The history of dislike: how Donald Trump’s attitude towards Ukraine was formed and how it changed
By By Volodymyr Dubovyk, Visiting Scholar at the Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Volodymyr Zelenskyi “should never have allowed this war to start”, and now this “war is lost” – the former president of the United States and candidate for the post of president for another term Donald Trump distinguished himself with another statement regarding Ukraine and the Russian war against it.
These words, of course, should not surprise anyone who has followed Trump’s position on this matter.
However, they give us a reason to recall the main features of this position and consider it in the context of Trump’s political journey – from its beginning to a possible return to the White House.
The world through the eyes of Trump
Donald Trump’s latest statement reminds us that for him all issues are always personalized.
Trump almost never says “Russia” or “Ukraine”, but always talks about Putin or Zelensky.
It comes from the fixation of the ex-president of the USA on the first person, the leader, in particular on himself. The world revolves around him, his own interests dominate the rest of the priorities, so geopolitics, state interests acquire only secondary importance.
Through this lens, it is useful to remember that Trump believes that Ukraine is something bad and mostly harmful for him personally.
Of course, you can look into the period of Trump’s first foray into big politics. In particular, look at his publications and statements, which showed certain features of contempt for the international order and values in world politics.
But let’s start, actually, with 2016, when he first became a candidate for the president of the United States.
At that time, Russia’s war against Ukraine had been going on for two years. However, this did not prevent Trump from making statements such as the fact that since many Ukrainians speak Russian, it is logical to think that these lands should become part of Russia.
In particular, he publicly stated that he would consider the issue of Crimea belonging to Russia. Against this background, the position of Hillary Clinton, who even then compared Putin to Hitler, seemed better for Ukrainian interests. But she lost the election.
Ukrainian “rake”
During the 2016 election campaign, information from Ukraine helped the Democrats “torpedo” Paul Manafort, who has been in charge of Trump’s campaign since March 2016.
The appointment of such a person as Manafort to this position is already telling in itself, but that is American domestic political affairs. He eventually went behind bars until his pardon by Trump in the final stretch of his presidency.
Trump never forgot how the Ukrainians, in his opinion, ended up on the other side of the barricades.
Already in the weeks preceding Trump’s inauguration, it became clear that he was gravitating towards an agreement with Putin, in which the interests of Ukraine would become a bargaining chip (this should be remembered now).
His appointee to the post of national security adviser, Michael Flynn, contacted the Russian ambassador to the United States for this purpose. Later, Flynn also “burned out” and was forced to leave – so the list of people from Trump’s entourage, who were on fire on the issue of Ukraine and Russia, grew.
However, Trump’s pro-Russian momentum has been blocked by an investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.
This created a context in which Trump simply could not take steps towards Moscow, because he was focused on him, by the press and political opponents. That is why, when high-ranking officials of the administration came to him with a proposal to transfer lethal weapons to Ukraine, he agreed to it.
It is also important to understand that there will no longer be people like Rex Tillerson, Herbert McMaster or James Mattis in a potential future Trump administration. Trump has learned his lesson and plans to ensure that he is surrounded exclusively by loyalists, those who will no longer limit him or curb his impulses.
Recently, we learned how Trump, almost apologetically, asked Putin how he would react to America’s supply of weapons to Ukraine, as if emphasizing that “it’s not me”, it’s not my idea, but I have to do it. We also know that Putin replied that it would be a mistake and that it would not do anything.
As for the last thesis, it is appropriate to mention Trump’s conviction that Ukraine has no chance against Russia, that it is doomed to defeat, and Russia to victory.
Admiration of dictators
Trump’s personal attitude towards Vladimir Putin has always intrigued both experts and the media.
It is something close to adoration. Putin is the only world leader about whom Trump has never uttered a bad word, but usually tried to defend him from criticism.
There were speculations about the presence of some compromising material. But in fact, this attitude mostly reflects Trump’s vision of himself, politics, and the world. He is impressed by the system that Putin has built in Russia, where there is no place for independent courts, the press, and democracy itself.
Trump’s attitude toward democracy is specific.
He does not consider it to be an imperative value. Because of this, he has better relations with authoritarian leaders than with the leaders of democracies, a large gallery, from Sisi in Egypt to Kim in North Korea, including Putin.
Therefore, the thesis that one of the reasons to side with Ukraine is that Ukraine is a democracy fighting against an authoritarian regime does not work at all for Trump and his political team.
Moreover, the fact that Ukraine is a democracy that tries to follow European liberal democratic values only irritates Trump supporters.
So it is with Trump’s vision of the world.
The world order does not satisfy him, violations of the international order and rights do not impress him.
The European Union is simply an opponent for him. NATO is an organization from which there is no benefit and whose members, according to Trump, do not pay what they should.
Of course, the last point can be seen through the prism of the fact that European members really did not invest enough in their security and defense. Trump’s predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama, began to actively talk about this, and Trump has no sympathy for him.
One can also see in this attitude the specific nature of Trump’s thinking – “what does that have to do with us/me?”, but in fact the root of this attitude is a misunderstanding of the Alliance’s function, values and principles on which it is built.
The international order, which America methodically built and maintained for decades, under different administrations, is meaningless to Trump.
The retinue plays the king
Trump’s attitude towards Ukraine was formed under the influence of people who have no sympathy for it.
We have already mentioned Putin, with whom Trump, as we recently learned, had conversations even after he left the presidency. Another person is Tucker Carlson.
And among other international figures, one cannot fail to mention Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Orbán’s influence on Trump is not well known, but it is considerable and should not be underestimated.
After all, when we hear from Trump that Ukrainians are bad people, completely corrupt, do not like him, but love liberal democracy (and not “illiberal” or some “sovereign”), this, in particular, is an echo of such influence of the Hungarian prime minister .
Budapest as a whole occupies a very important position for the consolidation of the modern conservative movement.
It is no coincidence that Trump even mentioned Orbán as an example of a world leader of the highest caliber in a recent presidential debate. It probably surprised some, but not those who closely follow their relationship.
Trump repeatedly asked his advisers to explain to him why we – America – should support Ukraine. It was absolutely not (and is not) obvious to him.
From the advisors’ explanations, he clearly understood one thing: that Ukraine needs American help. And if so, why not take advantage of it and get something useful for yourself in return.
This is the root of the 2019 scandal, when Trump demanded certain steps from the Ukrainian leadership that could help him in the presidential race.
A phone conversation on July 25, 2019 and the phrase “I’d like you to do us a favor” led to a temporary freeze on aid to Ukraine, intense pressure, blackmail, and eventually hearings in the US Congress.
After the start of full-scale Russian aggression in February 2022, Trump quickly distinguished himself with a statement about “genius Putin”.
And later he created an atmosphere of genuine anti-Ukrainian hysteria on his wing of the Republican Party. He convinced others that weapons and money for Ukraine are all “in the wind”. That the threat on the southern border is more important for the US than the aggression of Russia. That helping Ukraine is a matter for Europeans. That it distracts from the threat from the PRC.
And, of course, Ukraine is corrupt, so money is stolen and weapons are also diverted.
Over time, theses became more pointed: about the supposed dictatorship in Ukraine and the pressure on the press and the opposition, the illegitimacy of the government due to the failure to hold elections, the oppression of Orthodox/Christians and many other things.
Trump himself created a social base that hates Ukraine.
This base will remain an influential factor even if he becomes president. After all, even if Trump wants to, he will not be able to quickly and effectively change these attitudes.
The latest statements about the “peace plan” indicate that there is no plan, except for the actual agreement to Russian demands.
Trump avoids talking about it in detail, but his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, shared his vision — and there’s no reason to think Trump would be different.
And Trump’s latest statements – they say that Ukraine itself is to blame for what happened to it – confirm this. He also believes that Russia is doomed to win the war, so why support Ukraine?
* * * * *
The hope that Trump’s position on the Ukrainian issue might somehow change if he returns to the White House leaves the impression of wishful thinking.
His position is established, rooted. Yes, Trump is a populist and a demagogue, so words can be different from deeds, but not in this case.
If they say that Trump can be indignant because Russia will not fulfill some agreements, then they forget that there is currently no vision of what exactly Trump’s team can demand from Russia.
It is much easier to simply stop supporting Ukraine and thereby force it to comply with Russian demands.
Of course, it is up to Americans to decide who will be their next president. Ukraine should stand aside and patiently wait for the election results.
It is also true that Kyiv will have to build relations with all political parties and groups.
But at the same time, it is necessary to get rid of unnecessary “pink” unreasonable expectations.
Our criticism of the weaknesses in the approaches and policies of the current American administration does not provide sufficient grounds to believe that a change in the team in the White House can be a positive thing for us.
(This post is republished from European Truth. This post has been translated from Ukranian.)