President Trump, known for his contentious stance on laws, both at home and abroad, seems to be aiming for the Nobel Peace Prize. His strategy may involve conceding parts of Ukraine to Russia in an attempt to end the ongoing conflict.
He plans to do this by meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on American soil, potentially in Alaska. Interestingly, Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The U.S. doesn’t recognize the ICC’s authority, and despite various jurisdictions, the U.S. has taken steps against him previously. For instance, an indictment was filed against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Trump ally, for war crimes.
Looking back in history, another Republican president, Herbert Hoover, dealt with challenges similar to those posed by Russia in Ukraine. In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, which it coveted for its resources. The U.S. was not ready to send troops, but Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson made it clear in 1932 that the U.S. wouldn’t recognize any territorial changes forced by Japan. Hoover’s administration wasn’t part of the League of Nations, but many of its members backed what’s now called Stimson’s Doctrine. Japan didn’t take kindly to this and left the league in 1933.
While Stimson’s Doctrine didn’t stop Japan’s actions, it did highlight the growing threat Japan posed to global order. This idea later influenced Europe’s response against the Soviet Union’s territorial expansions in the Baltic states during the 1940s. When those countries regained independence in 1991, they were quickly recognized by the U.S. and its allies.
The U.N. Charter, signed by Russia and the U.S., prohibits aggression across borders and the use of force to undermine political integrity. In 1994, a memorandum involving Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. explicitly stated that they would not tolerate military or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, or Kazakhstan.
After Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, the U.S., U.K., and France provided support to Ukraine while imposing sanctions on Russia, choosing not to engage militarily themselves.
Trump’s current approach might echo the missteps made at Munich in 1938 and Yalta in 1945, where European leaders allowed Hitler to annex parts of Czechoslovakia in the name of peace. At Yalta, Roosevelt and Churchill made significant concessions in Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union with hopes for democracy in return.
As noted by David E. Sanger and Luke Broadwater in a recent piece in the New York Times, Yalta exemplifies how detrimental it can be when powerful nations negotiate at the expense of smaller ones. Although FDR valued his relationship with Moscow, the U.S. previously upheld Stimson’s principles concerning the Baltic region.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is wary of any negotiations that would involve territorial transfers or discussions without Ukraine’s involvement. He expressed concerns, stating, “Decisions made without us are essentially decisions against peace.” He firmly stated that Ukraine will not concede anything for Russia’s actions.
For Trump, the geopolitical landscape seems to be more about real-time power dynamics. He seems to think Putin has the upper hand. However, some analysts argue that unless Trump intervenes, Putin’s regime may face significant challenges.
This unpredictability makes Trump a questionable ally for Ukraine and raises concerns about whether he could serve as a facilitator of Putin’s ambitions.
