Trump can halt Russia’s war against Ukraine

OPINION:

Since beginning his second term in office not quite a month ago, President Trump has taken on multiple missions, such as securing the border, putting woke back to sleep and shrinking the administrative state to the multifront war against Israel, with fragile ceasefires in place.

Now, Mr. Trump has begun to seriously turn his attention to Russia’s war against Ukraine, which began three years ago Monday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz began meeting with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. Ukrainian negotiators were not invited. Many commentators have already concluded that Mr. Trump is Neville Chamberlain reincarnated.

I think that’s jumping the gun. There’s a path Mr. Trump can take — indeed, one he may already have in mind — that can lead to a reasonably good outcome.

I’ll explain in a moment, but first, full disclosure: I regard Vladimir Putin as a villain and a war criminal.

He has intentionally targeted Ukrainian hospitals and schools. His troops have committed summary executions, employed sexual violence and tortured prisoners.

I know some regard all this as, to coin a phrase, “a quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom we know nothing.”

But Mr. Putin is partnering with fellow despots in communist China, jihadi Iran and the dynastic dictatorship in North Korea. They have forged an axis of aggressors with a common goal: to make America great never again.

Frustrating their ambitions is, therefore, a vital American national interest.

Suppose Mr. Putin succeeds in conquering Ukraine. Why would he not soon attempt — using Ukrainian human and other resources — to take over NATO nations such as Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and even Poland?

Americans would then face a terrible choice: Abide by Article 5 of the NATO treaty and consider that we, too, have been attacked, which would mean a major war, or renege on our commitment, which would mean the collapse of the Atlantic alliance, soon followed by the collapse of our Pacific alliances.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Vice President J.D. Vance articulated what needs to happen next to halt the worst conflict in Europe since World War II. He said “that the U.S. would hit Moscow with sanctions and potentially military action if … Putin won’t agree to a peace deal with Ukraine that guarantees Kyiv’s long-term independence.”

As a long-standing, if amateur, Putinologist, I offer five points to consider in whatever palavers follow:

• Mr. Putin regards himself as Vladimir the Great and maybe Vladimir the Terrible. As czar, his mission is to restore the Russian empire.

• He has made Belarus into a vassal state. He occupies about 20% of Georgia’s territory and maintains significant influence over Georgia’s government. Because no one has restrained him so far, he expects no one to stop him in Ukraine.

• Mr. Putin is not interested in finding a “path to peace.” He doesn’t want beach resorts on the Baltic Sea. If he thinks Mr. Trump may abandon Ukraine — as President Obama abandoned Iraq and President Biden abandoned Afghanistan — he will fight no matter what.

• If he sees a serious threat of punishment, as suggested by Mr. Vance, he may agree to pause the conflict. That may be what he wants because his troops have made only marginal advances over recent months, and he is running low on tanks, armored vehicles and human cannon fodder.

• Should there be such a pause, he will attempt to prepare better for another round of fighting. If Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can use the respite to purchase superior American weapons and get his generals and troops U.S. military training, that would be a game-changer.

As British Prime Minister Keir Starmer suggested, our European allies must write big checks and possibly provide peacekeepers.

Borders, sanctions on Russia and Ukrainian membership in NATO and/or the European Union can be left for lengthy talks.

The objective is not peace and concord but merely a cessation of hostilities that, with skill and luck, can be turned into a long-term truce.

Ukraine might then become like South Korea — threatened chronically but not imminently. Mr. Putin would wake up every morning and decide it was not the right day to resume massacring his neighbors.

Another analogy: In 1939, the Soviet Union waged what became known as the Winter War to drag Finland back into its empire. In the end, Finland lost about 11% of its territory but retained its independence. Two years ago, Finland joined NATO.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier last week, Mr. Trump said that in exchange for America’s help, he wants “like $500 billion worth” of rare earth minerals from Ukraine.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called that “very self-centered.” Two points Herr Scholz doesn’t understand:

• Mr. Trump is, as usual, to be taken seriously but not literally. In this case, as Sen. Lindsey Graham noted, the president “can go to the American people and say, ‘Ukraine is not a burden; it is a benefit.’”

• A Ukraine that’s supplying previously untapped raw materials to America rather than to China is a Ukraine that’s not under the Russian jackboot.

Ending Russia’s war against Ukraine, establishing an economic partnership between Ukraine and the U.S., and helping Ukraine build the deterrent capabilities it lacked three years ago would not count as the total victory to which Kyiv is entitled, nor the ignominious defeat Moscow deserves.

It would be a reasonably good outcome for Ukraine, America and Trump 2.0.

• Clifford D. May is the founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the “Foreign Policy” podcast.