Does Trump Want to Be the President Who Lost Ukraine?
Almost as shameful, eighty senators are co-sponsoring a strong, veto-proof bill introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham to impose secondary sanctions on entities that enable Russia's flagrant violations of international law in Ukraine. But Graham's bill isn't moving. It's reasonable to believe it's being held in reserve to provide political cover, which allows senators to say they are tough on Russia and supportive of Ukraine while avoiding any pressure on the president. Hypocrisy, sadly, remains a cornerstone of Senate business.
For more than three decades, through administrations of both parties, the United States has affirmed Ukraine's sovereignty. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by President Clinton along with the United Kingdom and Russia, committed the United States to uphold Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for its surrender of nuclear weapons.
Now President Trump is apparently growing frustrated with the war in Ukraine and considering washing America's hands of it altogether. When the United States withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, many observers warned that the chaotic exit damaged America's credibility and weakened its global standing. That moment is now etched into President Biden's legacy. If President Trump were to withdraw U.S. support from Ukraine too abruptly, he could face a similar judgment. Would he lose Taiwan next?
Get the best coverage of politics and policy available anywhere. Become a Bulwark+ member.
Some argue that stepping back is a way to avoid escalation, and that Trump is actually protecting Europe and the West. But we have heard this before. In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from meeting Hitler in Munich declaring 'peace for our time.' That short-term concession did not prevent war. It only delayed it.
President Zelensky warned against repeating that history in his 2022 remarks at the Munich Security Conference. He urged the West not to appease aggression. That warning now seems more urgent than ever.
A recalibration of America's role in the war is possible, and even reasonable. Ukraine is far more resilient than it was in 2022, with a stronger domestic arms industry and deeper ties to Europe. But a precipitous American exit—especially one that halts intelligence cooperation or the flow of critical weapons—would affirm for Putin that time is on his side. It could fracture Ukraine's battlefield cohesion, strain European supply chains, and open the door to renewed Russian advances both in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Despite Putin's overtures to Trump, Russia's objectives remain unchanged. Moscow continues to occupy Ukrainian territory, target civilian infrastructure, and destabilize the broader European security order. Just as it did in Crimea in 2014, the Kremlin seeks to redraw borders through force. Others, including Beijing, are watching to see whether they succeed.
Putin has also made clear that his ambitions extend beyond Ukraine, including a rollback of NATO's presence in Eastern Europe. A failed Ukrainian defense could encourage him to test NATO's Article 5 commitments, especially in the Baltic states. Preventing that scenario now, through sustained support for Ukraine, is far less costly than confronting it later with American troops on the ground.
As someone who recently discovered Ukrainian roots in my own family, I feel a deeper connection to the courage of Ukraine's people. Their strength lies not only in their weapons, but in their will. They have not asked the United States to fight for them—only to stand with them. They have borne immense casualties, held the line for Europe, and proven their resolve beyond doubt.
President Trump often speaks the language of power. Lasting power is measured not in threats or slogans, but in the consistency of our commitments and the clarity of our values. Standing with European allies who have shown a willingness to engage with his administration and who still believe in American leadership is not weakness, it is the foundation of deterrence. Showing leadership and resolve now is the surest way to avoid being remembered as a loser.
Share
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
6th Republican-led state sends National Guard troops to DC
The number of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., increased again on Tuesday as a sixth Republican-led state sent some of its soldiers to the nation's capital as part of the president's activation to fight what he claims is rising crime in the city. Tennessee sent 160 troops to the nation's capital on Tuesday, bringing the total number of troops ordered to the city to 2,021. About 900 members, which include members of the military police, have actually mobilized as of Tuesday afternoon and many of those members are unarmed. Aside from members of the D.C. National Guard, five other states previously sent their military members to serve in Trump's mobilization: Louisiana, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi. Guard troops are now helping law enforcement at 10 Metro stations, in addition to keeping a small presence along the National Mall, according to officials in charge of the operation, which they are now calling "D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force." MORE: Sen. Van Hollen says an armed National Guard in DC would be 'troubling' Stations include L'Enfant Plaza, Gallery Place, Metro Center and Union Station. Officials previously said Guard personnel are not arresting people, only helping to detain individuals briefly if necessary before handing them off to law enforcement. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced later in the day there have been a total of 465 arrests since Trump launched federal law enforcement in Washington on Aug. 7. There were 52 arrests Monday night, according to Leavitt. Information about potential charges from those arrests has not been revealed. "Four more homeless encampments were also removed during yesterday's reporting period. To date, a total of 48 homeless encampments have been cleared in Washington, D.C., by multi-agency teams," she added. When asked by a reporter how long residents in the city should expect the National Guard to remain deployed in the district, Levitt said that they don't have a "timeline" to share. ABC News' Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump blows past the Senate to put loyalists in charge of prosecutorial offices across the country
Around the country, President Donald Trump is circumventing the Senate to install top federal prosecutors, using loopholes to keep loyalists in place. In U.S. attorney's offices in Los Angeles, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and upstate New York, the administration has effectively sidestepped or overridden both the Senate confirmation and judicial appointment processes for selecting U.S. attorneys. When Trump's nominees can't get confirmed by the Senate, as required by federal law, the administration installs them on a temporary basis as 'interim' U.S. attorneys, who are legally allowed to serve for 120 days. And when district judges have then rejected Trump's choices by exercising a 160-year-old power allowing them to appoint someone to the office after an interim U.S. attorney's term ends, the administration has in a few cases taken an extraordinary step: voiding the judges' decision and reinstalling Trump's desired prosecutor as an 'acting' U.S. attorney, who can serve for an additional 210 days beyond the initial 120-day interim period. In two instances, the Trump administration preempted the judges' votes, appointing the interim U.S. attorneys as acting U.S. attorneys before the judges could have their say. And in at least one district, the administration's attempt to sidestep the Senate and district judges is being challenged in court. Though the law doesn't explicitly forbid the Trump administration's approach of appointing people to successive temporary stints, 'the intent [of the law] was always for Senate confirmation,' said Jennifer Selin, a professor at Arizona State University law school. 'The Trump administration has been very strategic in using the law in this particular way,' Selin said. A spokesperson for the Justice Department didn't respond to a request for comment. The nation's 93 U.S. attorneys are the top federal law enforcement officials in their geographic districts. While they are nominated by the president, the Justice Department has historically sought to insulate them from political influence. And the president's selections are expected to have the blessing of another branch of government — either the Senate or the courts. Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law school professor, said the workarounds are alarming because they eliminate the vetting process conducted by the Senate, calling it 'a perversion of what the Constitution seems to require.' Critics worry that the lack of oversight on some of Trump's picks could create a perception — if not a reality — that those prosecutors are simply doing the White House's bidding and using their offices for political purposes. For instance, Trump's pick in New Jersey, Alina Habba, has been criticized for prosecuting a Democratic member of Congress who was attempting to conduct an oversight visit at an immigration detention center. Trump's strategy of overriding the other branches could also create tension between U.S. attorney's offices and the district courts in which they operate. 'Senatorial influence over selection has really been a critical aspect of the U.S. attorney's system, and so has the relationship between the U.S. attorney and local institutions like the district court bench, local governments and local communities,' said Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and former federal prosecutor. 'And when you start ramming people down into these offices without any consideration of local communities, and in particular of the district court bench, bad things happen.' Richman pointed to a recent ruling in Manhattan denying the DOJ's effort to unseal secret materials in the cases of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein as an example of 'judges looking askance at an effort by Washington to circumvent the district.' 'District judges really care about the integrity, and, to some extent, the autonomy of the U.S. attorney's offices that appear before them,' he said. 'They, like any actor, like to help shape the quality of justice that's done in their courtroom, and they do that not just through their rulings, but through the influence they have on the U.S. attorney's offices. And U.S. attorney's offices that have any desire to be effective tend to their relationship with the local bench.' The most dramatic fight over a U.S. attorney post in the second Trump administration has been in New Jersey, where earlier this year Trump picked Habba, one of his former personal defense attorneys and a vocal supporter, to serve as U.S. attorney on an interim basis while also nominating her to take the job permanently. Habba, who had never worked as a prosecutor, is a controversial figure who opened a number of politically charged cases in her first few months on the job. Her office charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) with assaulting federal agents after she clashed with immigration officials while attempting to visit an immigration detention center; she is seeking to get the case dismissed. Habba's office also arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, a Democrat, but later dropped the case. And shortly after Habba took office, she opened an investigation into Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, over the state's immigration policies. It quickly became clear that Habba could not win Senate confirmation. So when her term as interim U.S. attorney was about to expire last month, district judges in New Jersey voted to determine who should occupy the post indefinitely until the Senate could confirm someone to the job. The judges declined to keep Habba in office, voting instead to install longtime career prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace. But Trump quickly bypassed that selection, reinstalling Habba on a longer-term but still temporary basis as acting U.S. attorney. He did so by having the Justice Department fire Grace while simultaneously withdrawing Habba's nomination in the Senate. The withdrawal was important because nominees for a full-time U.S. attorney post generally cannot also serve in an 'acting' capacity, per federal law. But once Habba was no longer a nominee before the Senate, the Trump administration argued, she could remain in the job for another 210 days, or about seven months. What will happen after that remains unclear. Trump's workaround to keep Habba in the job for now is contested. A defendant in a drug and gun case in New Jersey is arguing that the administration's maneuvering was irregular and unconstitutional and is challenging Habba's authority. Habba's office didn't respond to a request for comment. Slightly different scenarios have played out in other U.S. attorney's offices. In the Northern District of New York, which covers Albany and Buffalo, Trump's interim choice for the job was John Sarcone III, a Republican lawyer who has run for office unsuccessfully several times and, like Habba, had no apparent prosecutorial experience. Sarcone had a tumultuous start to his tenure that included listing his address on a police affidavit as a location that was actually a boarded-up building. When Sarcone's 120-day interim period expired, the district judges in northern New York declined to appoint him to continue in the job. But unlike in New Jersey, the judges did not select a substitute — they simply didn't appoint anyone. The Justice Department responded by giving Sarcone an appointment of 'special attorney' with an 'indefinite' term so that he could return to the job. The office didn't respond to a request for comment. A similar sequence occurred in New Mexico last week. The district judges in the state declined to extendTrump's pick for interim U.S. attorney, Ryan Ellison. So the Justice Department converted him to the 'acting' head of the office under a federal vacancies law. As with Habba, that maneuver allows Trump to chain together the 120-day interim period and the 210-day acting period — potentially allowing the non-confirmed official to remain on the job for nearly a full year. New Mexico's Democratic senators, Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján, said the decision exemplified 'this administration's continuing willingness to trample the role of the Judiciary and Congress.' Ellison embraced the move, saying in a statement: 'I applaud New Mexico's federal district judges for declining to appoint someone other than the Trump Administration's choice to lead the United States Attorney's Office as they had the discretion to do at the end of my interim appointment.' He added that 'the appointment of a U.S. Attorney is a process that should be sorted out in a collaborative and professional manner between the executive and legislative branches of government.' In one powerful district — the Southern District of New York, which is based in Manhattan — Trump's interim U.S. attorney pick did not run into resistance from judges. On Monday, the judges there voted to retain Trump's choice, former Securities and Exchange Commission chair Jay Clayton. The vote allows Clayton to continue running the office indefinitely, even though Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) blocked Clayton's confirmation in the Senate. In the Central District of California, which is based in Los Angeles, Trump's interim choice was Bill Essayli, a Republican who had been serving in the California State Assembly. In his early months on the job, Essayli drew scrutiny for reportedly pushing prosecutors to bring cases desired by the Trump administration but unsupported by sufficient evidence. As his interim period was coming to an end, the Trump administration converted Essayli's title from interim to acting. It's not clear if the district's judges ever held a vote on the post. The court didn't provide an answer when asked about it. A spokesperson for Essayli's office declined to comment. And the administration deployed the same tactic in Nevada to keep in place Sigal Chattah. In the final days of her temporary tenure as interim U.S. attorney, a group of more than 100 retired federal and state judges wrote to the chief federal district judge in Nevada to object to voting to install Chattah after her appointment expired. The group said her history of 'racially charged, violence-tinged, and inflammatory public statements' disqualified her. Instead of waiting for the judicial vote, the Trump administration simply made her the acting U.S. attorney. The office didn't respond to a request for comment. While Trump may be getting his way on U.S. attorney choices for now, the strategy may ultimately come back to haunt him. Retired U.S. District Judge John S. Martin predicted that the practical effect of the maneuvers is that a U.S. attorney who is installed over the objections of the local bench will lose credibility with the judges, not necessarily because of any actions they take, but simply by virtue of the process. That may jeopardize cases in court for prosecutors, Martin said, because it 'means that when the government comes in and asserts something a little bit unusual, it's going to get a very skeptical view from the court.'
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK Drops Apple Backdoor Mandate After Talks With U.S. Spy Chief Gabbard
U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Monday the U.K. agreed to drop its order requiring Apple (AAPL, Financials) to create a back door to access encrypted data of American citizens. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 8 Warning Signs with NXST. Gabbard said on X she worked for months with President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and British officials to secure the deal. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was in Washington on Monday for talks with Trump and other European leaders. The U.K. mandate, issued earlier this year, had forced Apple to suspend its Advanced Data Protection feature for British users in February. The iPhone maker challenged the order at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, warning that backdoors could be exploited by hackers and authoritarian regimes. U.S. lawmakers argued the demand could have violated the CLOUD Act, which restricts governments from ordering access to the encrypted data of another country's citizens. Gabbard had raised the concern in a February letter to Congress. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
