logo
‘Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark,' John Bolton says in interview

‘Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark,' John Bolton says in interview

Yahoo13-03-2025

Instead of approaching the war in Ukraine from a geopolitical or moral perspective, U.S. President Donald Trump is framing his policy on Russia through the lens of his personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton.
'Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin,' Bolton told the Kyiv Independent.
'Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark. And as a former KGB agent, Putin knows exactly how to manipulate him, and I think that's what he's been doing since the inauguration, if not before,' he explained.
Bolton served as the national security advisor to Trump from 2018-2019 during his first administration. Bolton's 2020 memoir, 'The Room Where It Happened,' offers a candid account of the tumultuous turn his working relationship with Trump took, highlighting his concerns about Trump's ability to effectively lead, including his impulsive decision-making on complex policy issues and lack of understanding of the importance of a strong U.S. foreign policy.
In an interview with the Kyiv Independent, Bolton provided his insight on why Trump appears so eager to appease the Kremlin, why any U.S. attempt to align with Russia to deter China would be a "fantasy," and the opportunities the U.S. has missed for more than a decade to deter Russian aggression not only in Ukraine but beyond.
This interview was conducted several hours before Putin signaled he was ready for a ceasefire on the condition that Ukraine doesn't receive more military aid or build its military. It has been edited for length and clarity.
The Kyiv Independent: Trump has repeatedly claimed that negotiating with Russia is easier than with Ukraine. Despite Russia's nightly attacks on Ukraine, he continues to insist that Putin wants peace. Why do you think Trump is so eager to cater to the Kremlin's interests, especially when they have such maximalist demands?
John Bolton: Trump has said many times publicly that he believes if he has good relations with a foreign head of state, then the U.S. has good relations with that country. And the opposite is also true. If he has bad relations with a foreign head of state, U.S. relations with that country are bad. Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin. He has said in just the past few weeks, 'Putin says he wants peace, and I trust him. I think if he didn't want peace, he would tell me.' So that gives you a pretty good idea of how he sees Putin.
Now, I don't think Putin thinks he's Trump's friend at all. I think Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark. And as a former KGB agent, Putin knows exactly how to manipulate him, and I think that's what he's been doing since the inauguration, if not before.
The notion that Russia is easy to deal with dates back to 2018, when Trump left Washington for the NATO summit — where he nearly withdrew from the alliance — before heading to Helsinki for a bilateral meeting with Putin. As he was leaving the White House to get on helicopter Marine One, he said to the assembled press, 'You know, I've got this NATO meeting, then I'm going to meet Prime Minister Theresa May in London, then I'm going to meet Putin in Helsinki. You know, the meeting with Putin could be the easiest of them all. Who would think it?'
Well, there's only one person who would think it, and it's Trump. That was almost six years ago, and nothing has changed. The facts about Russia's conduct in the war — being the aggressor from the start — simply don't matter to Trump. After all, he believes in helping his friends.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has had a strained relationship with Trump — through no fault of his own or Ukraine's — ever since the infamous "perfect phone call" in the summer of 2019, which ultimately led to Trump's first impeachment. And Zelensky has tried very hard, I think, in the past six months to build a relationship with Trump, but as we saw in the catastrophe in the Oval Office a few weeks ago, it hasn't worked. And there are people like U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who I think have also decided they don't like Zelensky and don't like Ukraine — Vance once said in his 2022 Senate campaign, 'I don't care what happens to Ukraine.'
It's an uphill struggle.
The Kyiv Independent: The Republican Party historically championed strong defense policies and deterrence against U.S. adversaries like Russia. What do you think accounts for the party's shift in attitude toward Ukraine?
John Bolton: I believe a majority of Republicans actually still support Ukraine, certainly out in the country among Republican voters. And I think quietly behind the scenes, a majority in Congress do, too, but they're intimidated by Trump.
They're very worried that he will support candidates against them in a primary election to decide who the Republican nominee will be. And in districts that are very safely Republican, it doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee is in November. It matters whether the incumbent House member, let's say, can win against a primary opponent.
But I think the situation is beginning to change. More people are beginning to speak out. Trump's tariff policies are causing a lot of concern, and that adds to concern about his 180-degree shift toward Russia in the Ukraine situation. If our European allies continue their efforts to clarify who's at fault in Ukraine and what's at stake, we'll just have to keep fighting this battle day by day.
The Kyiv Independent: The Kremlin has recently said that Trump's apparent foreign policy shift aligns with their interests. What damage does a U.S.-Russia alliance cause on the global stage?
John Bolton: It could come close to destroying NATO. Having watched Trump come very close to withdrawing from NATO at the Brussels summit in 2018, I saw more than I needed to see about how much he doesn't like the institution — he hasn't changed his view on that. But even before a formal withdrawal, he could do a lot that would debilitate NATO and really undermine the capabilities of the institution to defend its own members or its interests in other conflicts.
It's a very dangerous course that he's pursuing. They're certainly watching it very carefully in Beijing, where they believe that if the U.S. and NATO won't stand up for a country in the middle of Europe that's been invaded, we won't stand up for Taiwan, we won't stand up for the Southeast Asian countries near the South China Sea. So it really does have global implications for U.S. security and that of our friends and allies, too.
The Kyiv Independent: Some argue that Trump sees a potential rapprochement with Russia as a way to deter China in the future. I'm curious about your thoughts on that, especially given the uncharacteristically supportive statements China has made for Ukraine recently. What is the dynamic that's forming here?
John Bolton: It's a fantasy to believe the U.S. can somehow use the conflict in Ukraine to separate Russia from China. In the abstract, separating Russia is a very good goal to have. But for reasons not having anything to do with Ukraine or the U.S., Russia and China have grown closer, and it's really almost impossible to separate Russia from them today.
The China-Russia axis is far from perfect, but in the case of the Ukraine war, China has been a considerable assistance to Russia. They have laundered sanctioned Russian financial assets through their own opaque financial system out into global markets. They've significantly increased purchases of Russian oil and gas. They've talked about building new pipeline capacity, which from China's point of view would be a plus so they don't have to lift oil in the Persian Gulf and risk taking it across the Indian Ocean. And they've provided a lot of political cover for Russia during this war, which they would expect reciprocity for if they went against Taiwan or did something in the South China Sea.
There are still differences of interest between Russia and China. This is not the Cold War Sino-Soviet alliance that had an ideological bond. And obviously China is the partner in charge now, not Russia. So it's not exactly the same, but I think the idea that somehow Russia could be pulled away from China as part of a settlement in Ukraine is totally unrealistic.
I don't think China has any good intentions in mind for Ukraine, either — they see it as something obviously Russia wants to have.
The Kyiv Independent: Given your hawkish stance on Russia, was there a decisive moment in the past decade of the war in Ukraine when the U.S. had a real chance to deter Russian aggression but failed?
John Bolton: When former U.S. President George W. Bush said at the Bucharest NATO Summit in April of 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia should have been brought into NATO on a fast track, that was the time to do it. Four months later, we saw the Russians move into Georgia, occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia — and they're still there.
The only effective deterrence (against Russian aggression) is NATO membership, which is something that obviously Finland and Sweden concluded after 75 years of neutrality. They watched what happened in Ukraine and concluded the only real security was behind a NATO border.
We had a chance in 2008 to do that (for Ukraine), and France and Germany objected. After Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and takeover of part of the Donbas, the West did little to impose meaningful sanctions. Former U.S. President Barack Obama showed no interest in taking strong action. I believe this all but guaranteed that when the Kremlin felt ready for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, they expected little resistance.
That expectation was reinforced by the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan — negotiated by Trump but carried out by Biden — which sealed the deal. There were several missed opportunities (to combat Russian aggression), and unfortunately, we're seeing the consequences today.
The Kyiv Independent: The Trump administration has said the ball is in Russia's court regarding a Ukraine ceasefire. But given Russia's track record of violating agreements and shifting blame, can we argue that responsibility now lies with the U.S.? If Russia inevitably breaks another ceasefire, and tries to blame Ukraine, how do you think Trump's administration will respond?
John Bolton: We'll have to see what happens with the ceasefire first. The ceasefire is not in Ukraine's interest — anything that freezes the conflict along the existing battle lines is laying a foundation for annexation of all the territory on the Russian side by the Russians.
That's been their pattern before. I think Putin has not had any incentive to come to the negotiating table because Trump's been giving him everything that he wanted. But I think now, with this ceasefire idea out there, Putin also has to be careful he doesn't lose credibility with Trump. I don't think he will outright reject the ceasefire. He may accept it, or I think most likely he'll say something like, 'I think a ceasefire idea is absolutely worthwhile and I'm ready to proceed. In principle, I agree with it.'
But there would be technical details to work out there, which wouldn't get worked out anytime soon. Putin, judging by Russian propaganda from yesterday, seems convinced that they are on the verge of pushing the remaining Ukrainian troops out of Kursk. I don't think he will entertain negotiations until that operation is complete. In the meantime, he'll stall for time, mindful of preserving the goodwill he has built with Trump.
Although Trump has given away so much at this point, it's hard to see what he could take back.
Hi there, it's Kate Tsurkan, thank you for reading my latest interview. Given Bolton's experience of working alongside Trump I felt like he was one of the best people to talk to about the ongoing problems surrounding the U.S.'s increasingly uncertain role in achieving peace in Ukraine. As an American who has lived for many years in Ukraine, it's important that my fellow countrymen and women, regardless of their political affiliation, understand how important it is to support Ukraine. I'm just trying to do my own small part to help put the right information out there. If you like reading this sort of thing, please .
Read also: Putin has likely rejected Trump's ceasefire proposal — what now?
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MAGA Freaks Out as Man Arrested for Allegedly Handing Out ‘Bionic' Face Shields to Protesters
MAGA Freaks Out as Man Arrested for Allegedly Handing Out ‘Bionic' Face Shields to Protesters

Gizmodo

time21 minutes ago

  • Gizmodo

MAGA Freaks Out as Man Arrested for Allegedly Handing Out ‘Bionic' Face Shields to Protesters

Chaos has been happening in isolated areas of Los Angeles, where federal forces and the LAPD are clashing with angry protesters and rioters. The Trump administration claims it is maintaining public order against lawlessness. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, says that the White House is engaged in an authoritarian power grab. As the drama in the city continues, a recent arrest would seem to be yet another opportunity for both sides to bicker with one another about who is right. A man named Alejandro Theodoro Orellana was arrested by the FBI on Thursday morning and is now expected to face a charge of conspiracy to commit civil disorders. U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, who was appointed by Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi in April, announced Orellana's arrest on social media, writing, 'Alejandro Theodoro Orellana was arrested this morning by @FBILosAngeles on an allegation of Conspiracy to Commit Civil Disorders (18 USC 371) for distributing face shields to suspected rioters on Tuesday.' He added: 'We are moving quickly to identify and arrest those involved in organizing and/or supporting civil disorder in Los Angeles.' In case you missed that, it would appear that Orellana has been arrested because he helped distribute gas masks to protesters. Pictures of the supposed masks that have circulated on social media seem to show that they are a 'bionic' face shield designed to protect against tear gas. Orellana's arrest is now being used by authorities to bolster a claim made by President Trump, which is that the protests in LA are being funded and organized by outside groups. 'These are radical left lunatics that you're dealing with. They're tough. They're smart. They're probably paid many of them. As you know, they're professionals,' Trump said during a press conference on Wednesday. Relatedly, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt highlighted Orellana's arrest on social media on Thursday. 'Once again, President Trump was right,' Leavitt wrote on X. 'The President rightfully raised the important question of who is organizing and funding these dangerous riots in Los Angeles. This morning, the FBI arrested Alejandro Theodoro Orellana for conspiracy to commit civil disorders after handing out face shields to anti-ICE rioters.' This whole thing is bizarre for many reasons, but perhaps the most bizarre is that, despite the fact that cars have been set on fire and federal buildings have been attacked, one of the only people whose arrest has been actively platformed by the Trump administration is a guy whose sole alleged crime (as far as we know) is helping to hand out protective face coverings so that people's eyes don't get burned by tear gas. Also, handing out gas masks is not a crime, so what are officials even really talking about? It's not totally clear. It's easy to feel like they just arrested this guy for nothing. Many other things about the incident remain unclear. The Daily Mail reports that Orellana was not the person who actually handed out the masks, and was only driving the vehicle that delivered them. Another, so far unidentified woman, is said to have actually handed out the masks. When reached for comment by Gizmodo, a public information officer for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California did little to clarify the situation. They said, 'Mr. Orellana was arrested today. We expect his initial appearance will be scheduled for tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. PDT in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.' The officer added that the office anticipates that Orellana will be charged with conspiracy to commit civil disorders and aiding and abetting civil disorders. There have been over 350 arrests in recent days, and the LA district attorney is expected to begin bringing cases soon, so Orellana is unlikely to be the last protester to grace the headlines. Still, right-wingers have been having a field day with his arrest and have used the incident to spin a larger conspiratorial narrative. The usual cast of MAGA voices have jumped into the fray to imply that Orellana is associated with some sort of vast conspiracy to 'fund' and coordinate the protests in LA. 'This militant and his network are part of the conspiracy to raise cash to buy riot gear,' MAGA influencer Any Ngo posted on Thursday. 'Who is funding and supplying the insurgents in Los Angeles and in other cities? The FBI has arrested the insurgency leader observed handing out $60 'bionic shield' face masks to rioters,' another frequent conspiracy poster with over 600,000 followers wrote. The Daily Signal, a conservative news site that was originally created by the Heritage Foundation, recently ran a news article entitled: 'Who Organized the LA Anti-ICE Protests That Escalated Into Riots?' It's incredibly unclear who is doing what in LA, so—hypothetically—it's not totally out of the realm of possibility that someone is giving supplies to some of the activists. But, last I checked, that's not a crime—nor is not wanting to get hit in the face with tear gas.

Ask Jordan: Who authorized the El Salvador prison contract?
Ask Jordan: Who authorized the El Salvador prison contract?

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ask Jordan: Who authorized the El Salvador prison contract?

'Who authorized the $6 million contract with taxpayer money [to imprison immigrants in El Salvador]?' — Gina Hi Gina, Your question provides a platform to spotlight a new lawsuit — the first of its kind, per the plaintiffs who brought it. The suit aims to invalidate the agreement between the Trump administration and El Salvador to remove people from the U.S. and hold them incommunicado and potentially indefinitely in a Salvadoran prison known for human rights abuses. To answer your specific question, the complaint that launched the suit said the State Department made the agreement. As for the possible legal basis to strike down the deal, the complaint cites a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agency actions to be both reasonable and reasonably explained. The lawsuit argues the agreement fails to meet those requirements because it is 'arbitrary and capricious' and 'was entered into without any legal basis.' While it called the facts 'extraordinary,' the suit says the application of the law to the deal is an 'ordinary' one requiring striking it down. The plaintiffs are a coalition of groups: Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Immigration Equality and the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, all of whom are represented by Democracy Forward. (RFK Human Rights, which is named for former senator and attorney general Robert F. Kennedy Sr., not the current health and human services secretary, is also representing itself.) It's still early in the new case, which was assigned to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, Washington, D.C.'s chief federal trial judge, who is also presiding over separate litigation stemming from the administration's illegal Salvadoran renditions. The government hasn't yet responded in court to this latest suit; we don't know how it's going to play out or when it will be resolved. But the case provides another possible legal tool against one of the centerpieces of Trump's second-term agenda. Whatever the result of this latest litigation, it may uncover more information about the agreement along the way. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter. This article was originally published on

As legal fight over Guard deployment plays out, Noem vows to continue Trump's immigration crackdown

time23 minutes ago

As legal fight over Guard deployment plays out, Noem vows to continue Trump's immigration crackdown

LOS ANGELES -- Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged to carry on with the Trump administration's immigration crackdown despite waves of unrest across the U.S. Hours after her comment Thursday, a judge directed the president to return control to California over National Guard troops he deployed after protests erupted over the immigration crackdown, but an appeals court quickly put the brakes on that and temporarily blocked the order that was to go into effect on Friday. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled a hearing on the matter for Tuesday. The federal judge's temporary restraining order said the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded President Donald Trump's statutory authority. The order applied only to the National Guard troops and not Marines who were also deployed to the LA protests. The judge said he would not rule on the Marines because they were not out on the streets yet. Gov. Gavin Newsom who had asked the judge for an emergency stop to troops helping carry out immigration raids, had praised the order before it was blocked saying 'today was really about a test of democracy, and today we passed the test" and had said he would be redeploying Guard soldiers to 'what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said the president acted within his powers and that the federal judge's order 'puts our brave federal officials in danger. The district court has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief." The developments unfolded as protests continued in cities nationwide and the country braced for major demonstrations against Trump over the weekend. Noem said the immigration raids that fueled the protests would move forward and agents have thousands of targets. 'This is only going to continue until we have peace on the streets of Los Angeles,' she said during a news conference that was interrupted by shouting from U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who was forcibly removed from the event. Newsom has warned that the military intervention is part of a broader effort by Trump to overturn norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. He also said sending Guard troops on the raids has further inflamed tensions in LA. So far the protests have been centered mostly in downtown near City Hall and a federal detention center where some immigrants are being held. Much of the sprawling city has been spared from the protests. On the third night of an 8 p.m. curfew, Los Angeles police arrested several demonstrators who refused orders to leave a street downtown. Earlier in the night, officers with the Department of Homeland Security deployed flash bangs to disperse a crowd that had gathered near the jail, sending protesters sprinting away. Those incidents were outliers. As with the past two nights, the hourslong demonstrations remained peaceful and upbeat, drawing a few hundred attendees who marched through downtown chanting, dancing and poking fun at the Trump administration's characterization of the city as a 'war zone.' Elsewhere, demonstrations have picked up across the U.S., emerging in more than a dozen major cities. Some have led to clashes with police and hundreds have been arrested. The immigration agents conducting the raids in LA are 'putting together a model and a blueprint' for other communities, Noem said. She pledged that federal authorities 'are not going away' even though, she said, officers have been hit with rocks and bricks and assaulted. She said people with criminal records who are in the country illegally and violent protesters will 'face consequences.' 'Just because you think you're here as a citizen, or because you're a member of a certain group or you're not a citizen, it doesn't mean that you're going to be protected and not face consequences from the laws that this country stands for," she said. Noem criticized the Padilla's interruption, calling it "inappropriate.' A statement from her agency said the two met after the news conference for about 15 minutes, but it also chided him for 'disrespectful political theater.' Padilla said later that he was demanding answers about the 'increasingly extreme immigration enforcement actions' and only wanted to ask Noem a question. He said he was handcuffed but not arrested. 'If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, I can only imagine what they are doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers throughout the Los Angeles community,' he said. The administration has said it is willing to send troops to other cities to assist with immigration enforcement and controlling disturbances — in line with what Trump promised during last year's campaign. Some 2,000 Guard soldiers were in the nation's second-largest city and were soon to be joined by 2,000 more, along with about 700 Marines, said Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who is in charge of the operation. About 500 of the Guard troops deployed to the Los Angeles protests have been trained to accompany agents on immigration operations, Sherman said Wednesday. The Guard has the authority to temporarily detain people who attack officers, but any arrests must be made by law enforcement. With more demonstrations expected over the weekend, and the possibility that Trump could send troops to other states for immigration enforcement, governors are weighing what to do. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has put 5,000 National Guard members on standby in cities where demonstrations are planned. In other Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they may deploy troops. A group of Democratic governors earlier signed a statement this week calling Trump's deployments 'an alarming abuse of power.' There have been about 470 arrests since Saturday, the vast majority of which were for failing to leave the area at the request of law enforcement, according to the police department. There have been a handful of more serious charges, including for assault against officers and for possession of a Molotov cocktail and a gun. Nine officers have been hurt, mostly with minor injuries. ___ Rodriguez reported from San Francisco and Seewer from Toledo, Ohio. Associated Press writers Julie Watson in San Diego, Jesse Bedayn in Denver, and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, and Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store