Trump’s choice on Ukraine: Vietnam or no Vietnam?

The US simply has no leverage: Just leave

Over the weekend, President-elect Trump went to Paris to meet primarily with Zelensky and Macron, presumably to talk about Ukraine and NATO. His NBC interview, over one hour long, which had been recorded shortly before Friday’s flight to France, was also made available on Sunday. It is this NBC interview that forms the primary basis for this latest analysis of Trump’s choices regarding Ukraine:

Trump’s latest on US membership in NATO

Trump said that if the other NATO members don’t pay their fair share -- unclear exactly what that would be -- then he would strongly consider having the US get out of NATO. He mentioned that the US is in for $350 billion in Ukraine, compared with $100 billion for the other NATO members. Maybe it means that unless the others cough up an incremental $250 billion, the US won’t add another dime -- for now.

That still begs this question -- among others: Why should the US add money to the Ukraine conflict even if the other NATO members add just as much money? The issue of financing the war is separate from a discussion of whether the war is a good idea regardless of who is financing it. I mean, a war doesn’t become a good war just because someone else finances 50% of it -- or even 100% of it.

The Russian perspective: This is our backyard, just like Cuba is yours

Trump arguing with the other NATO members as to who should pay what percentage of the war in Ukraine has no bearing on the Russian national security interests. Russia spelled out its terms in various ways starting in the late 1990s and culminating in the ultimatum on December 17, 2021: Here are the terms, perhaps there is some negotiation to be had around the edges, but basically if you don’t agree to these terms, there will be war with Ukraine. The US chose to spit in Russia’s face, and therefore we got the war.

Stated differently, Russia is going to get what it needs from the Ukraine situation, one way or the other. It will either happen the hard way, or the less hard way. But it will happen. It’s just like Vietnam 1965-1975: North Vietnam will conquer South Vietnam either the hard way, or the less hard way. Conversely, the US will either lose the conflict the hard way or the easy way. We learned that the hard way in Vietnam. Yet, the US political leadership appears to now have forgotten this lesson.

Here is the Russian perspective, as articulated by Alexander Dugin in a debate with John Mearsheimer:

Trump has no leverage against Russia

Trump sometimes, and for sure his National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Ukraine Envoy Keith Kellogg, say that if Russia doesn’t agree to a future -- post January 20, 2025 -- US peace proposal, the US is going to somehow ratchet up the war with Russia, via Ukraine. This is not a credible threat, assuming that is the actual threat that gets put on the table against Russia in January 2025.

Trump was elected by an American majority who has zero interest in war in Ukraine. Most Americans can’t even identify Ukraine on a world map. Americans don’t want a single additional dollar to be spent in Ukraine.

If Trump were to increase the US conflict in Ukraine by bombing Russia, he would lose his own Republican Party base of support, quickly and badly. Republicans overwhelmingly want the US to just get the heck out of Ukraine immediately, full stop.

Yes, I know -- there is a vocal minority of Republicans who want to go to war with Russia. They are mostly military contractors. In any case, they are not going to Ukraine themselves, but rather they want other people to die on that battlefield. It’s so easy when you can have other people die for your foreign policy fantasies, all paid for by taxpayer dollars.

Therefore, the only way Trump could make any pressure on Russia come true, is to destroy his own Republican Party base of support at home. Trump’s popularity ratings would drop like a rock, and the 2026 midterms would become a disaster for the Republicans, whose voters would either stay home or switch to the Democrats or Libertarians.

The good news: Ukraine isn’t Trump’s war

The war in Ukraine has its roots with Bill Clinton in 1994. It saw its first peak 1997-99, and then again under George Bush, Obama, then largely paused under Trump 2016-2020, and then shifted to a hot war under Biden-Harris as they refused to negotiate the December 2021 Russian ultimatum.

In other words, Trump does not own this war. He may not have rolled things back to its legitimate 1991 state during his first term -- by abolishing NATO -- but at least it was the only four years under which the Ukraine conflict did not worsen in the 30 years 1994-2024. Basically, Trump’s hands are clean.

It should therefore be no loss of prestige or face for Trump to say, on January 20, 2025, that “US involvement in Ukraine is hereby over. It was not my war, and it ends today.” Trump could end the whole thing immediately on Day One, simply by withdrawing all US involvement -- and likely earn The Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump has to decide: Vietnam 2.0, or no Vietnam

The only way that Ukraine becomes a problem for Trump after January 20, 2025, is if his national security hawks such as Keith Kellogg and Mike Waltz talk him into thinking that there is a way to solve the Ukraine conflict by threatening Russia, let alone escalating the war against Russia. Then Trump has a big problem on his hands -- on the ground in and around Ukraine, as well as with his political base of support at home.

One would think Trump, considering the downside of presiding over Vietnam 2.0, would then choose immediate withdrawal instead. Hopefully that’s what happens on January 20, 2025.