Will Trump surrender to Putin?

A settlement brokered by Trump would mean surrendering Ukrainian territory with no meaningful security guarantees against future Russian aggression. It would also put enormous strain on Nato, an organisation whose existence is threatened by the coming second Trump term. 

While there is an understandable focus on what Trump’s victory means for an already geopolitically complex and volatile world, the remaining months of Biden’s presidency provide an opportunity for the current president to finally have a decisive impact on the war in Ukraine. Russia will have goals of its own that it wants to achieve before Trump’s January inauguration.

As well as his well-documented admiration for Putin’s autocratic style, Trump has a strained relationship with Zelensky going back to 2019. In a phone call between the two, after Zelensky asked Trump to unblock the aid Trump had recently held back, Trump asked Zelensky for a favour: to dig dirt on the Biden family. This use of US foreign policy for personal political gain resulted in Trump’s first impeachment.

Since then, Trump’s Republican Party blocked aid to Ukraine from October 2023 to April 2024. Trump has made several comments suggesting he will be able to end the conflict when he assumes office, and do so swiftly, without ever providing details of what that plan entails. It has led many to assume it entails halting aid again, forcing Ukraine into surrendering and giving Putin whatever he wants.

In his only debate with vice president Harris, Trump stated, “I think it’s the US’s best interest to get this war finished and just get it done, negotiate a deal.” Trump and Zelensky last spoke in September when Zelensky presented Ukraine’s victory plan. Afterwards, Trump claimed, “We have a very good relationship [with Zelensky] and I also have a very good relationship, as you know, with president Putin, and I think if we win, I think we’re going to get (the war) resolved very quickly.”

Trump claims that he will be tough on both sides, telling Fox News in July he will use the threat of withholding aid to bring Zelensky to the negotiating table, and the threat of pouring more aid into Ukraine to bring Putin to the same table. Those who believe that Trump will be tough cite the fact that some of those tipped for Trump’s cabinet are strong Russia hawks, such as former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, (possible defence secretary), and former national security adviser Robert O’Brien, (potential secretary of state). Pompeo supports giving the country Nato membership – though O’Brien has said that would be “too provocative”.

In any negotiations, Putin will demand that the four provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, that Russia formally “annexed” in 2022, are handed over permanently along with Crimea, “annexed” in 2014. Russia controls almost all of Luhansk but only partially controls each of the other three. 

Putin will also likely demand a guaranteed bar on Ukrainian Nato membership. All of this would be unacceptable to Zelensky and most Ukrainians. For even the most pragmatic Ukrainians who would cede land they have already lost, any ceasefire would need future security guarantees. In 1994 Ukraine gave up its nuclear program after promises from the US, UK and Russia that its sovereignty would be protected. For Ukraine, no deal with Russia would be worth anything. This time they need nothing less than full Nato membership.

Those who worked with Trump on foreign policy last time round suggest he lacks the capacity for lateral thinking, understanding of complexity, grasp of detail or the patience required to navigate complex and lengthy negotiations. Trump is influenced by his father’s obsession with the self-help author Norman Vincent Peale. Peale proclaimed that you need only self-confidence to prosper. The truth is what you believe it to be, and you can manifest success through willing it to be rather than engaging with and solving complexity. 

Trump has a binary way of looking at the world; there are winners and losers. Every situation is an individual battle to win. He is also a narcissist so needs to feel like he is always the winner. Trump has an aversion to multilateral approaches and compromises, essential in our increasingly multi-matrixed world.

The complexity of the situation and the simplicity of Trump’s binary views mean a more likely scenario is that he agrees to a deal that Putin wants, declares it a victory and moves on quickly. Trump can claim Ukraine was already destroyed on Biden’s watch. One argument he may listen to is that, if aid to Ukraine is slashed, the US economy will lose out. The US defence industrial base has received over $50bn in investment due to support of Ukraine.

But the reality is the Biden administration has not been doing enough. Free from campaign concerns, Biden now has an opportunity. At a minimum, he needs to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US weapons across Russia’s border. At the same time, Putin will use North Korean reinforcements to try to seize as much Ukrainian territory as possible. Both sides will push to gain the strongest position ahead of possible negotiations.

Some will see the potential end of US aid as an opportunity for the UK and Europe to step up and fill the gap, allowing Ukraine to fight on without US support. This is unrealistic. The UK and Europe do not have the industrial capacity to replace US military aid. 

There are also questions over whether there is the will to do so. Outside of the Baltic states, Finland, Sweden, Poland, and London, even if they make noises to the contrary, a deal would be welcomed in many other European capitals. 

In Germany, the second biggest contributor to Ukraine with the largest European industrial base, the coalition government of Chancellor Scholz has collapsed. Scholz has been overly cautious on Ukraine throughout and will now be focused on internal politics rather than leading a post-US coalition of support for Ukraine.

This provides an opportunity for Keir Starmer to recover from his shaky domestic start and assert himself as a leader on the European stage. The opportunity will be to push for Ukraine’s full membership of Nato and shore up Nato’s future European capability. 

Last time round Trump threatened to leave Nato if other countries didn’t meet the 2% of GDP defence spending target. There has been progress towards that benchmark; 23 Nato members will reach or exceed that target this year, compared to just seven in 2022. 

It is unlikely Trump will exit from Nato although he will likely reverse Biden’s troop increases in Europe and look to deprioritise Europe’s defence over US interests elsewhere, particularly competition with China. It will be wise to highlight the use of North Korean troops, and Chinese and Iranian equipment in Ukraine.

A pragmatic approach towards Trump is needed. He has a mandate to do what he believes is best for the American people and the UK and Europe’s job is to convince Trump, US conservatives and the American people that it is in their interests to contribute American support to a war on Europe. Putin and president Xi will already have their own strategies of how to influence Trump.

At the same time, we need to build greater self-reliance and resilience. Frank Herbert, best known for his sci-fi novel Dune, which explores human survival, amongst warring dynasties, resource scarcity and ecological breakdown, claimed that “enemies make you stronger, allies make you weaker.” Since 1945 the umbrella of American security has made the countries under its parabola individually weaker. The emergence of Russia as an enemy of democracy means that Europe and the organisations that secure European security must become stronger. Time is short.