Trump Should Bring the Ukraine War to Its ‘Inevitable Ending’

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump Should Bring the Ukraine War to Its ‘Inevitable Ending’"

Episode Details:

• Title: Trump Should Bring the Ukraine War to Its ‘Inevitable Ending’
• Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
• Release Date: November 20, 2024

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The Opinions, hosted by The New York Times Opinion, Megan Stack delves into the contentious debate surrounding former President Donald Trump's potential role in resolving the protracted conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Titled "Trump Should Bring the Ukraine War to Its ‘Inevitable Ending’," the episode explores the complexities of U.S. involvement, the effectiveness of current support to Ukraine, and the implications of Trump's assertive approach to foreign policy.

Background: The Ukraine-Russia Conflict and U.S. Involvement

The Ukraine war, now approaching its third anniversary, has been marked by intense battles, significant loss of life, and substantial international intervention. The United States has allocated billions of dollars in support of the Ukrainian military, aiming to bolster Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression. Despite these efforts, the Foreign Affairs Analyst suggests that Ukraine may be on the trajectory of losing the war, raising critical questions about the effectiveness and direction of U.S. policies.

Trump’s Stance on Ending the War

Former President Donald Trump, known for his bold and often unconventional political strategies, campaigned on the promise of swiftly ending the Ukraine war. He went so far as to boast about the possibility of concluding the conflict within 24 hours. A Trump supporter echoed this sentiment, stating, “I know Zelensky well. I know Putin well. I would get that ended in a period of time. You can break that deal 100%. It would be easy.” ([01:57])

Foreign Affairs Analyst's Perspective

The Foreign Affairs Analyst provides a nuanced view of the current situation, highlighting both the moral imperatives and the geopolitical risks involved.

Support vs. Sustainability

While acknowledging the moral duty to support Ukraine, the analyst critiques the U.S. strategy, suggesting that the aid provided has been insufficient to ensure a decisive victory for Ukraine. “We have supported Ukraine enough to keep the war going, but we have not supported Ukraine enough to win the war,” ([05:03]) the analyst remarks. This dichotomy points to a lack of clear objectives in U.S. foreign policy, where support sustains rather than resolves the conflict.

Risks of Escalation

A significant concern raised is the potential for the U.S. to inadvertently escalate the conflict into a broader war with Russia. The analyst warns, “We cannot risk getting into what would really be something closer to a World War 3 type scenario by getting into a direct war with Putin.” ([09:06]) Given the nuclear capabilities of both nations, such an escalation would be catastrophic.

Historical Context and Broken Promises

The analyst reflects on historical U.S. engagements in Ukraine, such as the 1990s nuclear disarmament and the Bush administration’s promise to integrate Ukraine into NATO—assurances that have not materialized. “What is the end going to look like? We don't really know, but basically it's going to be terrible for Ukraine.” ([08:50]) This history underscores a pattern of fluctuating support that leaves Ukraine vulnerable.

Trump’s Approach to Diplomacy

Despite concerns about Trump’s perceived fondness for Russia, the analyst believes that Trump’s aggressive and unorthodox approach could disrupt entrenched policies that have failed to resolve the war. “I think Trump will… push to make a deal in Ukraine. I think he overall is just not afraid to crash into the china shop and… upend all the status quo.” ([06:03]) This potential to break from ineffective traditions is seen as both a risk and a possible catalyst for change.

Notable Quotes

• Trump Supporter on Quick Resolution: “I know Zelensky well. I know Putin well. I would get that ended in a period of time. You can break that deal 100%. It would be easy.” ([01:57])

• Analyst on U.S. Support Insufficiency: “We have supported Ukraine enough to keep the war going, but we have not supported Ukraine enough to win the war.” ([05:03])

• Analyst on Escalation Risks: “We cannot risk getting into what would really be something closer to a World War 3 type scenario by getting into a direct war with Putin.” ([09:06])

• Analyst on Trump’s Diplomacy Style: “I think he overall is just not afraid to crash into the china shop and… upend all the status quo.” ([06:03])

Conclusion

The episode presents a thought-provoking exploration of the U.S.'s role in the Ukraine war and the potential impact of Donald Trump's leadership on its resolution. While acknowledging the moral duty to support Ukraine, the Foreign Affairs Analyst raises critical concerns about the sustainability and clarity of current U.S. policies. Trump's assertive and unorthodox approach is portrayed as a double-edged sword—capable of both disrupting ineffective strategies and introducing significant geopolitical risks. As the war remains unresolved, the conversation underscores the urgent need for coherent and effective foreign policy strategies to ensure peace and stability in the region.

---

This summary encapsulates the key discussions and insights from the podcast episode, providing a comprehensive overview for those who have not listened to the original content.

Transcript

[US Bank Representative]

This podcast is supported by US Bank. At US bank, when they say they're in it with you, they mean it. Not just for the good stuff, the grand openings and celebrations, although those are pretty great, but for all the hard work it took to get there. Because together they're proving day in and day out that there is nothing as powerful as the power of us. Visit us bank.com to get started today. = housing lender member FDIC.

[Podcast Host]

This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

[Megan Stack]

My name is Megan Stack. I write for New York Times Opinion.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

I cover foreign affairs. I was a foreign correspondent for a long time, and I was based in Moscow for three years. President Trump is coming into office in January, and he is inheriting a war that will be almost three years old at that point, between Russia and Ukraine. It has been a bloody, really horrible conflict. The US has spent billions of dollars supporting the Ukrainian military. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that Ukraine is losing the war. I do believe that at this point, the only good thing that can be done because we are not going to send the kind of troops and weapons that Ukraine needs, is to look to save lives and perhaps speed up what is an inevitable ending. Trump campaigned on promises to put a.

[Megan Stack]

Swift end to this war. In fact, he bragged that he would end it within 24 hours.

[Trump Supporter]

I know Zelensky well. I know Putin well. I would get that ended in a period of time. You can break that deal 100%. It would be easy. That deal would be easy.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

There are a lot of risks and there will be no doubt some very ugly effects of a peace settlement. But Trump should do it anyway. I am personally very torn about the American Ukrainian relationship. Unlike a lot of the people who talk about Ukraine, I've spent a lot of time there. I have old ties to the country through my family. When I was a child, we had Ukrainian students come and live with us. I feel sick at what's happened to Ukraine. It's awful. And there's no. There's just nothing you can say about it to make it all right. I think in a pure moral sense, we should support Ukraine. I also do see the tremendous risk of getting into a war with Russia. What I think is very difficult to justify is what we've actually done. I think that the US should either.

[Megan Stack]

Say to Ukraine, yes, we are supporting.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

You, we are going to defend you, we're going to get you into NATO.

[Megan Stack]

And if Russia attacks, that's it. We are actually going to end up.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

In a war with Russia. Or I think the US should talk.

[Megan Stack]

To Ukraine bluntly and talk to American.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

Voters bluntly and say Ukraine is right, we love Ukraine, we cannot afford to get into a war with Russia. And that is why we are offering.

[Megan Stack]

This specific amount of support.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

We're prepared to do this, we're not prepared to do that. I think instead we have gotten into this drift in the Ukraine war where we have slowly, slowly allowed Ukraine to do a little bit more of this, or we have finally given Ukraine a specific type of weapon that they have wanted to get and we have withheld, but then we'll finally give it and the aid gets tangled up in our domestic political debates. And frankly, I don't think we have a clear idea of what we are trying to achieve. I think that the US could use some self reflection on the idea that essentially what we have done, while framing it as this very fulsome and complete support and help for Ukraine following the Russian invasion, in reality, what we have done is we have supported Ukraine enough to keep the war going, but we have not supported Ukraine enough to win the war. I don't know that we have any.

[Megan Stack]

Real reason to see Trump as someone.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

Who'S deeply concerned about Ukrainian lives or Ukraine's future security. But I think he has, he has.

[Megan Stack]

A sense of himself as a deal.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

Maker and he has a certain ego.

[Megan Stack]

Drive where he wants to be the.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

One who comes in and puts all.

[Megan Stack]

These foreign leaders in their place and sorts everything out and shows that they.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

Don'T dare to do anything disruptive while he's in charge. And I think he is so wedded to that vision of himself that it.

[Megan Stack]

Will make him work very hard to.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

Make a deal in Ukraine. I am concerned about his fondness for Russia, the way that he has talked.

[Megan Stack]

About Putin in the past.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

But I do think that Trump will.

[Megan Stack]

Push to make a deal.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

I think he overall is just not afraid to crash into the china shop and, you know, break things and make people mad and sort of upend all the status quo. And actually, when it comes to a situation that is as entrenched in, in my view, bad foreign policy habits and broken promises and disappointment as the war in Ukraine, I'm not sure that that's an entirely bad thing. As much as I kind of shudder to say it. I think this war, it is in many ways an extension of this dynamic.

[Megan Stack]

That I've seen for many years in.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

Covering Ukraine, covering Russia, which is that the US Involves itself In a way that makes places like Ukraine vulnerable to Russian attack. We say to Ukraine that we are going to support them no matter what, only to, in the end, back away.

[Megan Stack]

And we're not willing to give that protection to the degree that it would be needed when a real crisis hits.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

When the Soviet Union fell, Ukraine found itself in possession of the world's third largest nuclear arsenal. And it was President Bill Clinton who was very involved in convincing Ukraine to dismantle the program, sell the uranium to Russia with an assurance that, don't worry, we have got your back, we're going to, you know, guarantee your security. Obviously, those guarantees did not end up being worth anything. Later on in 2004, when ordinary Ukrainians stood up in protest against a Russia backed politician. That turned into a broader protest, looking for a different future, a future where Ukraine would be aligned with the west and Europe. Of course, at that time, the Bush administration loved it. Bush said to Ukraine at the time and said publicly in multiple forums that, I'm going to help Ukraine get into NATO. I'm going to support Ukraine's bid to join NATO. Ukraine's going into NATO. NATO, NATO, NATO. Well, that never happened. What is the end going to look like? We don't really know, but basically it's.

[Megan Stack]

Going to be terrible for Ukraine.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

I think almost no matter what happens. I think the US acknowledges the righteousness.

[Megan Stack]

And the justice of the war, but.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

At the end of the day, we are not going to save them.

[Megan Stack]

We cannot risk getting into what would.

[Foreign Affairs Analyst]

Really be something closer to a World War 3 type scenario by getting into a direct war with Putin. We are both nuclear powers and it could be absolutely disastrous for just untold numbers of people.

[Podcast Host]

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts. This show is produced by Derek Arthur, Sophia Alvarez, Boyd Vishaka Derba, Phoebe Lett, Christina Samulewski and Jillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin, Alison Brusek and Annie Rose Strasser. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sohota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Margelocker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta, Christina Samulewski and Adrian Rivera. The executive producer of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose. Dresser.