What If Donald Trump Were President Now?
Published in Salzburger Nachrichten
(Austria) on 18 March 2022
by Thomas Hödlmoser (link to original)
If the Republican, who was voted out of office, were still in the White House, Putin would surely be having an easier time.
What would he do? Donald Trump would do what he always does — talk big about it and pretty much change his opinion daily.
In the case of the Ukraine war, it looked like this: At first, Trump described President Vladimir Putin, whom he admires because of his dictatorial regime, as “very smart.” However, when he realized that the feeling in the U.S. was against the Russians, he suddenly called Putin’s invasion “a holocaust.” And finally, at a Republican donor gala in New Orleans, he suggested for laughter and sensation that the U.S. should label its F-22 planes with the Chinese flag and “bomb the shit out of Russia.” Following that, the Americans should just say, “China did it, we didn’t do it.”
So much for Trump’s big talk.
But how would it look in Ukraine today if Trump were still in the White House? Would it not have come to a Russian invasion at all, as the former president claims? Because he, Trump, would ultimately be a strong president while Joe Biden is weak? Experts are pretty united about this question: Even with Trump as president, it would have come to Russia invading Ukraine. More than that, though, Putin would have had an even easier time.
The reason is with Trump, a united front from the West against Russia like we are seeing now would have barely been possible. Biden was what reunited and strengthened the West after Trump snubbed the allies of the United States for years with his “America First” policy and weakened NATO. Through Trump’s policy of withdrawing from international agreements and weakening alliances, particularly NATO, Putin may have been encouraged further in his plan of attack, which Trump’s former national security advisor, John Bolton, recently pointed out. With Trump’s policy, “Putin saw Trump doing a lot of work for him,” Bolton said. “Putin would’ve gotten what he wanted in Ukraine for a lot lower price than he’s paying now.” Some observers and commentators go so far as to claim that as president, Trump possibly would have supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Still, even if Trump had criticized Putin after public pressure in the U.S., he would barely have succeeded as president in creating such unity within the West and NATO as Biden has now.
“It is conceivable that Trump would have responded to the outbreak of war with strong language,” Michael Hochgeschwender, historian and U.S. expert from the University of Munich, commented. Admittedly, Trump’s big talk would have done nothing to change Putin’s determination. “One saw the same thing with North Korea — Trump also didn’t act on his words then. He armed himself verbally, then that burst like a bubble. Ultimately, nothing resulted from the talks with Kim Jong Un.”
With Trump in the White House, NATO would also likely offer less protection to the Baltic states, which are feeling threatened, than it is currently. “The Baltic states would have been in danger — especially considering the Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia,” Hochgeschwender said. “That would be a dangerous target of attack without the potential deterrent of NATO.”
Others believe that Putin would fundamentally recoil from invading the Baltic states — even with Trump as president. “The Baltic states are once again another factor because of NATO membership,” Philipp Adorf, political theorist and U.S. expert from the University of Bonn, said.
At any rate, it is extremely uncertain whether Trump would have shown his limits to the man in the Kremlin just as clearly as Biden has, regarding a possible attack from Russia on a NATO member state — the key words are collective defense. In view of his unpredictability and volatility, there is surely doubt whether the U.S. would have driven financial and economic sanctions against Moscow to such an extent under Trump. That this needs to be considered at all is down to the fact Trump is, in principle, cowardly, according to Hochgeschwender. That was illustrated, among other things, by the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. “Then, Trump shut himself away in the White House. He reacts to violence in such a way that it doesn’t escalate further. I think you would misunderstand Trump if you took his words at face value.”
It is especially disturbing to consider how the unpredictable and ever-changing Trump would have responded to Putin’s announcement to put nuclear forces on high alert. In the best-case scenario, one or another cool head in the White House would have discouraged the Republican president from causing even more harm through careless remarks. Nothing is certain when it comes to Trump, as the experiences from his presidency indicate. It is likely that Trump himself doesn’t even know whether he would have responded to Putin’s threat with a nuclear counter-threat. He often responds to concrete questions with empty words, like a short while ago when a TV presenter wanted to know what he would do differently now than Biden. Trump’s answer was, “Well, you have to work out a deal. Russia has to stop killing these people.”
What can be said with certainty is that Trump sees politics above all else as a business that, in the best case, serves his own commercial and personal endeavors. In contrast, public interest and issues in terms of security policy take a backseat. That was seen, for example, in the Ukraine affair in 2019: At the time, Trump was said to have withheld $400 million for military aid in Ukraine in order to coerce Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate claims of corruption made against Biden and his son, Hunter, who was a member of the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy company.
“For Trump, alliances are of a business nature,” stressed Adorf. Hochgeschwender takes the same line: “For him, there is no international law. He believes in deals and profits.” In this respect, Russia’s invasion in a distant land like Ukraine is “completely immaterial.” And so, in Trump’s philosophy, it is also not worth standing up for, in his view, a “lost cause” like Ukraine — especially, even less if it threatens to turn into an expensive affair.
What would he do? Donald Trump would do what he always does — talk big about it and pretty much change his opinion daily.
In the case of the Ukraine war, it looked like this: At first, Trump described President Vladimir Putin, whom he admires because of his dictatorial regime, as “very smart.” However, when he realized that the feeling in the U.S. was against the Russians, he suddenly called Putin’s invasion “a holocaust.” And finally, at a Republican donor gala in New Orleans, he suggested for laughter and sensation that the U.S. should label its F-22 planes with the Chinese flag and “bomb the shit out of Russia.” Following that, the Americans should just say, “China did it, we didn’t do it.”
So much for Trump’s big talk.
But how would it look in Ukraine today if Trump were still in the White House? Would it not have come to a Russian invasion at all, as the former president claims? Because he, Trump, would ultimately be a strong president while Joe Biden is weak? Experts are pretty united about this question: Even with Trump as president, it would have come to Russia invading Ukraine. More than that, though, Putin would have had an even easier time.
The reason is with Trump, a united front from the West against Russia like we are seeing now would have barely been possible. Biden was what reunited and strengthened the West after Trump snubbed the allies of the United States for years with his “America First” policy and weakened NATO. Through Trump’s policy of withdrawing from international agreements and weakening alliances, particularly NATO, Putin may have been encouraged further in his plan of attack, which Trump’s former national security advisor, John Bolton, recently pointed out. With Trump’s policy, “Putin saw Trump doing a lot of work for him,” Bolton said. “Putin would’ve gotten what he wanted in Ukraine for a lot lower price than he’s paying now.” Some observers and commentators go so far as to claim that as president, Trump possibly would have supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Still, even if Trump had criticized Putin after public pressure in the U.S., he would barely have succeeded as president in creating such unity within the West and NATO as Biden has now.
“It is conceivable that Trump would have responded to the outbreak of war with strong language,” Michael Hochgeschwender, historian and U.S. expert from the University of Munich, commented. Admittedly, Trump’s big talk would have done nothing to change Putin’s determination. “One saw the same thing with North Korea — Trump also didn’t act on his words then. He armed himself verbally, then that burst like a bubble. Ultimately, nothing resulted from the talks with Kim Jong Un.”
With Trump in the White House, NATO would also likely offer less protection to the Baltic states, which are feeling threatened, than it is currently. “The Baltic states would have been in danger — especially considering the Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia,” Hochgeschwender said. “That would be a dangerous target of attack without the potential deterrent of NATO.”
Others believe that Putin would fundamentally recoil from invading the Baltic states — even with Trump as president. “The Baltic states are once again another factor because of NATO membership,” Philipp Adorf, political theorist and U.S. expert from the University of Bonn, said.
At any rate, it is extremely uncertain whether Trump would have shown his limits to the man in the Kremlin just as clearly as Biden has, regarding a possible attack from Russia on a NATO member state — the key words are collective defense. In view of his unpredictability and volatility, there is surely doubt whether the U.S. would have driven financial and economic sanctions against Moscow to such an extent under Trump. That this needs to be considered at all is down to the fact Trump is, in principle, cowardly, according to Hochgeschwender. That was illustrated, among other things, by the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. “Then, Trump shut himself away in the White House. He reacts to violence in such a way that it doesn’t escalate further. I think you would misunderstand Trump if you took his words at face value.”
It is especially disturbing to consider how the unpredictable and ever-changing Trump would have responded to Putin’s announcement to put nuclear forces on high alert. In the best-case scenario, one or another cool head in the White House would have discouraged the Republican president from causing even more harm through careless remarks. Nothing is certain when it comes to Trump, as the experiences from his presidency indicate. It is likely that Trump himself doesn’t even know whether he would have responded to Putin’s threat with a nuclear counter-threat. He often responds to concrete questions with empty words, like a short while ago when a TV presenter wanted to know what he would do differently now than Biden. Trump’s answer was, “Well, you have to work out a deal. Russia has to stop killing these people.”
What can be said with certainty is that Trump sees politics above all else as a business that, in the best case, serves his own commercial and personal endeavors. In contrast, public interest and issues in terms of security policy take a backseat. That was seen, for example, in the Ukraine affair in 2019: At the time, Trump was said to have withheld $400 million for military aid in Ukraine in order to coerce Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate claims of corruption made against Biden and his son, Hunter, who was a member of the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy company.
“For Trump, alliances are of a business nature,” stressed Adorf. Hochgeschwender takes the same line: “For him, there is no international law. He believes in deals and profits.” In this respect, Russia’s invasion in a distant land like Ukraine is “completely immaterial.” And so, in Trump’s philosophy, it is also not worth standing up for, in his view, a “lost cause” like Ukraine — especially, even less if it threatens to turn into an expensive affair.
Previous article![]( "Negotiated Neutrality May Be Best Option")
Next article![]( "Will Russia Use Nukes in Ukraine?")
