The Unpredictable Trump Train: A Journey Through Politics and Power
On a lively Thursday night in New York, Michael Wolff, the acclaimed author of Fire and Fury, was in high spirits, celebrating the launch of his latest book, All or Nothing. This marks his fourth installment in the ever-expanding narrative surrounding Donald Trump. The title reflects Trump’s audacious gamble for a second term in office—one that ultimately led to his unexpected victory. As the evening progressed and drinks were poured, Wolff shared his insights: “Everything Trump did should have been his undoing, yet his self-destructive nature has surprisingly become a defining aspect of his ‘charm’.” He further noted, “The silver lining is that self-destructive behavior ultimately leads to self-destruction, and inevitably, he will be the architect of his own downfall.”
But can the world afford to wait for the Trump train to derail? The former President has wielded considerable influence over U.S. politics for over a decade, and he is determined to leave an indelible mark on the global stage during his second tenure. In a matter of weeks, he has dismantled long-standing alliances, lavished praise on U.S. adversaries, and injected his distinct brand of chaotic spectacle into the lives of bewildered foreign leaders.
For Ukraine, Trump’s vanity and his compulsion to dominate discussions pose a serious threat to the nation’s very survival. In Washington, the President and his staunch ally, JD Vance, publicly chastised the courageous President Volodymyr Zelensky for daring to advocate for his country’s sovereignty. Trump admonished Zelensky, claiming he was “gambling with World War Three,” and scolded him for not being sufficiently “thankful” to the United States. Can you believe that Trump thinks gratitude is owed to him? It is the Ukrainian people who deserve our heartfelt appreciation for their sacrifices.
In stark contrast, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been met with unwarranted praise and leniency from Trump. It is a deeply troubling spectacle for the United States to have a leader who exhibits clear envy of authoritarian figures. The cancellation of the press conference with Zelensky, a dismissive maneuver that seemed straight out of a reality TV script, was nothing short of disgraceful. Yet, it may be premature to label Trump as merely an appeaser. At his core, he has always craved power and respect, longing for acknowledgment from those he perceives as elitist global figures. Despite the precariousness of the situation—and nothing is more precarious than Trump’s inflated ego—there remains potential leverage for Ukraine and its European allies.
Veteran conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly remarked on NewsNation this week, “I understand precisely what Trump is seeking. He harbors ambitions for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.” He is correct; above all, Trump yearns for that international validation. Facilitating peace in Ukraine could serve as his ticket to such recognition.
The rare-earth minerals deal that had been proposed to President Zelensky—now shrouded in uncertainty—essentially represented a U.S. security guarantee for Ukraine, albeit one that felt somewhat exploitative. In O’Reilly’s words, “Once we finalize that deal in Ukraine, we establish a U.S. presence, making it exponentially harder for Bad Vlad to launch attacks or bomb the nation, because there will be Americans on the ground.”
If everything proceeds as planned, the United States could secure a lasting economic interest in Ukraine’s freedom and autonomy, with Britain and other NATO allies providing the necessary military support to fend off Russian aggression. Under Trump’s pressure, Europe may finally be compelled to shoulder more responsibility for defense. But isn’t that what Western allies have pledged for years?
While NATO membership for Ukraine remains a distant hope, the prospect of EU membership by 2030 or even sooner has been suggested by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the EU Commission. There is no need for American approval on this matter; if the EU is serious about defending Ukraine, it should act promptly.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Trump’s Foreign Policy
If a ceasefire can eventually be brokered between Ukraine and Russia, and if Ukraine nears EU membership by the next U.S. presidential election in 2028, Trump’s foreign policy legacy could appear more favorable than it does at present. However, this scenario is riddled with uncertainties. Putin has yet to offer any meaningful concessions toward peace, and America shocked its allies by voting alongside Russia against a United Nations resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine on the war’s third anniversary. Such a vote was a degrading moment for a nation that prides itself on being a beacon of democracy.
The public reprimanding of Zelensky was a particularly low point for U.S. diplomacy. However, Trump believes he is following in the footsteps of a notable historical figure by engaging with his foes—a strategy reminiscent of “Nixon goes to China.”
In 1972, Richard Nixon made a groundbreaking visit to communist leader Mao Zedong in China, facilitated by his astute advisor, Henry Kissinger. It was thought that only a Republican president could achieve such a diplomatic pivot without facing accusations of capitulation to Marxism. The intention back then was to create a rift between Beijing and the Soviet Union, which had a contentious relationship.
Trump is reportedly pursuing a “reverse Nixon” strategy by seeking warmer relations with Russia at the expense of China. This week, The Economist depicted Trump as a “gangsta” leader among the world’s rogue states, drawing comparisons to Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs. The publication explicitly dismissed the notion that Trump is emulating Nixon and Kissinger, suggesting he lacks their historical insight. Yet, this assertion may be misguided. Domestically, Trump frequently likens himself to past U.S. presidents. As a figure of the 1970s, he idolizes Nixon and Kissinger, despite their starkly different views on supporting Western allies.
Trump even maintained a correspondence with Nixon in the 1980s and attempted to persuade Nixon and his wife, Pat, to move into Trump Tower. “I regard you as one of this country’s great men, and it was an honor to spend an evening with you,” he wrote to Nixon in June 1982, eight years after Nixon’s resignation amid the Watergate scandal. Nixon reciprocated the praise, expressing that Pat believed Trump would one day become president.
Trump also held Kissinger in high esteem. In 2017, he welcomed the esteemed diplomat to the White House and stated, “We’ve been friends for a long time, long before my political career… He’s a man I have great, great respect for.” When Kissinger’s acquaintances questioned why he associated with someone like Trump, he would smile mysteriously and assert his readiness to advise any U.S. president. Kissinger passed away at the age of 100 in 2023, a figure who stood in stark contrast to Trump regarding support for Western allies but who both considered themselves master negotiators.
If anyone exhibited a propensity for self-destructive behavior, it was certainly Nixon. Trump has always believed Nixon was unfairly maligned over Watergate, although Nixon’s own actions were largely to blame. Nevertheless, most of Nixon’s challenges were domestic. The same may ultimately hold true for the current Republican President.
Nixon’s foreign policy is often deemed a success, not only in relation to China but also for negotiating a ceasefire in Vietnam and pursuing détente and nuclear arms reduction with the Soviet Union. Although Nixon did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize, Kissinger did, despite his vilification as a war criminal by some on the left.
To ensure that some remnants of the international rules-based order endure through Trump’s presidency, it is essential to appeal to his vanity with flattering comparisons to his two 1970s mentors. By all means, tell him he deserves a Nobel Prize if he manages to facilitate a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, no matter how uncomfortable that may feel. And perhaps, just perhaps, this outcome will eventually become a reality.
Sarah Baxter is the director of the Marie Colvin Center for International Reporting.
