Donald Trump’s approach to achieving peace in Ukraine involves compromising traditional U.S. foreign policy, including dismissing NATO membership for Ukraine. His administration faces criticism from within the Republican Party, notably from John Bolton, while many pro-Ukrainian Republicans remain silent on Trump’s stance. Support for Ukraine among conservatives has declined since Trump’s influence grew, complicating new aid efforts. Trump’s strategy appears to shift the responsibility of resisting Putin onto Europe, despite ongoing U.S. military support for Ukraine.
Trump’s Approach to Peace in Ukraine
In an effort to expedite peace in Ukraine, Donald Trump appears willing to compromise key tenets of American foreign policy. Even before formal negotiations with Moscow have commenced, his administration has dismissed the possibility of NATO membership for Kyiv, a stark departure from the previously upheld “open door policy.” While the United States once staunchly defended the territorial integrity of Kuwait over three decades ago, it now seems less concerned about the violent alteration of borders in Europe. The new U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has described the recapture of lost Ukrainian territories as “illusory.”
Criticism from Within the Party
John Bolton, the former national security advisor, has been vocal in his criticism, claiming, “Trump has practically delivered Ukraine to Putin,” in response to the White House’s current stance. Bolton’s remarks reflect his ongoing discontent since leaving his post in 2019 due to disagreements with Trump. In retaliation for Bolton’s criticism, Trump has removed him from government protection, despite ongoing threats against Bolton’s safety from Iranian operatives.
Interestingly, a notable silence has emerged among pro-Ukrainian Republicans in Washington. During the initial phases of the Russian invasion, conservative support for Ukraine matched that of Democrats. Many voiced concerns regarding President Joe Biden’s perceived reluctance to provide adequate military assistance. For instance, Senator Tom Cotton urged Biden to decisively equip Ukraine for victory in July 2023, yet Cotton has refrained from commenting on Trump’s Ukraine policy.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent advocate for Ukraine within the Republican Party, previously expressed optimism about Trump’s ability to empower Ukraine in negotiations with Russia. However, Graham has recently avoided taking a firm stance, claiming he has not reviewed all aspects of Trump’s proposals. A rare exception to the silence among Republicans is Congressman Don Bacon, who stated, “We should be clear about who started this war, who indiscriminately bombed cities, and who our real friends are. Rewarding an aggressor has consequences.”
It appears that Republican lawmakers may be biding their time, possibly awaiting the outcome of initial discussions with Moscow. Nonetheless, internal dissent against Trump has significantly diminished following his party’s electoral successes. This was particularly evident during the confirmation of his cabinet members, where there was substantial hesitation regarding figures like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and intelligence coordinator Tulsi Gabbard. Hegseth downplayed Putin’s ambitions, suggesting he would not extend beyond Ukraine, while Gabbard characterized the Kyiv government as a “corrupt autocracy.” Despite these controversial views, both were confirmed by a Republican majority in the Senate.
Just a few years ago, such actions would have been inconceivable. Yet, Republican senators now face mounting pressure from Trump and his base, with potential dissenters wary of being challenged in upcoming elections or facing online backlash. Support for Ukraine among conservatives has been waning, as Trump’s influence has shifted the narrative within conservative media, leading to a decline in public backing for Ukraine. Initially, during the onset of the war, Democratic and Republican sentiments were closely aligned, with around 50% of Americans viewing the Russian invasion as a “great danger” to the U.S. However, a recent Pew Center survey reveals a stark divide: only 26% of Republicans now hold this belief compared to 45% of Democrats.
Following the Republicans’ resurgence in the House of Representatives in the November 2022 midterms, new aid for Ukraine faced significant hurdles. Under the influence of Trump’s faction, House Speaker Mike Johnson postponed a vote for months. It wasn’t until Ukrainian defense positions were under dire threat last spring that Johnson finally pushed the proposal through. He justified his decision by asserting, “I believe Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if we let him.”
Trump’s current strategy seems to place the onus of resisting Putin largely on Europe, which lacks the capacity to respond as swiftly as the United States. While Washington appears ready to continue supplying arms to Ukraine, this assistance would come at a cost, requiring Kyiv to utilize its own resources—an unfavorable position in negotiations for Ukraine.
Trump has consistently expressed his desire for a swift resolution to the conflict. However, throughout his campaign and in past interviews, he has also suggested that he would secure a strong negotiating position for Ukraine. This aligns with the objectives of his Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg. Yet, in a recent development, Trump did not include Kellogg among his primary negotiators with Moscow. Instead, Kellogg has been tasked with rallying European support at the Munich security conference, stating, “It’s up to them; it’s about their backyard,” during an interview with Fox News. This call for European leadership seems at odds with Trump’s overarching aim to facilitate peace negotiations primarily between the U.S. and Russia.