Trump Shouldn’t Impose His Will on Ukraine

President Donald Trump confronts the failing policy of his predecessor in Ukraine. Eight years ago he did the same in Afghanistan. There the United States was entangled in a shooting war, which made it difficult to leave without an agreement with the Taliban. In Ukraine Washington is waging a proxy war, ultimately more dangerous, given Russia’s involvement, but much easier to leave.

Instead, the administration is attempting to impose its preferred solution on both Kiev and Moscow. So far, the path has proved anything but smooth. The president expects Ukraine to accept substantial territorial losses and make other concessions, as well as grant the U.S. access to Ukrainian natural resources. The dramatic Oval Office blow-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was the result. European leaders, too, are in an uproar and determined to back Kiev, though still desperate for American backing.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin evidently has forged a better relationship than Zelensky with Trump but is no more cooperative. Moscow believes that it is winning the war and therefore is not inclined to compromise. Trump has episodically threatened to intensify sanctions on Russia to force Putin’s cooperation. The latest warning was dramatic: “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.”

However, the effectiveness of past economic penalties has been limited, and even if new measures proved painful Moscow is unlikely to yield since it believes its interests in Ukraine to be existential, justifying military action. Nor does Trump appear serious about punishing Russia. After his latest threat, he added that “it may be easier dealing with Russia” than with Kiev. Trump’s overriding objective is to improve bilateral ties.

Ironically, the Oval Office contretemps, along with Trump’s other hostile comments, gave the Ukrainian leader a political boost. Other Ukrainian leaders have backed him and he has risen in the polls. For instance, Borys Filatov, mayor of Dnipro, declared that Zelensky “is OUR President” and “No lying creature, neither in Moscow, nor in Washington, nor anywhere, has the right to open his mouth against him.” This should surprise no one. Trump’s verbal brickbats and protectionist volleys have also turned the Canadian public hostile to America and helped revive the political fortunes of the ruling Liberal Party, seen as better able to confront Washington.

Trump’s very public frustration with Zelensky appears to be leading the administration to intervene in Ukrainian politics. Politico reported that four Trump aides were making the rounds in Kiev, holding “talks with Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, a remorselessly ambitious former prime minister, and senior members of the party of Petro Poroshenko, Zelensky’s immediate predecessor as president.” The administration’s objective? An election, which Washington hopes will result in Zelensky’s ouster.

Ironically, the last American president to so directly enter into Ukrainian politics was Barack Obama, Trump’s bête noire. He deployed Victoria Nuland, a neocon hawk, to Kiev to back the overthrow of President Yanukovych. She represents the bipartisan War Party, having served in the Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations. Vice President Dick Cheney was one of her mentors and she never hesitated to press Washington’s dictates abroad. In 2014 her conversation with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev about Washington’s preferred candidates for government post-putsch, essentially treating Ukraine as occupied territory, was recorded for posterity.

America’s flagrant political interference undermined the legitimacy of the Poroshenko government to come and fueled Moscow’s hostility to Kiev’s new regime. No Russian nationalist could view the result with anything but suspicion. Imagine Moscow political operatives besieging Mexico, promoting the overthrow of a U.S.-friendly regime, wandering Mexico’s capital pushing their friends for influential government positions, and endorsing the new government’s candidacy to join the Warsaw Pact. Hysteria would envelop Washington. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Trump administration’s attempt to oust Zelensky and install a factotum is also not likely to turn out well. Indeed, success could turn out worse than failure for America. First, Washington’s efforts have improved Zelensky’s election prospects by inflating his role as Ukraine’s chief international champion. Despite widespread frustration with the war, Zelensky now leads likely challengers by a wide margin. Explained Politico: “In a poll conducted by British pollster Survation this week after the blow-up at the White House, 44 percent said they would back Zelenskyy for the presidency. His nearest rival, trailing him by more than 20 percentage points, is Valery Zaluzhny, a former army commander who is now Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain. Only 10 percent backed Poroshenko, who is known as the Chocolate King due to his confectionary empire. Tymoshenko garnered just 5.7 percent support.”

Indeed, Washington’s efforts set up a potential political battle between the U.S. and its erstwhile European allies. Although long determined to rely on Washington militarily and do as little as possible to defend themselves, European Union officials in Brussels and national leaders across the continent have been much more willing to intervene in members’ affairs to shape governments and transform behavior. They might respond to the U.S. by promoting a candidate more receptive to their views.

Nor are any of the other obvious alternatives likely to be more tractable from Washington’s standpoint. First, none are fans of Russia. Zaluzhny had managed Ukraine’s defense until he was removed by Zelensky. Poroshenko was elected after the 2014 Western-backed street protests against the Moscow-friendly Yanukovych. Tymoshenko, the fabled “gas princess,” is a perennial candidate who was defeated by Yanukovych, who later prosecuted and jailed her. Second, while all of them might welcome Washington’s aid in taking power, none would hesitate to double-cross the Trump administration if to their political advantage.

Moreover, Ukrainian officials submitting to Washington’s dictates would undermine their credibility at home while tying the U.S. to their performance. The Trump administration would be blamed for corruption, incompetence, or other problems. This would damage America’s reputation abroad and the president’s image at home. Today Trump could walk away, citing the Biden administration’s bungled performance, fueling another seemingly endless war. If he instead tries to impose both a government and settlement on Kiev, the blame will be on him if anything goes bad, as is possible, perhaps even likely.

Finally, a peace agreement will survive only if accepted, however grudgingly, by the Ukrainian people. Pushing someone seen as an American toady into power to secure a U.S.-designed settlement could backfire. Although the specific circumstances vary, the experience after World War I offers a bloody caution. German militarists promoted the Dolchstoßlegende, the infamous myth of the “stab in the back” by disloyal elements of society. The Versailles Treaty embittered the losers and radicalized German politics, leading to Hitler’s rise. If Ukrainians believe that the U.S., not Russia, forced their capitulation, the long-term result could be more instability and even conflict.

The basic problem with Joe Biden’s foreign policy is not that it was wrong, though it often was. Rather, Biden never saw an international problem that he didn’t want to address, despite increasing limits to U.S. power. Donald Trump should avoid falling into the same trap.

Putting America first does not mean attempting to solve the world’s problems and imposing imagined solutions on everyone else against their will. Just as getting out was the right decision in Afghanistan, America should exit Ukraine. The administration should set forth its policy and offer to help negotiate a settlement. But only Kiev can decide its own fate. Ukrainians should be left to make that decision for themselves.