April 25, 2025
Ihor Rosomakha
Donald Trump’s rhetoric around preventing World War III paints a picture of himself as a global savior, but a deeper look at his words, policies, and associations reveals a far grimmer reality. Viewed through an American-Ukrainian lens, Trump’s actions consistently enable authoritarian aggression, betray U.S. and Ukrainian democratic values, and dangerously align with Russian interests.
Throughout his presidency and into the 2024 election cycle, Trump loudly proclaimed that without his leadership, the world would tumble into catastrophic global conflict. In rallies and interviews, he warned that World War III is “not far away” and framed himself as the sole figure capable of preventing it. This self-aggrandizing narrative, however, collapses under scrutiny. Trump’s policies and rhetoric have emboldened aggressors like Vladimir Putin, undermined NATO, and weakened the global fight for democratic sovereignty.
Detailed Timeline of Trump’s Russia and Ukraine Actions (2016-2025):
2016: Trump campaign officials meet with Russian operatives (Mueller Report).
2018: Trump publicly questions NATO’s relevance at Brussels summit.
2019: Trump withholds $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, leading to first impeachment.
2020: Trump calls for improved relations with Russia during presidential debates.
2021: Post-presidency, Trump criticizes Biden’s support for Ukraine.
2024: Trump unveils peace plan demanding Ukraine cede Crimea and abandon NATO ambitions.
April 2025: Trump tells Time magazine “Crimea will stay with Russia,” pressuring Ukraine to surrender sovereign territory.
April 2025: Trump blames Ukraine for the war, claiming “talk of NATO membership” provoked Russian aggression.
2025: Trump’s advisors hold clandestine meetings with Kremlin-linked figures in Budapest (NYT report).
Rather than supporting Ukraine, a sovereign nation fighting for survival, Trump proposes rewarding Russia’s violent aggression. In his recent Time magazine interview, he insisted, “Crimea will stay with Russia,” justifying it by claiming, “They’ve had their submarines there for long before any period that we’re talking about.” He further shifted blame onto Ukraine itself, stating, “I think what caused the war to start was when they started talking about joining NATO,” a dangerously revisionist take that echoes Kremlin propaganda.
As Americans and Ukrainians united by shared democratic values, we cannot ignore the profound betrayal these comments represent. Trump’s words dismiss Ukraine’s right to self-determination, reward illegal territorial conquest, and legitimize violence as a tool of foreign policy.
Direct Quotes and Citations:
“NATO is obsolete.” — Trump, Washington Post interview, March 2020.
“Ukraine is not our problem.” — Trump, campaign rally, October 2024.
“Putin is a strong leader.” — Trump, Helsinki summit, July 2018.
“Crimea will stay with Russia.” — Trump, Time magazine interview, April 2025.
“I think what caused the war to start was when they started talking about joining NATO.” — Trump, Time magazine interview, April 2025.
Acknowledging Nuances:
While Trump’s overall record on Ukraine is overwhelmingly negative, there are a few nuanced points worth acknowledging:
Provision of Lethal Aid: Early in his first term as president, Trump approved the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine—a step the Obama administration had refused—providing crucial defensive capability.
Increased NATO Defense Spending: Trump’s pressure on NATO allies to increase military spending, while destabilizing rhetorically, did result in stronger allied forces, potentially benefiting Ukraine’s broader security environment.
Initial Sanctions Support: Under congressional pressure, Trump signed legislation imposing sanctions on Russia following its aggression in Ukraine.
However, these limited positives are heavily undermined by his later withholding of aid for political gain, persistent undermining of NATO, and public rhetoric favoring Russian interests.
Comparison to Historical Precedents:
History shows that concessions to aggressive regimes invite more war, not less. Trump’s proposals mirror the 1938 Munich Agreement, where Britain and France ceded Czechoslovak territory to Hitler in hopes of preserving peace. Instead, it emboldened Nazi Germany, leading
directly to World War II. Today, ceding Ukrainian territory would similarly embolden Russia—and potentially China, Iran, and North Korea—setting off a chain reaction of aggression.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals:
Trump and his defenders argue that quickly conceding territory would “save lives.” Yet history and logic refute this claim. Appeasement emboldens tyrants. Short-term “peace” achieved by rewarding aggression only guarantees greater conflict later, at far higher costs in blood and treasure. The American and Ukrainian peoples know from history that lasting peace comes through strength, not surrender.
Expert Testimony:
Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warns, “Appeasement does not lead to peace; it leads to greater wars.” Retired General David Petraeus affirms, “Sacrificing Ukraine invites wider wars tomorrow.” Fiona Hill, former White House advisor, asserts that “Trump’s worldview undermines deterrence, emboldening Russia and other authoritarian states.”
Impact Analysis:
The potential consequences of Trump’s policies, viewed from an American-Ukrainian perspective, are catastrophic:
Weakened NATO: Undermining Ukraine would fracture NATO, emboldening adversaries and isolating the U.S.
Strengthened Autocracies: A successful Russian land grab would validate territorial conquest worldwide.
Global Instability: Democracies from Eastern Europe to East Asia would face greater existential threats.
Economic Chaos: Renewed conflict would disrupt global trade, energy supplies, and markets, severely damaging the U.S. and global economy.
Conclusion:
Donald Trump’s actions and policies do not reflect a leader committed to peace or democratic principles. They portray a politician who, through ignorance or willful malice, enables the goals of authoritarian regimes. From the perspective of American-Ukrainian solidarity, Trump’s vision is not one of stability or prosperity, but of surrender, betrayal, and global destabilization. His legacy is not about averting World War III; it is about setting the stage for its ignition.