Putin-Trump Plan: Developments in Washington increase the likelyhood of both getting what they want want
Why Trump used Orban as his mouthpiece
After lunching with Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban told the press that, if reelected, the latter 'will not give a penny to the Ukrainian-Russian war' and it will end 'because it is obvious that Ukraine cannot stand on its own two feet'. The situation seems unusual: the head of another state visits a presidential candidate in the midst of an election campaign, after which he informs the world of his position on one of the key issues on the international agenda. It looks all the more unusual given that Trump himself (unlike Joe Biden) hardly ever speaks out on Ukraine. Last July, he said he would achieve peace 'in 24 hours' by arranging direct talks between Putin and Zelensky. And, at a campaign event in early February, he repeated that he would be able to end the war and strongly disapproves of new arms shipments to Ukraine. Trump has emphasised that America is wasting 'hundreds of billions of dollars', calling Zelensky 'the greatest salesman in the world' (a formula often used by the American press to characterise Trump himself), and referring to his ability to 'squeeze’ assistance from the West for his country.
Meanwhile, the reason Donald Trump used Orban to once again outline his stance on the war is that the candidate's position on this issue diverges from the position of the majority of Americans, including at least half of Republican party supporters. For instance, a survey of registered voters conducted by Quinnipiac University at the end of February demonstrated that 56% of Americans support providing military aid to Ukraine, not only the overwhelming majority of Democrats (84%), but also a significant majority of Republicans (60%). The opinions of non-partisan voters on this issue were almost evenly divided: 49% in favour and 45% against new aid.
A survey conducted in February by the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs shows a similar distribution, but one which differed when it came to the details. Sending arms to Ukraine is supported by 58% of Americans surveyed, 45% of Republicans and 54% of non-partisan voters. The question of the need for economic aid provides roughly the same picture, but among Democrats the share which supports economic aid is slightly higher at 78%, while among Republicans it is lower, at just 40%.
Public support for military aid to Kyiv is undoubtedly declining, primarily due to Republicans and non-partisan voters. Compared to the beginning of the war, it is down 35 percentage points among Republicans and 20 percentage points among non-partisans. Interestingly, over the past six months, when the issue of support for Ukraine has become a constant subject of debate as a result of the blocking of the aid package in Congress, it has not dropped significantly, by just 5-7 percentage points in both groups. Moreover, among Republicans, this decrease has been occurring at a slower pace over the past year and a half. From March to November 2022, it fell by 25 percentage points, and over the past year and a half it has fallen by 10. Thus, if we average all the figures, an absolute majority of Democrats and approximately half of Republicans and non-partisan voters still support the continuation of aid, giving a total figure of about 60% support among all voters.
Support for continued aid looks more pronounced if the issue focuses on moral-political and international aspects (bloc confrontation). For example, 69% of Americans are in favour of Ukraine joining NATO, including 83% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 61% of non-partisan voters. Since the start of the war, the number of supporters of Kyiv's accession to the alliance among Republicans and non-partisans has decreased by only 11 percentage points, while among Democrats it has remained unchanged. If the question focuses on the financial costs of aid to Ukraine, the numbers are lower, as in the poll quoted above: about 80% among Democrats, just over 50% among non-partisan voters, and 40% among Republicans. It is precisely the financial aspect of the issue that Trump emphasised in his latest speech.
Much of the debate between Biden and ‘Trumpists’ about aid to Ukraine is built on this: Biden emphasises its importance for US global influence and the moral and political aspects, while the Trumpists underscore the futility of wasting US taxpayers' money. However, Trump's rhetoric runs counter to the influential traditions of Republicans, who are more inclined to adhere to moral-political narratives, which is exactly what Biden uses. This break in the Republican 'ideological template' is highlighted by The Washington Post columnist and author of an upcoming biography of Ronald Reagan, Max Boot, who writes that 'the Republican Party that once prided itself on standing up to the “evil empire”’ has been turned by Trump ‘into Putin's poodle’.
Peacekeeping manoeuvre
However, Orban's explanation of Trump's position has a different focus. It develops the idea that (as opposed to Biden) he is able to stop the war with a single political decision. In reality, in Trump's scenario, stopping hostilities would mean recognising the de facto dividing lines and give the Kremlin time to build up its military strength and force the Russification of the occupied territories, making its gains irreversible. This scenario seems to suit Putin for the time being. But at the same time, it will almost certainly be perceived negatively by much of American society (including Republicans who ardently support Ukraine) and will be viewed as acquiescence to the Kremlin dictator who helped Trump win the 2016 election, i.e., in reality, as a victory for Putin, rather than for Trump.
Orban's statement may clarify the reasons why Trump has been blocking the allocation of a $60 billion military aid package for Kyiv since October 2023. As noted in an essay by an International Crisis Group expert, the most ardent supporters of Trump are the strongest opponents of aid to Ukraine in Congress. Trump's position, in turn, became finally evident after the bipartisan deal (which included $20 billion for the southern border of the US) was first blocked by the Senate, and then, when the Senate finally approved the general aid package for Ukraine and Israel (with 22 Republicans voting in favour of this decision), the speaker of the lower house of Congress refused to put it to a vote.
Of course, the very story of blocking the aid package has become one of the centrepieces of Trump's campaign, reclaiming his place as one of the country's most powerful politicians even before he became a presidential candidate. At the same time, such a stunt comes with a high price. As Max Boot writes, the prospect of Congress approving an aid package for Ukraine depends on whether representatives want to take responsibility for Kyiv's military defeat. The ammunition shortage, caused by political differences in Washington, has provoked an acute shortage of ammunition for the Ukrainian armed forces and has already caused the Ukrainian army to retreat from Avdiivka. If the aid is not disbursed, the situation on the front may critically deteriorate, and the Russian offensive expected in the summer and autumn may succeed. However, in this event, by the time of Trump's possible election victory, the situation for Ukraine will be so dire that this 'peacekeeping' on terms that suit Putin will be the only possible strategy for Kyiv and will allow the hypothetical American president to act as a saviour rather than a destroyer of Ukraine.
However, blocking the allocation of funds and thus leading Ukraine to defeat is a rather risky game and a great responsibility. Last week, Speaker Mike Johnson, who had previously opposed aid to Kyiv, proposed a new plan to support Ukraine, which could be considered in Congress in April and which envisages support for Ukraine in the form of a loan secured by Russian assets seized by the US government. This idea was indirectly supported by Donald Trump, who wrote on the Truth Social network that the US will henceforth allocate foreign aid only in the form of loans, albeit 'on extremely favourable terms'. However, the bill deals exclusively with non-military aid. Therefore, its goal is to weaken any Republican reproaches for inaction, rather than to prevent Ukraine's military defeat.
In any case, developments in the US Congress, on the Russia-Ukraine front and Viktor Orban's statements indicate that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have the same plan to end the war in Ukraine in mind, at least the current phase of the conflict. This plan involves forcing Zelensky to sign a peace agreement that fixes the current state of affairs and, importantly, which is preceded by a successful Russian offensive in 2024. Donald Trump once boasted that it was only under his presidency that Putin did not attack anyone. Moreover, the US sanctions imposed in 2014-2015 had virtually ceased to have any impact on the Russian economy after 2016. This gave Putin the opportunity to prepare for a larger invasion. Now, he will likely need another four years to prepare for the next attack. And Donald Trump is the man who can give it to him.