would accept a cease-fire if Russia did as well. Russia did not. Yet Trump didn’t punish Moscow; he rewarded it. He exempted Russia from his so-called reciprocal tariffs. Last week, the United States voted with Russia on a U.N. resolution about the war.
These are unusual circumstances. The United States is ostensibly Ukraine’s ally against Russia. Friends don’t typically demand more from friends than enemies in peace talks. Today’s newsletter will explain — with help from my colleagues who cover diplomacy, security, economics and international affairs — why the Trump administration takes this approach.
Lopez' words sound like he is describing a romantic relationship that has turned abusive -- with an American president playing the role of abuser. History tells us Trump almost always wants something in his interactions with others -- often something that is unlawful or ethically dubious. It seems reasonable then to ask: What does Trump want this time? Lopez, with insights from his Times' colleagues, provides this answer:
Trump has two main goals when it comes to Ukraine.
First, he wants “to normalize the relationship with Russia,” David Sanger wrote. “If that means rewriting the history of Moscow’s illegal invasion, if it means dropping investigations of Russian war crimes or refusing to offer security guarantees that would keep Putin from finishing the job in Ukraine later, then Trump, in this assessment of his intentions, is willing to make that deal.”
Second, Trump wants to force European nations, not the United States, to handle problems in Europe. Trump criticizes NATO allies for spending little money on their militaries and, in his view, free-riding on U.S. security guarantees. By suggesting he won’t support Ukraine — or NATO — much longer, Trump is telling Europe that it should counter Russia on its own.
On both goals, Trump can claim some successes. The United States and Russia have discussed restoring embassy staffing. And Russia and Ukraine have signaled, for the first time, that they’re open to direct peace talks. Meanwhile, European leaders have promised to spend more on their militaries and weapons, including for Ukraine. “The new emphasis on arms production is evidence of a broader generational shift in Europe,” Lara Jakes and Bernhard Warner wrote.
Still, those wins are limited. The war in Ukraine persists. Fighting continued during Easter despite a truce. America’s relations with Russia remain strained; even U.S. companies that once benefited from Russian business are skeptical of going back, Anton Troianovski, Niraj Chokshi and Ivan Nechepurenko reported.
And a more independent Europe may not be good for America. The continent’s leaders could, for instance, use their independence to cozy up to China. Earlier this month, Spain’s prime minister met with China’s president to strengthen trade ties with Beijing, Liz Alderman wrote. All to say: Trump’s moves might not work as he hopes.
In the meantime, Ukraine suffers. So far this year, it has lost more territory than it has gained.