In Trump's World, the Powerful Decide—Everyone Else Must Comply
It’s been a dramatic week in U.S. foreign policy. Following a call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, U.S. and Russian officials gathered in Saudi Arabia to discuss the war in Ukraine and potential paths to resolution. Notably absent from the conversation? Ukraine itself.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, unsurprisingly, rejected the idea that his country should be bound by decisions made in its absence. Trump responded by pushing falsehoods—claiming Ukraine had started the war and attacking Zelenskyy’s legitimacy. In a post on Truth Social, he called the Ukrainian leader a “dictator” who “refuses to have elections” and is “very low in Ukrainian polls.”
The facts tell a different story. Zelenskyy’s approval rating remains above 50%, higher than Trump’s. While Ukraine’s wartime elections remain a subject of debate, Trump’s sudden concern for democracy is disingenuous.
A Win for Putin—And a Reflection of Trump's Mindset
The optics of these talks are a clear victory for Putin. They reinforce his long-standing ambition to restore Russia’s great-power status and assert dominance over Ukraine and Europe—regardless of the will of those affected.
For Trump, this fits his familiar pattern: the powerful make decisions, and the weak must simply accept them. It echoes the recent meeting between the U.S. and Israel, where the future of the Palestinians was decided without their input. In Trump’s world, international law and human rights are secondary to power and leverage.
A Shift in Strategy—But Not in Values
Trump’s previous approach to global conflicts exposed a glaring double standard. Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine were rightly condemned, while Israel’s violations in Gaza were excused. Ukrainians’ right to sovereignty was defended, while Palestinians’ rights were considered negotiable.
Now, Trump seems to be resolving that contradiction—by throwing Ukraine under the bus alongside Palestine. And, just as he proposed forcibly displacing Gazans, he views negotiations with Russia through a business lens. The State Department’s readout of the U.S.-Russia meeting emphasized potential “investment opportunities”—revealing Trump’s old-school imperialist mindset.
For years, critics have framed Trump as a “Russian asset,” but this focus has often distracted from the real danger: his predatory, authoritarian capitalism. He isn’t an isolationist—he’s simply transactional, always seeking new spoils to divide among allies.
Diplomacy Isn’t the Problem—The Terms Are
That said, diplomacy itself should not be dismissed. Negotiations are necessary to end wars, and dialogue with adversaries is not inherently wrong. The key question is: what does Ukraine get out of it?
Polling suggests some Ukrainians are open to negotiation. A November Gallup survey found 52% favored talks to end the war, and among them, over half would consider territorial concessions. However, any lasting agreement must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security. Forcing Ukraine into vassal state status isn’t just unjust—it’s impractical. No people will accept an imposed future dictated by others. Ukrainians won’t, just as Palestinians won’t.
A Wake-Up Call for Europe?
Trump’s abrupt shift has rattled European allies, though they shouldn’t be surprised. The notion that Europe could be sidelined in discussions about its security is as absurd as excluding Ukraine from talks about its future.
If this shock finally pushes European nations to take greater responsibility for their security, that would be a silver lining. But given how quickly past wake-up calls have faded, skepticism is warranted.
The Bigger Picture: A Global Realignment
The Riyadh meeting—propaganda for both Russia and Saudi Arabia—signals a broader shift. Under Trump, the U.S. is aligning itself more closely with authoritarian, nationalist, and oligarchic forces worldwide. As his administration cozies up to right-wing autocrats abroad, it is also working at home to dismantle the administrative state and hand power to its elite allies.
For Democrats, this moment demands introspection. If they want to offer a compelling alternative, they must address the influence of wealth and special interests within their party. Without that reckoning, their case against Trump’s brand of authoritarian capitalism will remain incomplete.
Matt Duss is the executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders.
Comments
Post a Comment