US President-elect Donald Trump, poised for his second term in office, has been vague and elusive on many issues, making his intentions difficult to discern. On the most pressing issue of the Russia-Ukraine war, despite boldly claiming that he could end the war within “24 hours”, achieving it remains highly improbable. The specific proposals he might put forward to end the war remain unknown, with Trump himself staying tight-lipped on the matter.
This seems to confirm what he once said about not letting people know what he is up to, or it won’t happen. To assess how Trump might resolve the Russia-Ukraine war, it is necessary to first understand his fundamental stance on the conflict and the parties involved. This requires unravelling the logic behind some of his key statements concerning this conflict.
No common sense and logic?
The outside world generally thinks that Trump’s return to office is bad news for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and good news for Russian President Vladimir Putin. This is because Trump and the Republicans have always opposed aiding Ukraine, threatening to cut off arms supplies. The US Congress even stalled a US$60 billion aid package which includes weaponry for Ukraine for six months, nearly paralysing the Ukrainian front lines.
In the subsequent mediation efforts, which side will Trump be on? He has always argued that the US’s European and Asian allies are “freeloading” off the US, demanding them to increase their military spending and even wanting to charge them protection money. He has also lambasted EU countries for their hesitant approach to aiding Ukraine, which made people believe that he is someone who “doesn’t play by the rules” and a “vulgar businessman for whom everything is negotiable”.
Trump’s modus operandi is being steady, precise, ruthless and efficient.
In fact, the opposite is true. His domestic and foreign policies fall within the realm of a return to rationality and traditional norms. Domestically, issues such as illegal immigration, gender, abortion and manufacturing reflect a return to pragmatic common sense and logic. Similarly, as for his military and foreign policy decisions, no matter how “unreliable” or “unpredictable” he may appear, he will not act against the core national interests of the US, nor will he abandon the pragmatic, operational principles proven by history to be fundamental to American prosperity and power.
His so-called “businessman characteristics” in handling military and diplomatic affairs simply reflect his skill at leveraging his strengths and achieving maximum results at minimum cost, by applying business principles to the political realm.
For example, in dealing with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ clandestine attacks on US military bases in the Middle East, unlike his predecessors who often resorted to deploying troops and carrier strike groups, he opted for the “most economical means” of taking out the head — he used an MQ-9 Reaper drone to eliminate Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, achieving the desired deterrent effect.
Similarly, in dealing with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, understanding his penchant for displays of respect, Trump went so far as to travel to Singapore for a summit and made a show of crossing the 38th parallel. In the end, both sides were happy and the atmosphere warmed — a far more efficient and less stressful approach than conducting military exercises. Achieving maximum results at minimum cost is simply common sense.
Definitely not without principles
Trump’s modus operandi is being steady, precise, ruthless and efficient. His decision not to initiate a war during his first term was not because he was more peace-loving than other US presidents, but rather because he believed that it was not yet time for a necessary war. His decisiveness surpassed that of his predecessors, and his distinctive approach — often perceived as “unconventional” — boils down to one word: efficiency.
In terms of military alliances, “Make America Great Again” translates to “you fight it out first and America will enter the arena last”.
Although often guided by business rationality when choosing the best course of action, Trump is certainly not purely an unprincipled businessman. As a politician, he understands the need to uphold certain key principles vital to the country’s fundamental interests. When the Syrian government forces used chemical weapons against civilians, he did not hesitate to order missile strikes against them. This decision was rooted entirely in the American cultural value of upholding human rights, demonstrating that he is highly principled.
On issues such as Russia’s threat to Europe and aiding Ukraine, Trump’s logic aligns entirely with longstanding American traditions: be it EU countries or Asia-Pacific ones like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, they must confront their direct adversaries themselves; they should not use the US as a bargaining chip to play tricks, or expect the US to take the lead on the front lines. If they insist on making the US bear the brunt, the US will withdraw from NATO.
The US became “great” via the two World Wars. In both conflicts, allies and enemies battled fiercely until both sides were exhausted, at which point the US delivered a decisive and overwhelming blow to the adversary. In the end, the US reaped the fruits of war, with the enemy defeated and its allies weakened.
If the US wants to be great again, it should adhere to the experiences that made it “great” in the past. In terms of military alliances, “Make America Great Again” translates to “you fight it out first and America will enter the arena last”.
This is why Trump was infuriated by Europe’s attempts to put the US at the forefront of its defence efforts, as he urged the Senate to use measures such as cutting off aid to Ukraine as a means to pressure Europe into taking responsibility for its own defence. Through backward reasoning, Trump sees Russia as the enemy of both the US and Europe.
Putting US interests first
The US intervened militarily in Europe twice throughout its history. During World War II, the US entered the fray in Europe first, then in Asia, highlighting Europe’s significance to American interests. So, it is not that Trump genuinely wants to withdraw from NATO or abandon Ukraine. Rather, he is attempting to use such drastic measures to force EU countries to increase their military spending and strengthen their own defence capabilities, while at the same time maintaining the US’s traditional and strategically optimal role within the military alliance.
Outgoing US President Joe Biden is the exact opposite. He is fixated on the “responsibilities of a world leader” and consistently accommodates the EU’s reluctance to fully commit to aiding Ukraine, leading to a reversal of roles in supporting Ukraine, with the US being pushed to the forefront. Observably, Trump’s anger towards the EU stems from common sense — it is Biden who is really not making sense.
EU countries are simply taking advantage of Biden’s “great power sentiment”. Seeing that Trump won the elections, NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte immediately stated: Trump’s past demands for the EU to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP were correct, as was his assertion that aiding Ukraine is Europe’s own responsibility. In response, he quickly called for a NATO meeting to discuss increasing military budgets.
If Democratic candidate Kamala Harris had won, Rutte would not have made these remarks. The EU has experienced Trump’s shrewd and aggressive nature firsthand — if they try to play tricks on aiding Ukraine, Trump is capable of cutting off support to Ukraine or even withdrawing from NATO. The Republican-controlled Congress has already given a warning by delaying the US$60 billion aid package to Ukraine.
Do not underestimate the intelligence of Trump and his team and think they do not know this is a historic opportunity to utterly cripple Russia at minimal cost.
Trump shocked the world when he harshly warned the EU that if they refused to increase their defence budget, he would encourage Russia to do whatever they want. But what he did not explicitly say was that if they increased their military spending, he would help them take on Putin. This is similar to a parent scolding a child: “If you misbehave again, I’ll get the big bad wolf to eat you up!” Is the mother a friend of the wolf? Would she really let the wolf eat her child? By backward reasoning, this remark again implies that Trump sees Russia as an enemy.
Regardless of how innovative Trump’s methods may be, they are constrained by fundamental national interests and have to take into account the current reality — Russia is the US’s most dangerous enemy in Europe and must be weakened. This understanding will not be swayed by any personal relationships or preferences.
As for comments asserting that he is friends with Putin, those are offhand remarks meant to deceive as many people as possible. This is characteristic of Trump’s diplomacy: speaking favourably towards adversaries while berating allies, which many find puzzling.
Looking beyond the smokescreen created by Trump, both US parties agree that Russia poses a threat to Europe, similar to the consensus reached on China. Do not underestimate the intelligence of Trump and his team and think they do not know this is a historic opportunity to utterly cripple Russia at minimal cost. Similarly, do not underestimate the US’s think tanks and think they do not see the similarities between the Russia-Ukraine war and the Balkan wars that contributed to the decline of the Ottoman empire.
Defeating Russia without shedding American blood?
From a realist perspective, the US holds a highly advantageous position in the Russia-Ukraine war, affording it considerable strategic flexibility. If the EU’s support for Ukraine is lacklustre, prompting Trump to “leave the group” and cut off aid from the US, Europe would be forced to step up and independently sustain the war effort in Ukraine. This would place the US in a favourable position as it waits to deliver the decisive blow when both parties in the conflict are exhausted.
However, given the EU’s current anxieties about a potential US withdrawal, they are likely to accede to Trump’s demands, allowing him to reshape European defence spending and support for Ukraine to levels he deems more appropriate.
Fundamentally, the Russia-Ukraine war is a battle of strength between Europe and the US on one side and Russia on the other. Technology determines weaponry, and weaponry determines the outcome of the war. Under normal circumstances, Russia is bound to lose eventually (barring nuclear war).
However, ending the war would mean forfeiting a historic opportunity for the US to defeat a near-century-long adversary without sacrificing American lives, using only money and weapons. Does this align with the long-term national interests of the US?
Regardless of whether Russia or Ukraine are satisfied with the peace terms, ending the war means saving Russia. Even while under heavy bombardment, Putin continues to speak of traditional friendships with the UK and the US, indicating his eagerness to escape the war and his weakened position.
However, ending the war would mean forfeiting a historic opportunity for the US to defeat a near-century-long adversary without sacrificing American lives, using only money and weapons. Does this align with the long-term national interests of the US? Does it align with the goal to “make America great again”? Given Trump’s shrewdness and experience, would he choose to save Russia as it struggles and sinks deeper into the quagmire?
Such strategic thinking is a national asset — it must not be revealed to others, and must be presented under misleading appearances.
Trump recently demanded NATO members to boost defence spending to 5% of GDP in an attempt to create a situation where Ukraine fights on the front lines, the EU provides second line support, and the US holds rear position — a strategic layout designed to have allies and adversaries exhaust themselves in battle while the US waits for the opportune moment to strike (this is similar to his demands for “stationing fees” and “protection fees” from allies in the Asia-Pacific region).
In this way, the US would be in the most advantageous strategic position against its Eurasian adversaries, Russia and China. Should a world war break out, the US, situated in the Americas, could observe global developments and choose the optimal moment to enter the fray.
Trump’s strategic adjustments are grounded in both the successful experiences of the US in the two world wars and the theoretical support of Carl von Clausewitz’s On War. In the strategic planning of war, Clausewitz has an important principle: When we attack an enemy, we must be careful not to provoke another, more powerful enemy.
The lessons of the two world wars show that the great powers that entered the conflict first were either destroyed or severely weakened. Those that were destroyed included Austria-Hungary and the Russian empire, while those that were weakened included the UK and France. Meanwhile, those who joined the war last face no possibility of encountering a more powerful enemy, and this is how the US became a global hegemon. In contrast, how unwise is it for a weakened power like Russia to jump into the battlefield first?
Defeating China and Russia?
In fact, the specific proposals Trump puts forward to end the Russia-Ukraine war are not that important. However, he will not act against the fundamental, long-term interests of the US or make decisions regarding adversaries or allies that would undermine American hegemony or the goal to “Make America Great Again”. Furthermore, he will neither allow Russia to achieve its objectives nor permit Europe to become a powerful pole by independently supporting Ukraine. Any situations that emerge during future peace negotiations can be explained in this context.
Considering the global strategic landscape, the US is more likely to consider how it can defeat China and Russia individually, and in what sequence. Since Russia initiated hostilities in Europe while the Asia-Pacific region remains peaceful, Trump is likely to leverage the situation, adopting a “receive, neutralise, and strike” approach. He will likely inherit Biden’s strategy of using Ukraine to exhaust Russia without triggering nuclear war, much like Biden inherited Trump’s approach to dealing with China in Asia.
… in the current landscape of two weaker powers and one dominant power, the ideas of “uniting with Russia to counter China” or “uniting with China to counter Russia” are pure fantasy.
Based on the vastly different demands of Russia and Ukraine at the peace talks, Trump is unlikely to successfully mediate the war. Even if mediation is successful, it would be extremely unfavourable for Russia. An unsuccessful mediation would benefit “Make America Great Again” more than a successful resolution.
Also, some in the US advocate “uniting with Russia to counter China”, while some Chinese academics have also expressed concern over this possibility. However, this is just wishful thinking unless Putin is politically naive.
During the Three Kingdoms period, Wu and Shu could only barely survive by joining forces. If either side had joined forces with the powerful Wei, it would undoubtedly be suicide. Hence, while Wu and Shu might clash over Jingzhou, neither side would ally with the Cao Wei kingdom.
Therefore, in the current landscape of two weaker powers and one dominant power, the ideas of “uniting with Russia to counter China” or “uniting with China to counter Russia” are pure fantasy.
This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “从特朗普思路探析对俄乌战争的烟雾”.
Related: Will Trump 2.0 end all wars? | The Ukraine war: Trump’s biggest deal yet?
Damascus falls: China’s Middle East dilemma deepens
By Alessandro Arduino
Has China unveiled its sixth-generation fighter?
By Yu Zeyuan
The politics of sinophobia in Malaysia
By Ngu Ik Tien
Why BMW, Audi and Mercedes are losing their shine in China
By Caixin Global
How AstraZeneca’s China fraud was about more than greed
By Caixin Global
Insights on China, right in your mailbox. Sign up now.
