One of the major themes of the 2024 Trump presidential campaign was his focus on ending the global conflicts that had characterized the Biden administration. For Trump’s campaign, labeling Biden as a pro-war president was a serious point of distinction, as voters favorably compared the general overseas calm of the first Trump term with the chaos of the Biden years. From 2016 onward, Trump’s purported dealmaking acumen as a successful businessman has been one of his primary selling points, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. He promised to bring this skill to bear on the wars raging in Eastern Europe and the Middle East during the election, and electorally it seems to have worked. Now that Trump is back in the Oval Office, these peacemaking promises will be put to the test. Peace sounds good, but the question remains: at what cost?
Ending wars is good. It immediately saves lives and ends catastrophic destruction, allowing for some semblance of normalcy to return. But peace can be temporary, as well as counterproductive, especially if it sets the stage for further conflict in the future or gives up overwhelming concessions along the way. A bad peace that does not sufficiently deter future conflict will, over the long run, only precipitate future violence as our foes come to see us as a paper tiger, all too ready to abandon our allies for momentary political gain. It is far better to have a more drawn-out conflict that ends in a lasting peace than a shorter one that will simply resume in a few years.
Based on his campaign rhetoric and approach since regaining the presidency, it seems as though President Trump views peace as an end in itself instead of a means to the ultimate end: the defense and advancement of American interests. Treating the nebulous concept of ‘peace’ as the goal versus the achievement of national aims will put America and our allies at a major disadvantage against our cannier foes. If we are focused exclusively on ending conflicts and say as much publicly, our enemies will force worse terms on us and our friends. They will have the leverage, as without their assent, the desired ‘peace’ will be impossible. That will lead to more pressure being put on our friends than on our foes, which is the exact opposite of how these negotiations should work.
Whatever party is more desperate for peace will be its ultimate loser. This is evident throughout history, with the most extreme modern example being the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. That deal, between Imperial Germany and the nascent Soviet Union, was absolutely humiliating for Russia. Lenin’s Bolsheviks were desperate for peace in order to consolidate their control over Russia and exit what they saw as a capitalist war. In the end, the Bolsheviks ceded the vast majority of Russia’s European lands to Germany and her allies, losing more than 30% of its pre-war population, over half of its industrial base, a quarter of its railways, and nearly all of its coalfields. This shameful capitulation was eventually nullified upon Germany’s ultimate defeat, but it stands as a warning against the peace-at-all-costs approach.
The Trump administration would do well to heed this history, but they already seem inclined to repeat it, particularly in the case of the Russo-Ukrainian War. The president campaigned on ending the war in 24 hours, arguing that the Biden administration botched its handling of the conflict. Since coming into office, he has been steadfast in his support for an immediate peace – largely at Ukrainian expense. On February 12th, Trump spoke to Vladimir Putin about a peace deal, calling the conversation “highly productive” and agreeing “to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s nations.” He also, when asked about equal Ukrainian participation in the peace talks, waffled and claimed that it was “not a good war to go into” for Ukraine, tacitly accepting the false Russian framing of their unprovoked 2022 invasion and shifting blame to Kyiv.
Furthering this dovish position on Russia was the new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who told reporters that “the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome for a negotiated settlement,” and stated that a return to Ukraine’s 2014 borders is an “unrealistic objective” and an “illusionary goal.” These are key Russian demands that were unilaterally accepted by the Trump administration without any similar concessions from Moscow. Normally, in a negotiation, you do not cede your position without any sort of reciprocity on the part of your interlocutor. You also generally include the party most impacted by the negotiations in the process itself. So far, both of these tenets have been violated, as Trump has made unilateral concessions while failing to include Ukraine in the talks. Climbing down from a maximalist position, even if unattainable as retaking Crimea and joining NATO are for Ukraine, without the opposing party doing the same is a sign of weakness.
Instead of committing to Ukraine’s war effort and expediting arms transfers, which would put Kyiv in a much better bargaining position for the eventual armistice, the Trump team has neutered the Ukrainian position in one fell swoop. Peace is important, as the war has devastated the Ukrainian nation, but it must be durable, acceptable, and consonant with our national interests. An expansionist Russia, with its territorial conquest ratified by treaty, will continue to menace European security, implicating NATO and thus America. That is certainly not in our interests. Giving in to Russian demands and freezing the conflict without serious guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty and territory will only lead to a repeat of the status quo ante bellum, but with Kyiv in an even worse position. America and the West already failed to deter Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea; we must not make the same mistake again.
The question of Taiwan also looms large over the geopolitical landscape of the coming years, as China continues to ready itself to take the island by force. This crisis has not yet materialized, but it grows increasingly likely as the CCP builds its martial power and increasingly harasses Taiwan through gray zone warfare and aggressive military drills. If Taiwan were invaded, then the fastest path to ‘peace’ would be allowing China to incorporate it under the CCP regime, something the Chinese government surely knows . A forced capitulation on Ukraine in the name of political expediency will only incentivize Chinese revanchism in East Asia. Sadly, it may very well work.
The Trump administration should not make peace into an idol to be worshipped but focus instead on advancing the national interest by shoring up the American-led global order, even if at the temporary cost of more conflict. A peace that incentivizes further war is counterproductive. The only way to achieve international stability is by projecting strength and resolve in the face of adversity. With Ukraine, we are instead projecting weakness and desperation. As we saw over the past four years of disastrous Biden foreign policy, an America perceived as weak is an America that will get taken advantage of. This is a recipe for more war, not less, because peace at any price will turn out to be no peace at all.
