by
Austin BayJuly 16, 2025
On July 15, according to X (formerly Twitter), a reporter on the White House lawn asked, "Are you on Ukraine's side now?"
President Donald Trump replied: "I am on nobody's side. I am on humanity's side. I want to stop the killing."
I buy Trump's response. He's said that for about three decades. I've got published essays that support that claim, some dating from 2017 and the beginning of Trump's attempt to use coercive diplomacy to denuclearize North Korea's communist and corrupt Kim dictatorship.
The Ukraine connection to nuclear weapons is obvious to those familiar with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Drawing a blank on that obscure agreement? In 1994, the (Democrat) Clinton administration negotiated a peace and nuclear disarmament agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine agreed to trade its nuclear arsenal for territorial security assurances from Russia. The U.S. and Great Britain guaranteed the deal. For the record, Ukraine in 1994 may have had the world's third largest nuclear weapons arsenal.
"Soft power" advocates praised the deal. Who needs nukes? Peace in our time.
In February 2014, Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, invaded the Crimean peninsula and annexed it.
Question: Would Putin have invaded if Ukraine had nukes?
Bitter historical fact forces us to move on.
The Obama administration's post-Crimea sanctions regimen was not merely inadequate, it was an aggression rewarding joke. Barack Obama responded with weakness -- he sent Ukraine non-military material.
Russian hard-power military aggression, annexation and expansion -- what Hitler did prior to World War II -- required a hard-power response.
Yes, Russia is a nuclear power. Which returns us to Trump and nukes.
In 1999, Trump told "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert, "The biggest problem this world has is nuclear proliferation." Trump's critics ignore the depth of his thinking about complex issues and consistently underestimate his diplomatic and economic skills.
His commitment to avoid nuclear war led to his first-term effort to convince North Korea's Kim regime to denuclearize. Why that failed is the subject for a book that addresses the politically crippling effect of the Hillary Clinton-New York Times-CNN-Comey FBI RussiaRussiaRussia lie on Trump 1's foreign policy efforts. Think about it.
Now a quote from a February 2023 column of mine: "... (F)rom Russia's February 2014 attack on Crimea to this very minute nuclear weapons have been the Ukraine war's deep global issue." Add the harsh truth a peacemaker must acknowledge: Ukraine is the victim of Russian aggression -- arguably, megalomaniacal imperialism.
How to end a bloodbath on which a nuclear-armed megalomaniac (Putin) has bet his historical legacy?
Heckuva problem.
In a March 4 speech to Congress, Trump said this about his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine War: "If you want to end wars, you have to talk to both sides."
Yes. With 6,000 to 8,000 humans a week (or more) dying, jaw-jaw instead of war-war had to be tried (apologies to Winston Churchill, but it is the hard truth). But the Euro-Left and Trump's deadbeat and brainless U.S. critics portrayed him as Putin's toy.
OK. Putin had a jaw-jaw chance to reach a deal. As a KGB megalomaniac, he rejected it.
Art of the War-War Deal, Recent Evidence: Trump gave Iran 60 days. Tehran ignored. The U.S. Air Force violently denuclearized the ayatollah regime.
Trump has given Putin 50 days.
Trump's weapons contra Putin: 1) Billions of dollars in weapons from NATO nations to Ukraine that will defend against Russian attacks; 2) The implicit threat of providing Ukraine with offensive weapons to launch devastating attacks on Russian military and economic targets; 3) Billions in sanctions and tariffs on Russia's economy; 4) Billions in secondary sanctions on any nation trading with Putin's Russia (tariffs as sanctions); and 5) Vicious individual sanctions shackling every Putin supporter in Russia and around the globe who wants to spend his/her cash.
Here's what No. 5 means as applied policy with Trump wielding the hammer: Frozen bank accounts. Seized assets. No penthouses, no Rolls, no Ferraris. No glitz nothing in London, Paris, Dubai, Singapore, Tahiti, Saint Barts. Name your glam camp -- nada. My bet: Scott Bessent's U.S. Treasury Department will pick a thug's pocket or two.