As the Russia-Ukraine war rages on, the stakes for global security continue to rise. Moscow’s recent missile strikes and strengthening alliances with regimes like North Korea paint a stark picture of a world sliding further into division. At such a critical moment, leadership in the West must be resolute, strategic, and clear-eyed. Yet, former President Donald Trump’s apparent penchant for appeasing Vladimir Putin risks not only undermining the international coalition against Russian aggression but also emboldening a Kremlin that has shown no hesitation in destabilising the global order.
Trump’s relationship with Russia has always been a study in contradictions. His rhetoric often leaned towards admiration for Putin, whom he once referred to as a “strong leader.” The infamous Helsinki summit in 2018 marked a low point in U.S. diplomatic history, with Trump appearing to side with Putin over American intelligence agencies on the question of Russian election interference. Such moments gave credence to critics who labelled him soft on Moscow.
Yet, Trump’s presidency also saw actions that directly countered Russian interests. His administration imposed sanctions, expelled diplomats, and provided lethal aid to Ukraine, including Javelin anti-tank missiles. These measures were praised by hawks in Washington, but they often felt at odds with Trump’s personal approach. This dichotomy raises an unsettling question: How might Trump’s policies towards Russia evolve if he were to regain the White House?
Recent developments, such as Russia’s missile strikes and drone attacks on Ukraine, coupled with its growing reliance on North Korea for military supplies, only underscore the need for a united front. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has dismissed Russia’s latest provocations as unlikely to change the course of the war, but they are clear signals of Moscow’s intent to push boundaries. Trump’s tendency to admire “strongmen” like Putin could send the wrong message at a time when clarity and firmness are required.
Moreover, the implications for U.S. allies, particularly in Eastern Europe, cannot be overstated. Poland, for instance, has become a critical NATO frontline state. Speculative fears about Russian designs on Polish seaports might seem far-fetched, but they highlight the vulnerabilities of countries already within Moscow’s shadow. If Trump’s leadership signals a retreat from NATO’s collective strength or undermines its cohesion, it could embolden Putin’s ambitions, raising the spectre of further aggression in Eastern Europe.
Trump’s approach to Russia does not exist in isolation. It intertwines with broader dynamics of power, influence, and the reshaping of alliances. Russia’s deepening partnership with North Korea exemplifies this realignment. Pyongyang’s arms shipments to Moscow, coupled with Russian assistance to North Korea’s oil and weapons programmes, show how international pariah states are reinforcing one another. A conciliatory U.S. stance under Trump would only exacerbate these dangerous alignments, pouring fuel on a fire that is already consuming too many lives and resources.
The international community stands at a crossroads. Leaders like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and NATO allies have condemned Russia’s escalations, emphasising the need for unity in the face of aggression. Trump’s inconsistent record on Russia, combined with his personal affinity for Putin, raises legitimate concerns about his ability to steer U.S. policy effectively in these fraught times. His potential return to power could tilt the scales, not in favour of peace, but towards further instability.
If the world has learned anything from recent history, it is that autocrats respond not to overtures of friendship, but to demonstrations of strength and resolve. Trump’s inclination to appease Putin, whether through words or actions, risks emboldening a regime that thrives on exploiting weakness. As the conflict in Ukraine grinds on and global tensions escalate, America and its allies cannot afford mixed signals or misplaced admiration. The stakes are simply too high.
