Trump, Putin and the peril of territorial concessions in Ukraine

The Russia-Ukraine war has emerged as a pivotal geopolitical conflict with far-reaching global consequences. President Vladimir Putin’s drive to reassert Russia's control over former Soviet territories, including Ukraine, has prompted widespread international concern. 

The United States, along with its Western allies, has responded by supporting Ukraine through economic sanctions, military aid and diplomatic efforts, stressing the importance of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the international order grounded in territorial integrity and self-determination.

However, US President-elect Donald Trump’s stance on the war has sparked significant debate. Trump’s suggestion that if re-elected, he would negotiate an end to the war on Russia’s terms raises alarm about the future of the rules-based international order.

What would such a shift in US foreign policy mean for global norms, treaties and the international system that has developed over the past century?

This piece critiques Trump’s position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and explores the potential consequences for international law, treaties and norms while also examining the role of Trump’s advisers in shaping a foreign policy that respects existing global agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord.

Russia-Ukraine war

Trump’s foreign policy has often been characterised by pragmatism and scepticism of multilateral institutions. As president, Trump frequently questioned US involvement in NATO and other international organisations, arguing that American interests were sidelined in favour of globalist agendas. His rhetoric on the Russia-Ukraine war has mirrored this worldview, with Trump suggesting that a settlement could be reached by negotiating directly with Putin.

Trump’s claim that he could “end the war in 24 hours” if re-elected, along with his admiration for Putin, suggests a preference for pragmatism at any cost, even if it benefits Russia’s geopolitical interests. 

Trump has framed the Russian invasion of Ukraine not as an unlawful act of aggression against a sovereign nation but rather as part of a broader struggle between NATO and Russia. This position has led some to argue that Trump’s approach undermines the core principles of the rules-based international order.

Trump’s position 

The rules-based international order, grounded in the United Nations (UN) and international law, emphasises sovereignty, territorial integrity and the peaceful resolution of disputes. The Russian invasion of Ukraine directly challenges these principles, violating provisions of the UN Charter designed to prevent aggression between states and protect national sovereignty.

By advocating for negotiations that might recognise Russia’s territorial gains, Trump risks legitimising territorial conquest as a legitimate political tool. Such a shift would signal to authoritarian regimes worldwide that military aggression could be tolerated if it results in a negotiated deal. 

This could embolden other leaders to pursue expansionist agendas, knowing that their actions might eventually receive political legitimacy through negotiation. Should Trump push for an end to the war on Putin’s terms, it would likely solidify Russia’s territorial control in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states. 

This would be a significant setback to decades of progress in global norms promoting peaceful coexistence, territorial sovereignty and self-determination. Trump’s rhetoric could also undermine NATO and the European Union (EU), which have been crucial in supporting Ukraine’s resistance. NATO’s open-door policy, central to European security, would be destabilised if the US president prioritised appeasing Russia over strengthening international alliances.

Advisers and handlers

While Trump’s personal instincts as a dealmaker are influential in shaping his foreign policy, the role of his advisers cannot be overlooked. Trump’s foreign policy team played a critical role during his presidency in moderating or reinforcing his stance on global issues. 

Figures such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton were strong proponents of NATO and saw Russia as a strategic adversary, which often clashed with Trump’s more isolationist inclinations.

Trump’s tendency to surround himself with advisers who share his scepticism of global institutions could result in a foreign policy prioritising national sovereignty over international cooperation. This raises concerns about the future of international treaties and agreements, particularly in areas like climate change.

Global cooperation

Trump’s foreign policy approach, which has often favoured American economic interests over international collaboration, is exemplified by his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.

The Paris Agreement, designed to combat global climate change through international cooperation, was a key example of a multilateral treaty that Trump rejected, signalling his preference for policies that prioritised national interests.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Trump’s nationalistic approach could similarly undermine international diplomatic frameworks. If Trump pursued a peace settlement that favoured Russia, it could erode trust in global treaties, making it more difficult to negotiate future agreements on global challenges like climate change or security.

International treaties like the Paris Agreement rely on the commitment of all parties to uphold their obligations, and a retreat from such agreements could diminish the prospects for future global cooperation.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine war, particularly his suggestion that the US could negotiate a peace settlement favourable to Russia, presents significant risks to the rules-based international order.

If such a shift were to occur, it could legitimise the use of military aggression to resolve territorial disputes, undermining core principles of sovereignty and self-determination.

Trump’s transactional foreign policy, sceptical of multilateralism, could further challenge the effectiveness of international treaties and norms.

As president, Trump’s advisers would play a crucial role in moderating his approach, especially regarding treaties such as the Paris Climate Accord.

Global cooperation, whether in climate change or security, relies on a commitment to multilateralism and the rule of law. If Trump were to abandon these principles in favour of pragmatic deals, it could have far-reaching consequences for global peace, security and sustainability.

Ultimately, Trump’s policies on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and international agreements like the Paris Accord reflect the broader challenge of balancing national interests with global cooperation. The question remains whether Trump’s advisers will help navigate this balance to respect international norms or whether his instincts will further erode the rules-based international order.

The writer is a journalist, columnist, public relations expert and a journalism and media studies academic. He holds a PhD in Journalism and teaches at Christian Service University. Email: achmondsky@gmail.com