Instead of approaching the war in Ukraine from a geopolitical or moral perspective, U.S. President Donald Trump is framing his policy on Russia through the lens of his personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton.
“Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin,” Bolton told the Kyiv Independent.
“Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark. And as a former KGB agent, Putin knows exactly how to manipulate him, and I think that's what he's been doing since the inauguration, if not before,” he explained.
Bolton served as the national security advisor to Trump from 2018-2019 during his first administration. Bolton's 2020 memoir, “The Room Where It Happened,” offers a candid account of the tumultuous turn his working relationship with Trump took, highlighting his concerns about Trump's ability to effectively lead, including his impulsive decision-making on complex policy issues and lack of understanding of the importance of a strong U.S. foreign policy.
In an interview with the Kyiv Independent, Bolton provided his insight on why Trump appears so eager to appease the Kremlin, why any U.S. attempt to align with Russia to deter China would be a "fantasy," and the opportunities the U.S. has missed for more than a decade to deter Russian aggression not only in Ukraine but beyond.
This interview was conducted several hours before Putin signaled he was ready for a ceasefire on the condition that Ukraine doesn’t receive more military aid or build its military. It has been edited for length and clarity.
The Kyiv Independent: Trump has repeatedly claimed that negotiating with Russia is easier than with Ukraine. Despite Russia’s nightly attacks on Ukraine, he continues to insist that Putin wants peace. Why do you think Trump is so eager to cater to the Kremlin's interests, especially when they have such maximalist demands?
John Bolton: Trump has said many times publicly that he believes if he has good relations with a foreign head of state, then the U.S. has good relations with that country. And the opposite is also true. If he has bad relations with a foreign head of state, U.S. relations with that country are bad. Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin. He has said in just the past few weeks, “Putin says he wants peace, and I trust him. I think if he didn't want peace, he would tell me.” So that gives you a pretty good idea of how he sees Putin.
Now, I don't think Putin thinks he's Trump's friend at all. I think Putin thinks Trump is an easy mark. And as a former KGB agent, Putin knows exactly how to manipulate him, and I think that's what he's been doing since the inauguration, if not before.
The notion that Russia is easy to deal with dates back to 2018, when Trump left Washington for the NATO summit — where he nearly withdrew from the alliance — before heading to Helsinki for a bilateral meeting with Putin. As he was leaving the White House to get on helicopter Marine One, he said to the assembled press, “You know, I've got this NATO meeting, then I'm going to meet Prime Minister Theresa May in London, then I'm going to meet Putin in Helsinki. You know, the meeting with Putin could be the easiest of them all. Who would think it?”
Well, there's only one person who would think it, and it's Trump. That was almost six years ago, and nothing has changed. The facts about Russia’s conduct in the war — being the aggressor from the start — simply don’t matter to Trump. After all, he believes in helping his friends.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has had a strained relationship with Trump — through no fault of his own or Ukraine’s — ever since the infamous "perfect phone call" in the summer of 2019, which ultimately led to Trump’s first impeachment. And Zelensky has tried very hard, I think, in the past six months to build a relationship with Trump, but as we saw in the catastrophe in the Oval Office a few weeks ago, it hasn't worked. And there are people like U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who I think have also decided they don't like Zelensky and don't like Ukraine — Vance once said in his 2022 Senate campaign, “I don't care what happens to Ukraine.”
It’s an uphill struggle.
The Kyiv Independent: The Republican Party historically championed strong defense policies and deterrence against U.S. adversaries like Russia. What do you think accounts for the party’s shift in attitude toward Ukraine?
John Bolton: I believe a majority of Republicans actually still support Ukraine, certainly out in the country among Republican voters. And I think quietly behind the scenes, a majority in Congress do, too, but they're intimidated by Trump.
They're very worried that he will support candidates against them in a primary election to decide who the Republican nominee will be. And in districts that are very safely Republican, it doesn't matter who the Democratic nominee is in November. It matters whether the incumbent House member, let's say, can win against a primary opponent.
But I think the situation is beginning to change. More people are beginning to speak out. Trump's tariff policies are causing a lot of concern, and that adds to concern about his 180-degree shift toward Russia in the Ukraine situation. If our European allies continue their efforts to clarify who’s at fault in Ukraine and what’s at stake, we’ll just have to keep fighting this battle day by day.
The Kyiv Independent: The Kremlin has recently said that Trump's apparent foreign policy shift aligns with their interests. What damage does a U.S.-Russia alliance cause on the global stage?
John Bolton: It could come close to destroying NATO. Having watched Trump come very close to withdrawing from NATO at the Brussels summit in 2018, I saw more than I needed to see about how much he doesn't like the institution — he hasn't changed his view on that. But even before a formal withdrawal, he could do a lot that would debilitate NATO and really undermine the capabilities of the institution to defend its own members or its interests in other conflicts.
It’s a very dangerous course that he's pursuing. They're certainly watching it very carefully in Beijing, where they believe that if the U.S. and NATO won't stand up for a country in the middle of Europe that's been invaded, we won't stand up for Taiwan, we won't stand up for the Southeast Asian countries near the South China Sea. So it really does have global implications for U.S. security and that of our friends and allies, too.
The Kyiv Independent: Some argue that Trump sees a potential rapprochement with Russia as a way to deter China in the future. I'm curious about your thoughts on that, especially given the uncharacteristically supportive statements China has made for Ukraine recently. What is the dynamic that's forming here?
John Bolton: It's a fantasy to believe the U.S. can somehow use the conflict in Ukraine to separate Russia from China. In the abstract, separating Russia is a very good goal to have. But for reasons not having anything to do with Ukraine or the U.S., Russia and China have grown closer, and it's really almost impossible to separate Russia from them today.
The China-Russia axis is far from perfect, but in the case of the Ukraine war, China has been a considerable assistance to Russia. They have laundered sanctioned Russian financial assets through their own opaque financial system out into global markets. They've significantly increased purchases of Russian oil and gas. They've talked about building new pipeline capacity, which from China's point of view would be a plus so they don't have to lift oil in the Persian Gulf and risk taking it across the Indian Ocean. And they've provided a lot of political cover for Russia during this war, which they would expect reciprocity for if they went against Taiwan or did something in the South China Sea.
There are still differences of interest between Russia and China. This is not the Cold War Sino-Soviet alliance that had an ideological bond. And obviously China is the partner in charge now, not Russia. So it's not exactly the same, but I think the idea that somehow Russia could be pulled away from China as part of a settlement in Ukraine is totally unrealistic.
I don't think China has any good intentions in mind for Ukraine, either — they see it as something obviously Russia wants to have.
The Kyiv Independent: Given your hawkish stance on Russia, was there a decisive moment in the past decade of the war in Ukraine when the U.S. had a real chance to deter Russian aggression but failed?
John Bolton: When former U.S. President George W. Bush said at the Bucharest NATO Summit in April of 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia should have been brought into NATO on a fast track, that was the time to do it. Four months later, we saw the Russians move into Georgia, occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia — and they’re still there.
The only effective deterrence (against Russian aggression) is NATO membership, which is something that obviously Finland and Sweden concluded after 75 years of neutrality. They watched what happened in Ukraine and concluded the only real security was behind a NATO border.
We had a chance in 2008 to do that (for Ukraine), and France and Germany objected. After Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and takeover of part of the Donbas, the West did little to impose meaningful sanctions. Former U.S. President Barack Obama showed no interest in taking strong action. I believe this all but guaranteed that when the Kremlin felt ready for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, they expected little resistance.
That expectation was reinforced by the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan — negotiated by Trump but carried out by Biden — which sealed the deal. There were several missed opportunities (to combat Russian aggression), and unfortunately, we’re seeing the consequences today.
The Kyiv Independent: The Trump administration has said the ball is in Russia’s court regarding a Ukraine ceasefire. But given Russia’s track record of violating agreements and shifting blame, can we argue that responsibility now lies with the U.S.? If Russia inevitably breaks another ceasefire, and tries to blame Ukraine, how do you think Trump’s administration will respond?
John Bolton: We’ll have to see what happens with the ceasefire first. The ceasefire is not in Ukraine's interest — anything that freezes the conflict along the existing battle lines is laying a foundation for annexation of all the territory on the Russian side by the Russians.
That's been their pattern before. I think Putin has not had any incentive to come to the negotiating table because Trump's been giving him everything that he wanted. But I think now, with this ceasefire idea out there, Putin also has to be careful he doesn't lose credibility with Trump. I don't think he will outright reject the ceasefire. He may accept it, or I think most likely he'll say something like, “I think a ceasefire idea is absolutely worthwhile and I'm ready to proceed. In principle, I agree with it.”
But there would be technical details to work out there, which wouldn’t get worked out anytime soon. Putin, judging by Russian propaganda from yesterday, seems convinced that they are on the verge of pushing the remaining Ukrainian troops out of Kursk. I don’t think he will entertain negotiations until that operation is complete. In the meantime, he’ll stall for time, mindful of preserving the goodwill he has built with Trump.
Although Trump has given away so much at this point, it's hard to see what he could take back.
Note from the author:
Hi there, it’s Kate Tsurkan, thank you for reading my latest interview. Given Bolton’s experience of working alongside Trump I felt like he was one of the best people to talk to about the ongoing problems surrounding the U.S.’s increasingly uncertain role in achieving peace in Ukraine. As an American who has lived for many years in Ukraine, it’s important that my fellow countrymen and women, regardless of their political affiliation, understand how important it is to support Ukraine. I’m just trying to do my own small part to help put the right information out there. If you like reading this sort of thing, please consider becoming a member of the Kyiv Independent.
Timothy Ash
