U.S. risks of 'washing hands' of Ukraine outweigh economic benefits from Russia ties

When dealing with Donald Trump, several axioms should be kept in mind.

First: do not believe everything the media reports, and do not pay too much attention to the president’s public statements. Trump’s public image is just that — an image, with little connection to his actual intentions. Not in the sense that he is hiding fluency in 15 languages or his skill on the violin, of course. He is a rational person who understands the language of interests and cause-and-effect, simply masking it publicly.

Second: his actions are not a chaotic collection of unrelated acts. They are based on a strong ideological foundation shaped by his inner circle. This foundation may not appeal to us personally, but it exists and must be accounted for.

Third: Trump listens to his advisers when making decisions. Behind them are institutions. This is not a one-man show — the system works, even if it is not always visible.

"Thus, White House strategy is really formed within these institutions, but with one caveat. Ideological “censors” — political appointees — review and align strategies developed by career staff with the White House’s ideological framework."

This framework is shaped by conservative experts and thinkers who embrace national pragmatism, or even national egoism. To understand it, one can study the works of the America First Policy Institute — effectively a think tank for the Trump administration — and the broader America First movement. Though the reading may be uncomfortable, it shows that the “administration of 47” was not a collection of shortsighted opportunists, but educated, intelligent people with a firm worldview — one we may find objectionable or even immoral, but it is reality we must work with.

Doctrinally, this framework expresses itself in three guiding principles against which all decisions, actions, and proposed strategies are measured:

• Does it make America stronger?
• Does it make America safer?
• Does it make America wealthier?

This is not propaganda or slogans. It is a real directive to all institutions: evaluate every decision against this triad.

"Another factor is that this triad changes the conceptual approach to defining U.S. national interests. Under the previous administration, interests were partly value-driven, reflecting the U.S.’s global role as a model for others, which had to be constantly reinforced. Now, national interests are defined instrumentally — decisions are assessed on a “benefit vs. threat” scale. Not all interests are equal; if one interest provides greater overall benefit (not just financial, but including strategic outcomes for the U.S.), secondary interests can be deprioritized."

Two examples from a current ideologue of the administration illustrate this:

The withdrawal from Vietnam was considered correct, as the fall of South Vietnam did not trigger critical Soviet expansion in Asia, but it resolved U.S. domestic stability issues, a higher priority than alliance commitments.

Uncalculated transfers of U.S. 155 mm ammunition to Ukraine not only depleted U.S. stockpiles but also hindered Israel during the Gaza conflict, as its reserves were insufficient. U.S. presence and partnership in the Middle East is a higher-priority national interest than aid to Ukraine, though Ukraine remains a national interest.

How does this translate into policy toward Ukraine and Russian aggression? Again, public rhetoric — like repeated warnings about a “red line” for Putin — is largely cosmetic.

The key determinant of White House policy on Ukraine is that the threat of the U.S. “washing its hands” — abandoning Ukraine — outweighs the potential economic benefits from cooperation with Russia, which some of Trump’s financial advisers favor. The White House assesses that U.S. disengagement would lead to Ukraine’s inevitable defeat, creating a “second Afghanistan” exponentially larger, and factoring in upcoming midterm elections and potential Chinese aggression if Ukraine falls.

Therefore, circumstances themselves push the White House to act more assertively against Putin, regardless of public displays of cordiality. Proposals for increased aid to Ukraine are already underway, along with additional measures to pressure Putin.

What should Ukraine do? One could fantasize that the U.S. is unnecessary, but if that were true, European leaders and NATO would not be constantly courting Washington.

It would be prudent to complement these negative stakes with positive leverage. The White House recognizes Ukraine’s strategic importance to U.S. national security — our battlefield experience is unique and invaluable, and our defense technologies and solutions are proven in modern combat. From my own experience with administration officials, I am confident that Ukraine can secure far stronger positions than it currently holds, if we act intelligently, cohesively, and calmly.

Source

About the author: Serhii Vysotskyi, journalist, former Member of Parliament of Ukraine.

The editorial team does not necessarily share the opinions expressed by blog authors.