Time’s Man of the Year Has a Strategy, But He’s Playing it Cool
DEC 13, 2024
On December 12, Donald Trump was named Time’s Man of the Year. What did we learn from his comments to Time about his commitment to Ukraine? And why does Trump’s strategy necessarily involve threats of increased aid to Kyiv if Russia remains cold to meaningful negotiations?
In the President-elect’s exclusive interview from Mar-a-Lago as Time’s Man of the Year, Time reports Donald Trump made it clear he “would use U.S. support for Ukraine as leverage against Russia in negotiating an end to the war.”
Trump pledged “the only way you’re going to reach an agreement is not to abandon [Ukraine].”
Translation – Trump recognizes he must be willing to escalate America’s support for Ukraine if Russia remains intractable.
On the other hand, in the same interview, he questioned the wisdom of escalation in the context of Ukraine sending ATACMs against military targets on Russia soil.
“Why are we doing that?” The president-elect opined.
Trump also walked back his promise to end the war in 24 hours, explaining that the process is difficult.
How should one view the ambiguities of his recent comments? What of his backtracking?
Thus far, nothing said is surprising. Adjustments, yes, but his macro-messaging is fairly consistent. Trump views himself as a negotiator with an end game. The stated goal is to protect American interests, stop the bloodshed, and end the war. That he was overly optimistic about the time frame comes as a surprise to few.
Trump appears to view the process of getting there as fluid. Along the way, Trump does not like to play his cards until the mission is a fait accompli.
But on one point Trump is fairly clear – as president, escalation is a meaningful pressure point in his arsenal to bring Russia to the table. Ukraine can not be abandoned. If necessary, Trump must at least threaten to do what Biden refused to do – arm Ukraine to inflict great pain on Russia.
Relationships and the Peace Process
We also know that Trump is influenced by relationships, including negative and favorable responses to his authority. Zelensky is wise to this. The Ukrainian president not only met with Trump in Paris, but has been signaling the Trump team that he is flexible, reasonable, and willing to negotiate.
It’s not merely Trump’s relationships with Putin and Zelensky which will inform his strategy in the days ahead. He must deal with his inner circle.
Surrounding Trump are Republican colleagues and friends, some of whom have spent the better part of the last year broadcasting Russian talking points and delegitimizing support for Ukraine. Think Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, Jr., Vivek Ramaswami, Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk, the last three of which are Trump nominees but would be not directly involved in the peace process plan (with the possible exception of Gabbard if she survives her Senate confirmation hearings). There will be conflict and convincing ahead in the camp if Putin calls Trump’s bluff.
But there is a meaningful, second contingent who view the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a moral wrong and threat to the United States. These include Trump nominees like Marco Rubio (Secretary of State), Mike Waltz (National Security Advisor), General Keith Kellogg (Special Envoy to Russia and Ukraine), not to mention the acting Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.
In the case of Rubio, Waltz, and Kellogg, these men have a direct influence on the peace process and have signaled support for escalation theory.
Both sides of the Trump camp were represented at Mar-a-Lago for a lavish event on December 10th, when Time interviewed the president-elect for his Man of the Year article.
If you read between the lines, it is clear that Trump has opted for a strategy built around declarations of peace through strength, but which keeps the warring sides within his camp at bay for as long as possible by not spelling out the inescapable controversy ahead.
For the moment, both sides can happily take consolation in the hope that Trump will end the war and “make it all go away.”
How he will do it is a fight for another day. But that day is rapidly approaching which is why it is important to understand the practical realities facing president-elect Trump.
Four Fundamentals
Big picture there are four defining factors to understand Trump’s peace mission perspective: These are the clues that lead us to the inescapable conclusion that a willingness to escalate U.S. military aid for Ukraine is a necessary part of the Trump peace process.
First, he must succeed. It was the defining promise of his re-election campaign. He has staked his professional reputation on it. The first two years of his presidency will be judged on whether he keeps his promise. In one sense, it is a bigger issue for him than the border where he enjoys widespread support and has a clear path to success. It is an election commitment with global implications. But if he fails to negotiate a peace, he will need a clear and obvious party to blame. It is highly doubtful that will be Ukraine. If Russia opts out and forces the antithesis – Trump must honor his threat of increased military support.
Second, he requires significant leverage to bring Russia to the table. Presently Putin is disincentivized to negotiate. There is only one form of leverage that favorably influences bullies like Putin – pain. If Putin feels enough pain, he retreats. It’s a principle as old as the world. Rewarding a bully is a provocation for ongoing misbehavior. For years now Putin has largely been rewarded for his crimes by an ambivalent American leadership. Trump promises to change that. In this case, leverage inescapably means the meaningful threat of escalation.
Third, Trump has found a place in his administration for a wide berth of players. But when it comes to his peace plan, he has selected men who favor Ukraine and distrust Russia. His three key advisors on Russia/Ukraine peace (Waltz/Rubio/Kellogg) who will be doing the actual groundwork were pro-Ukraine hawks in the past and presently signal support for escalation strategy.
Fourth, Trump feels free to pivot, to clarify, and to change emphasis. At the end of the day he views, himself as a negotiator on a mission. The details matter, but they can’t get in the way of the end game.
Good Cop/Bad Cop
What of Biden’s decision to release Ukraine’s prohibition against using ATACMs against military targets on Russian soil?
Trump may be coy when speaking to Time, but his special envoy to Ukraine and Russia is clearly not when representing the president-elect to FOX.
In his recent interview, General Kellogg explained the obvious – Biden handed Trump a gift by releasing restrictions on the use of long range weapons. Trump now has the ability to be good cop to Biden’s bad cop. .
Kellogg: [Biden has] actually given President Trump helpful leverage…Now he can pull back. He can go left; he can go right. He can do something…[It]gives President Trump more ability to pivot from that.
But Kellogg did not stop there. He explained the frustration felt by so many that Ukraine was bootstrapped by the Biden Administration.
Kellogg: They should have been doing this a year ago…You do not fight a war allowing other countries to have sanctuaries…If you’re gonna fight a war, you fight a war, and we’ve basically pulled back on letting Zelensky fight a war that he should have been fighting a long time ago.
And even as the usual suspects in long-form podcasting were blowing up airwaves with threats of imminent nuclear war, Trump declined to criticize Biden on social media for allowing long range missiles into Ukraine.
Peace Through Strength
When it comes to the way the phrase “peace through strength” is bandied about by some Republicans, the words of Inigo Montoya come to mind: “I do not think [those words] means what you think they mean.”
There appears to be this romantic notion that the mere presence of American strength is sufficient to disincentivize bad actors around the world. That’s a mistake. It is not American strength, but America’s willingness to use strength to maintain peace which disincentivizes bullies. Willingness to use strength is the inescapable reality of peace through strength.
Whatever term the new Trump Administration chooses to call their commitment “not to abandon” Ukraine, it is rooted in threatening Russia with conflict escalation, not maintenance and not retreat. If Russia does not take the hint, Trump will have little choice but to act on his threat. Failure to do so would undermine his credibility as president an in all global conflicts.
At the moment, it is helpful for Trump to speak with moderation. But Trump’s comments to Time make it clear that he understands that Putin must be persuaded that the U.S. will inflict pain on Russia if they don’t play ball. Trump may speak softly, but he must wield what Teddy Roosevelt called a “big stick” if he hopes to keep his campaign promise to end the war.
DW Phillips is a filmmaker, attorney, author and director of Ukraine Story, a foundation for journalism and documentary reporting.
Slowly, it seems that the orange one is seeing a clearer picture of this war. To be exact, there is a great chance that his buddy, Vlad, won’t agree to any ceasefire. Why should he? Although the gains by mafia land in Ukraine and Kursk are painfully slow and are bought with lots of meat and treasure, the bloodthirsty runt won’t see any reason to stop his “successful” war. This will leave Trump out in the cold, so to speak. What then? Trump might already have drawn up a backup plan that will do just as the article suggests; increase aid to Ukraine. It’s the only strategically right thing to do. Everything else will let the orange one look like Biden. That by itself will make him think twice before dropping Ukraine, for Trump never wants to look like a loser.
“Trump might already have drawn up a backup plan”
A backup plan suggests that he’s drawn up a primary plan, which seems doubtful.
Yeah, stopping the war in 24 hrs. was more than doubtful.
“What of his backtracking?”
Par for the course.
“he must succeed. It was the defining promise of his re-election campaign. He has staked his professional reputation on it.”
LOL. His “promises” are meaningless. He’d say anything that he thought would help get him elected; failure to follow through didn’t hurt him with those in the MAGAt cult.
Remember “Repeal and replace Obamacare”? Didn’t happen; he never had a plan. 9 years later he says he only has “a concept of a plan”. “A border wall paid for by Mexico” – Didn’t happen. Said he would “clear the country’s national debt” – instead, he blew it up. Deporting all illegal immigrants – Didn’t happen. Rebuilding infrastructure – Didn’t happen. In fact, talk about “infrastructure week” became a running joke.