How Trump will tackle security flash points from Ukraine to China

After months of jitters among many U.S. allies about the possibility of a second presidency for Donald Trump, world leaders are now preparing for his arrival on the global security scene.

At NATO headquarters and in defense ministries around the globe, staffers are poring over old policy papers by Mr. Trump’s advisers to puzzle out how the incoming administration will wield U.S. military power and money.

What’s clear is that Mr. Trump is unconventional, unpredictable, and transactional – traits that are likely to double as the de facto strategic guideposts for the next four years.

While there’s a lot that could go wrong with a way forward that revels in policy surprises while also placing storied alliances on more quid pro quo footing, there are some crises that Mr. Trump could have a shot at moving in a productive direction, analysts say. This includes bringing an end to stalemate in Ukraine, holding China in check, and establishing a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war.

“Foreign leaders need to know that they will be dealing with a real estate mogul, not with a statesman. Trump will be out there trying to cut deals and asking, ‘What have you done for me lately?’” notes Charles Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I share the concern that the U.S. has just elected someone who is fundamentally unfit for office,” he said in a postelection discussion co-sponsored by the Foundation for European Progressive Studies and the German Marshall Fund.

At the same time, he added, “Quite honestly, he will bring a certain realism to foreign policy that is overdue.”

Ukraine

This starts with the war in Ukraine. The Biden administration has long promised that the United States will back Kyiv for “as long as it takes.” But it also delayed the arrival and use of critical weapons that could have turned the tide on the battlefield for fear of escalating with Russia, a fellow nuclear power.

This, critics say, has amounted to a policy without a strategy and allowed Kyiv to reach a stalemate but, despite mighty effort, not move beyond it.

Retired Gen. Mark Milley, no fan of Mr. Trump, argued during his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Ukraine needs to prepare to negotiate with Russia. This will involve terms that Kyiv will almost certainly find unacceptable.

Specifically, it will mean conceding, conservatively, 20% of its territory – including Crimea and the Donbas region – to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court. The benefit, analysts say, is the chance to end the war before Ukraine becomes a failed state.

One policy paper being circulated among NATO staffers, co-written in April by retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg and former National Security Council Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz for the America First Policy Institute, argues that while seeking a cease-fire, the U.S. could partially lift Russian sanctions, and only fully remove them after Moscow signs a peace deal acceptable to Kyiv. In the meantime, the U.S. would continue to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses to ensure Moscow makes “no further advances and will not attack again.”

During a phone call with Mr. Putin last week, President-elect Trump warned him not to escalate fighting in Ukraine.

These are signals that run somewhat counter to the perception that “Trump is just going to turn the [military aid] spigot off,” says a senior NATO official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official noted that the president-elect was the first leader to send Kyiv over 200 Javelin anti-tank missiles, which were instrumental in staving off the initial Russian onslaught.

The concern is that any quick peace deal would equal victory for Moscow, rewarding it for despotic aggression and potentially emboldening China to invade Taiwan.

China and Taiwan

When Mr. Trump was asked by the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal why Beijing wouldn’t invade Taiwan on his watch, the now-president-elect said that Chinese leader Xi Jinping “knows that I’m [expletive] crazy.”

This means, he suggested, that the U.S. wouldn’t have to use military force to prevent a Chinese blockade of Taiwan. Such confidence calls into question what will happen to the security partnerships that President Joe Biden has expanded with Pacific allies such as Japan and the Philippines. But the first Trump administration cultivated counterweights to Chinese military ambition in the region as well.

Though Mr. Trump famously said on the campaign trail that Taiwan should pay for U.S. protection, he also sold Taiwan long-range missiles that could hit distant Chinese targets in one of the largest weapons transfers ever to the island – something previous presidents had been unwilling to do for fear of upsetting Beijing.

What’s clear is that Mr. Trump has the potential to reopen dialogue with what the national security community views with bipartisan agreement as America’s top adversary.

While President Biden has often seen U.S. national security as a clash between democracy and autocracy, tackling the security challenges of the 21st century requires working across ideological divides, said Dr. Kupchan, who served as a National Security Council director under President Barack Obama.

“I think [Trump] will be more pragmatic in the sense of working with democracies and nondemocracies alike. ... In fact, he seems to like autocrats.”

The Middle East

Vice President-elect JD Vance, an Iraq War veteran, has been outspoken about the need for the U.S. to stop fighting what he has referred to as “stupid” wars in the Middle East.

Even so, Mr. Trump is expected to overwhelmingly support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his campaign against Hamas and Hezbollah. This would bolster the Trump White House’s likely efforts to resurrect its “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran in an effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, embracing Mr. Trump’s unpredictability and pride in personal relationships, seems to hold out some hope, however, of working with the president-elect to end the war in Gaza.

Following the July assassination attempt on Mr. Trump, President Abbas sent a get-well letter to Mr. Trump, who publicly thanked him and promised to work for peace.

The concern is that he may do this in a way that most benefits Israel, including allowing it to annex parts of the West Bank.

The hope is that the 2020 Abraham Accords – which created unprecedented security, economic, and diplomatic ties between Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors – could lay a foundation for the “dawn of a new Middle East,” as Mr. Trump promoted it.

Despite the war in Gaza, none of the signatories have withdrawn, though cooperation has shifted to more private communication lines, noted Marcy Grossman, former Canadian ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, in a piece for the Atlantic Council.

The accord provides “room for hope” in the region, she wrote, as it spurs shifting security alliances and more people-to-people engagement.

The latter in particular, Ambassador Grossman argues, offers “a powerful counter to dehumanization, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia” – in other words, to the tenacious roots of the war.