Donald Trump's Peace Plan

A world that will be dangerous for everyone without exception

I. Power Vacuums

“I am talking now in the realm of philosophy — in international relations there are no good choices. One thing is sure—we can leave no vacuums, because they can be filled.”

—Nixon, to Mao

Viktor Orbàn just visited his “good friend” Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Trump fed and feted him lavishly, calling special attention to the “strength” of Orbàn’s leadership. “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter, or a better leader than Viktor Orbán. He’s fantastic.”

The peace of the grave, certainly.

Orbàn, Trump said, was a leader who says,

‘This is the way it’s going to be,’ and that’s the end of it, right? He’s the boss … he’s a great leader, fantastic leader. In Europe and around the world, they respect him.¹

When Orbàn emerged, he revealed the details of Trump’s promise to “end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours” to the media. The plan will come as no surprise—there is, after all, only one way to do that—but it’s still astonishing to see it spelled out:

He has a very clear vision, which is hard not to agree with. He says the following: first of all, he will not give a penny in the Ukraine-Russia war. That is why the war will end, because it is obvious that Ukraine cannot stand on its own feet ... If the Americans do not give money, the Europeans alone will not be able to finance this war. And then the war is over.

Of course, Trump’s plan would not end the war: Ukrainians will keep fighting, to the death, with or without our help. They understand full well what will happen to them if they lose. Trump’s plan would simply ensure that they do, indeed, lose.

I can’t put it better than Robert Zubrin:

And I agree with the next comment, too.

---

Democrats are focusing their campaign message on the threat Trump poses to American democracy. I don’t disagree that he’s a threat to American democracy. But there’s a more urgent risk, and as Eric Douglas Gribble points out, nothing could be worse. Trump’s plan is a blueprint for world war.

I say this for many reasons, but above all because of the principle— observable in both architecture and international relations—that you can’t suddenly withdraw a load-bearing pillar from a fragile structure without causing it to collapse. To accept this argument, you need not have an opinion about whether America has been a force for good or ill in the world. You need only observe that the United States is not only a load-bearing pillar of the global architecture, but by far the most powerful one.

The architectural metaphor is particularly apt because when a massive structure collapses, it creates a vacuum, which nature and nations alike abhor. The gravitational pull of a disappearing great power exerts massive force on every other state in the system. As scholars of international relations have long warned, power vacuums are among the most serious threats to peaceful interstate relations.²

---

II. Patterns of Appeasement

Patterns of Appeasement

Our reader Thomas Gregg has written an essay charging Democrats with double standards:

The Russian collusion hoax may have gone boom long ago, but Democrats, progressives, etc. are still denouncing Donald Trump for being V. Putin’s hand puppet. The former president is just too darned cozy with foreign dictators and despots—solid evidence, supposedly, that he, too, is a totalitarian goon.

But what happened before and after Trump—when, as was said, the adults were in charge? Given the combined records of the Obama and Biden administrations, this denunciation of Trump betrays a convenient lapse of memory on the part of those who voice it.

I’ll begin by saying that the Trump’s collusion with Russia was and is no hoax. The widespread acceptance of the phrase “Russia collusion hoax” is a testament to Trump’s astonishing talent for making people believe any lie, however implausible, by saying it repeatedly. It’s all the more astonishing because he colluded and continues to collude with Russia right before our eyes. Why, he just invited Russia’s Trojan Horse in Europe to Mar-a-Lago and announced that he plans to cut off every last penny to Ukraine! Some hoax!

It would take me far too long to list the ways Trump has colluded with Russia in recent years, but a short list may be found in the Mueller Report—and again, the public’s belief that the report “completely exonerates” him is a testament to his freakish ability to make people believe the wildest lies just by saying them repeatedly.

In 1987, Trump returned from a trip to Moscow, organized by the KGB, and promptly purchased full-page ads in the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe. Titled, “An open letter from Donald J. Trump on why America should stop paying to defend other countries,” these ads argued that our allies had snookered us. He castigated American politicians who allowed other countries to “take advantage” of us and “let our great country be laughed at.” (Ronald Reagan was in office at the time.)

If Trump’s behavior since that trip doesn’t arouse in you the strong suspicion that he’s long been a cultivated Kremlin asset, a career in counterintelligence isn’t for you. Is he a witting asset? I don’t know. I doubt it. Is he an unwitting one? Obviously, yes. The most idiotic and useful useful idiot the Kremlin has ever seen.

But I couldn’t more agree with your criticisms of Obama and Biden. Every charge you make is condign. Mind you, I’m probably not your audience, because I’ve hardly refrained from saying so, not then and not now. I wrote column after column during the Obama years deploring his fecklessness. Obama and Biden have been terrible stewards of the imperium: credulous about American enemies, incompetent in wielding power, both presided over America’s diminution and both were, at best, indifferent to the vast tragedies that occurred as a result. But to conclude from this, as I fear your readers might, that Trump is no more dangerous than Biden or Obama would be a fatal mistake.

Trump is more dangerous by orders of magnitude. Obama and Biden were and are weak leaders. Trump is a sociopath. His every instinct, in foreign policy, runs counter to those of the men who built the Pax Americana. He’s a mercantilist. He openly admires and celebrates tyrants who despise the United States. He exhibits utter disdain for our allies. He sees no connection between our alliances and our security. He believes every penny spent in maintaining these alliances is wasted. He’s a man of such proud, stunning ignorance that he cannot be made to understand how any of this works.

He has truly persuaded himself—and worse, many Americans—that peaceful, democratic nations are “taking advantage” of us and that because of this, “the world is laughing at us.” This represents psychotic delusion. In his admiration for vicious tyrants and his contempt for our peaceful friends, he’s utterly unlike Biden and Obama. He’s also unlike Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush.

He is incapable of grasping the nature or the ramifications of the conflict in Ukraine, still less caring about its victims. Trump, and Trump alone, is why Putin believes he needs only to hold on until November. Trump, and Trump alone, is the source of Russian morale. Trump is why Putin is telling Russians that it would be mad to negotiate with Ukraine—since, after all, Ukraine is running out of weapons.

As Oleksandra Matviichuk has written, it is already a global war:

… I live in Kyiv, and my native city, like thousands of other Ukrainian cities, is being shelled not only by Russian missiles but also by Iranian drones. China is helping Russia circumvent sanctions and import technologies critical to warfare. North Korea sent Russia more than a million artillery shells. Syria votes at the UN General Assembly in support of Russia.  We are dealing with the formation of an entire authoritarian bloc.  … when we talk about Russia's war against Ukraine, we are not talking about a war between two states. This is a war between two systems—authoritarianism and democracy. 

… If Russia succeeds, it will encourage authoritarian leaders in various parts of the world to do the same. … Democratic governments will be forced to invest money not in education, health care, culture, or business development, not in solving global problems such as climate change or social inequality, but in weapons. We will witness an increase in the number of nuclear states, the emergence of robotic armies, and new weapons of mass destruction.  If Russia succeeds and this scenario comes true, we will find ourselves in a world that will be dangerous for everyone without exception.

Putin has sown death, famine, destruction, and pestilence on a global scale. Trump, who has no idea why we entered the Second World War or what we fought to secure, sees no reason for America to be involved.

Trump doesn’t just want to hand Ukraine to Putin. He wants to withdraw America from NATO. He’s very serious about that. He also wants to withdraw our troops from South Korea. He nearly did both, in his first term. His Cabinet thwarted him, but he’s made plans to ensure that won’t happen in his second term. I assume he would also withdraw our troops from Japan. This is a plan for a straight-up re-run of World War II—but with nukes.

This time, as then, we won’t succeed in pulling up the drawbridge and letting the rest of the world sort itself out. We will come to be involved, again against our will. The cost of victory will be so much higher, in treasure and blood, than it would be now, and there will be no guarantee of it.

The idea that the United States could seal itself off and live apart from the fallen world was a childish fantasy then. It’s a childish fantasy now, and it will end in catastrophe.

This is far, far worse than Obama’s naive reset.

---

V. One Weird Guy

For a moment, when I read Orbàn’s comments, I wondered if seeing Trump’s plan put in such stark and unvarnished terms might concentrate the minds of those who haven’t allowed themselves to consider just how, exactly, Trump meant to end the war in 24 hours.

Of course it didn’t.

Remember this? Here’s Lindsey Graham, a mere nine months ago, in Ukraine:

Graham, smiling enthusiastically: [aid to Ukraine] is the best money we’ve ever spent. You know, we’re on the 457th day of a war that was supposed to last three days. You amaze me. Your country amazes me—

Zelensky: It’s about our people. And your people. Your people help our people. All our appreciation—

Graham: You just amaze me. I mean, you remind me of our better selves in America. There was a time in America that we were this way—fighting to the last person. We were going to be free or die.

Zelensky: Free or die.

Graham: Free or die.

Zelensky: Now you are free. And yes, we will be.

Graham: And the Russians are dying.

Here he is, again, just over a year ago, in on a tour of Ukraine with Senators Richard Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse. Everything he says is true:

Graham: [… ] President Zelensky said, “We’re not asking for charity, we’re asking for an investment. And here’s what I tell the American taxpayer, in South Carolina. The reason I’m asking you to help Ukraine is because if we do not stop Putin here, he will keep going.

I also tell people of South Carolina that you cannot allow one country to destroy the, another country and expect that it will not bother you one day.

All three of us, Republicans and Democrats, share the same goal: for Ukraine to drive the Russians out of Ukraine. To achieve that goal, the Ukraine military needs tanks. I’m tired of the shit show surrounding who’s gonna send tanks and when they’re gonna send them. World order’s at stake! Putin is trying to rewrite the map of Europe by force of arms.

To the Germans: Send tanks to Ukraine, because they need the tanks. It is in your interest that Putin loses in Ukraine.

To the Biden Administration: send American tanks so others will follow our lead.

Finally, we will go back to the Senate and work hard to designate the Wagner Group a Foreign Terrorist Organization under US law. We will continue to try to make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under United States law. We’re gonna help the International Criminal Court to have the capability to bring war crimes charges against those who have violated Ukraine. We will continue to ask the American people and the Congress to send aid to Ukraine, economic aid and military aid, to accomplish the objective of driving the Russian invader out of the Ukraine. [sic] That includes more Patriots, tanks, ATACMs—

Senator Blumenthal: Let me, let me, just say I am totally in agreement with everything that my colleague Senator Graham has just said, particularly the part about the [inaudible] … and the most important part of this picture is Republicans and Democrats coming together in a bipartisan way to give our wholehearted, steadfast support to Ukraine. We have just met with President Zelensky, as well as his top military team, and I will tell you my heart soars with hope and confidence, because I am so deeply inspired by the resolve and resilience and courage of him and the people of Ukraine.

But I am as deeply concerned as ever, because we are at a critical turning point, a historic fork in the road for this conflict. It is a time of maximum danger but also massive opportunity. The Russians are on the verge of a major counter-offensive that will be as barbaric and inhumane as all of what they have done. The opportunity is for America to deter and defeat that counter-offensive by the Russians and enable Ukraine to win, and I repeat, win, that is the only acceptable alternative.

To the people of America: Today it is Ukraine, but tomorrow it will be us, if we do not stop Putin now. Because Putin will keep rolling and attack NATO nations, which will obligate the United States to be involved—with our troops. We should not send American troops to Ukraine. But we should provide Ukraine with whatever we would give our troops if they were fighting on the ground. And that means stop the confusion and the chaotic debate about who sends tanks and when the United States ought to send tanks, long-range artillery like ATACMs, as well as planes that are needed, whatever it takes, the United States should provide. And there is an urgency to now. Time is not on our side. The Russians are not pausing to debate: They are rearming, reinforcing, resupplying, and preparing to try to overrun Ukraine.

So the resolution to declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism was passed unanimously by the United States Senate just months ago, and as we approach the first year anniversary, we need to resolve to hold Putin, and all of the war criminals, and all of the oligarchs accountable. Putin has shown himself to be a genocidal war criminal. Putin and all who have executed his orders—knowing that they are butchering innocent civilians, children, and others—should be held accountable. And the seizure of assets should enable money to rebuild Ukraine. …

Whitehouse: […] We are keenly aware that in the last year Ukrainian families have experienced a lot of suffering and many mourn loved ones. But in the manner in which you’ve conducted yourself in this conflict you have set a very high standard for the rest of humanity. Watching Ukraine makes me proud to be a human being.

We are going to go back together and try to do our best to sort out a problem that you shouldn’t have to face, which is countries that agree that you should have tanks not providing you the tanks because they can’t agree on the sequence. And we’re going to go back to Washington, continue to raise the pressure on accountability, both to the International Criminal Court, to whatever international tribunal may be established and to courts of law for the inhumane conduct not only by Putin, not only by the Wagner group, but right down to the officers and brutal soldiers who’ve committed war crimes. We intend to be with you until the end, which is victory. Thank you.

[Inaudible] from NBC News: In your meetings with Ukrainian officials did they express concern to you that the new Republican majority in the House might cut aid to Ukraine and is that something you’re concerned about?

Graham: Uh, no, they did not mention it. Um, Kevin McCarthy said “no blank checks.” That makes sense to me. We’re not asking for a blank check. I’m not. I’m asking for military aid to accomplish the purpose of driving Russian invaders out of Ukraine. If Putin gets away with this, there goes Taiwan. If Putin’s successful in Ukraine and is not prosecuted under international law, everything we’ve said since World War II becomes a joke. He will continue beyond Ukraine.

Blumenthal: Let me let me put it slightly differently. We’re not asking for a blank check. We don’t want a blank check. We want a big check. And we want accountability from Ukrainians as well—oversight. And so far, the examinations show there has been no waste, no fraud, no loss of equipment. It has been used effectively and powerfully by the Ukrainians. In fact, they have been so ingenious and inventive in the use of what we have given them, they have outperformed every prediction and expectation by our own military. And— [interruption].

Graham [leaning in and shaking his fist for emphasis]: Let me answer it more directly. The Republican Party, in my view, will not abandon Ukraine, who is trying to expel a Russian invasion that, if it were successful, would turn the world order upside down. And I do believe, as a part of that enterprise, accountability and transparency should be part of the process.

Unidentified journalist: Thank you all for doing this, so first question is you all expressed appreciation, and the idea that you should send tanks here with the last two military aid packages that we saw, the two largest since the start of the war, in a matter of weeks. Do you think there will be momentum, we could go back home speaking to your colleagues about sending [inaudible]. Second question, the biggest question we get from civilians here, is that while they’re thankful for these new aid packages, they’re asking why now. Why not send all of this at the start of the war, when it could have saved so many civilian lives?

Graham: Well, all of us wanted to be aggressive with pre-invasion sanctions. That did not happen. So we are where we are. Tanks. If you believe the goal is to allow Ukraine to drive out the Russian invader, it is impossible to accomplish the goal without tanks. I am confident that this debacle around tanks will soon end. I could not say it any better than my friend Sheldon Whitehouse, because as Senator Blumenthal said, time is of the essence. The Ukrainians need tanks. They need long-range artillery. They need more Patriots—and why do they need this? To drive the Russians out of Ukraine. And if they win, we win. If they fail, the world fails.

And here is Graham, yesterday:

Look at his eyes: It’s like a hostage video.

It’s just weird, isn’t it? This is a man who fully understands that if we don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, he will keep going; that you can’t allow one country to destroy another without expecting it to threaten you; that if Putin gets away with this, there goes Taiwan, everything we’ve said since World War II would be a joke, it would turn world order upside down; if Ukraine fails, we fail. He gets all of this. He knows that in Putin we’re dealing with a genocidal war criminal who’s butchering innocent civilians and children. He knows that abandoning Ukraine to Putin will mean almost indescribable horror for Ukraine, Europe, and the world. He must also know that if this comes to pass, the name “Lindsay Graham” will be as ignominious as “Quisling.”

So—why? Why is he out there stumping for Trump? Why doesn’t he say what he obviously knows? He couldn’t possibly believe that because these crises didn’t happen “on Trump’s watch,” Trump prevented them during his time in office. That argument is just too stupid. And he knows exactly what Trump means to do in his next term.

I’m not the first to observe that Lindsey Graham has given up every principle he’s ever professed to defend Donald Trump. Will Saletan wrote a whole book about this, which he published at

The Bulwark

. But he declined explicitly to speculate about what Graham could be thinking. That, to me, is the most interesting question.

I wish I knew a novelist capable of bringing to life Graham’s interior world. I’m baffled by it.

---

Congressman of the Day

Congressman Jim McGovern’s discharge petition—a long-shot bid to force a vote on Ukraine aid—is collecting signatures in the House right now. The magic number is 218. If he can get 218 representatives to sign, it will go to the House floor for a vote. Then it would need to go back to the Senate.

My Congressman has signed it. Has yours?

---

Article of the day:

Ian Garner is a historian and analyst of Russian culture and war propaganda. He’s written an article that expresses so much of my frustration. The West is still oblivious to Russia’s information war:

A few weeks ago, a Russian autocrat addressed millions of Western citizens in a propaganda event that would have been unthinkable a generation ago—yet is so normal today as to be almost unremarkable. Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin has now been viewed more than 120 million times on YouTube and X, formerly known as Twitter. Despite the tedium of Putin’s two-hour-long lecture about an imaginary Russian and Ukrainian history, the streaming and promotion of the interview by Western platforms is only the latest successful foray in Russia’s information war against the West, which Moscow is showing every sign of winning. And in this war, the Kremlin is not just weaponizing social media, but relying on Westerners themselves to spread its messages far and wide. …

---

Video of the day

This is from a documentary about Macron’s frantic diplomacy before Russia’s invasion. This footage was shot four days before. It shows you how utterly divorced from reality Putin was. Macron comes off well, which is obviously why he authorized it. But he still comes off well.

---

Ad of the day

---

Podcast of the day

Actually, I haven’t listened to it yet, but as soon as I have the time, I will. The trailer made it sound great:

Dark Shining Moment: It was the moment the 21st Century began in earnest: In 2016, Russia reached out across the internet and interfered with America’s democracy, setting the conditions that helped propel Donald Trump into the White House.

A “Dark Shining Moment” tells the story of the first people to detect Russia’s interference—before that pivotal election. It’s a narrative about how information has been used to create a new reality for the public, for democracies and for the world—kicking off the crisis we’re in today.

---

1. Opinions vary.

2. For a more precise definition and discussion of power vacuums and their effects, you might try this doctoral thesis by Moritz S. Graefrath: Power Vacuums in Great Power Politics: The Consequences of Retrenchment and Collapse. His is far from the only view, of course, but his literature review will point you to further reading. He concludes from his historical survey that power vacuums may be filled in more and less benign ways, depending on the circumstances in which they arise. There are, he notes, two particularly dangerous kinds of power vacuum. The first is a void of power in a strategically significant region. The second is one such that the remaining states fear their adversaries will fill the void. I leave it to you as an exercise to consider what kind of vacuum the US would leave.