Economists like to look at actual behavior as a way of inferring what people believe. This is called “revealed preference.” I’ve always found it to be a very useful tool.
Recent statements by top Trump administration officials have puzzled observers on both sides of the political spectrum. Here’s the National Review, a conservative publication that generally supports Trump, but differs with his views on a number of important issues:
But so far in his second term, regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Trump has offered to Vladimir Putin that Ukraine will not retake all its annexed and occupied sovereign territory, that Ukraine will not join NATO, that there will be no U.S. troops on Ukrainian soil after the war, and that the U.S. will lift sanctions on Russia. And Trump might even throw in a withdrawal of the extra 20,000 U.S. troops that Joe Biden sent to NATO’s eastern flank after the invasion of Ukraine.
And in exchange, Putin offered . . . well, nothing, really.
Critics have complained that this is not the sort of behavior you’d expect from a politician that prides himself in being a skilled dealmaker.
A few days ago, I suggested that the critics had it wrong. They were operating under the mistaken assumption that Ukraine was America’s ally and Russia was our enemy. In fact, Trump has long been an admirer of Vladimir Putin and has frequently been dismissive of the Ukrainian government. Rather than viewing these sorts of pre-negotiation concessions as “mistakes”, I viewed them as tactics to weaken Ukraine’s negotiating position. Put simply, Trump sees America as Russia’s friend, allied against Ukraine and the EU.
Today, Trump all but confirmed my claim:
Regarding the war, President Donald Trump says to the Ukrainians, “You should have never started it!” Somewhere in Moscow, Vladimir Putin must be grinning from ear to ear.
As a result, the National Review now shares my view:
Trump is flailing and thrashing around, trying anything to justify his current de facto pro-Russian stance.
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Feb 19 2025 at 9:22pm
US is facing a complete fiscal debacle. Defense spending, and Trump has spoken about potentially cutting it (he says many things), is going to need to be cut by alot, I mean hundreds of billions. And when they do committments need to be reduced. The low hanging fruit is NATO because Europenis a wealthy continent with 400mn souls far beyond the shadow of 1945.
If the US leaves NATO or drastically reduces its role in NATO, NATO, without the US, still VASTLY outnumbers Russia in every measure, GDP, defense spending, population, size of militaries, tanks, jets naval assets, artillery. Even today US has about 100k over there but the vast majority of European defense is still military personnel from Europe, the promise of course is that America would come and reinforce a beleaguered Western European force overwhelmed on the Elbe by the Red Army along with Warsaw Pact contingents rolling through the Fulda Gap. Those days are over. Russia is NOT a match for NATO as it exists today with or without the US.
Alexander Search
Feb 19 2025 at 10:29pm
Maybe not. But any military action taken by Russia against Europe would have downstream effects on us in the U.S. Because military actions are by nature destructive, they are costly for all interrelated parties, including, at least to some extent, since, in the 21st century, all countries are interrelated to some degree, even third-party observers like us Americans.
The cheapest military action is the military action avoided. And one tactic to discourage military action is allied commitment against a likely adversary.
By announcing beforehand his intentions not to assist Europe even if Russia were to provoke or outright attack our (former?) European allies, Trump has decreased the cost of aggressive action by Putin and, therefore, made hostile actions by him marginally more likely. Because the likelihood of military action has increased, the expected probabilistic cost of any average person in the world just trying to live a simple life and mind his own business has likewise increased.
Life has now gotten marginally worse for everybody except Putin and his supporters.
Craig
Feb 19 2025 at 10:56pm
I disagree because the US only has 100k present, the bulk of the force is European. If Russia attacks NATO with US Russia has 0% chance of winning, if Russia attacks NATO without the US Russia still has a 0% chance of winning. Russia’s relative weakness has been exposed. Nevertheless if the US withdraws nothing stops Europe from itself spending $1tn per year on defense but they wouldn’t be stupid enough to do that because they don’t need to. In any event the Article 5 comment wss in context of peacekeeprs in Ukraine, Trump said he didn’t care but US wouldn’t be there to provide the peacekeepers with Article V protection. So be it. God helps those who help themselves. Its not 1947 anymore.
Scott Sumner
Feb 19 2025 at 11:28pm
I don’t agree with your post, but in any case it has no bearing on anything I said. Even if you were correct (and you are not) it would not explain why Trump is supporting Russia. How does the US gain by claiming Ukraine is to blame for the war?
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 12:54am
“Even if you were correct (and you are not)”
Hmmm, I can see you’ve been chatting up my wife.
“How does the US gain by claiming Ukraine is to blame for the war?”
First off Ukraine does bear some culpability for the start of the Donbass Conflict.
“”Today I heard, ‘oh, we weren’t invited.’ Well you’ve been there for three years, you should have ended it… you should have never started it. You could have made a deal,” said Trump.”
The deal of course is the April 2022 deal and really Trump means: “Today I heard, ‘oh, we weren’t invited.’ Well you’ve been there for three years, you should have ended it… you should have never [let it continue]. You could have made a deal,” said Trump.”
The emphasis IS: “You could have made a deal.” And he is saying this in the context of being asked about the obvious fact the Ukrainians aren’t at the table in 2025. I mean, they even made it illegal to be at the table. And if Trump can he’ll use whatever ‘go home’ leverage the US has to try to jam a peace deal down their throats and he’s right to try to do so at this point.
“According to U.S. officials who spoke to Foreign Affairs, a provisional agreement was reached in April [2022], whereby the Russian forces would withdraw to the pre-invasion line and Ukraine would commit not to seek to join NATO in exchange for security guarantees from a number of countries.”
And now its 3 years later and I guess Ukraine likely going to get a worse deal now. Because I don’t think they’ll get another $200bn to try to secure Ukraine 1991 from the US government and the Europeans theoretically could do it, there is no amount the US has given that the Europeans couldn’t at least write a check for, but they likely won’t do anything close to that.
Scott Sumner
Feb 20 2025 at 12:13pm
So Ukraine is to blame because they didn’t surrender to Russian demands after being invaded? You aren’t helping yourself here . . .
Check out what happened to Czechoslovakia after they followed your advice and accepted German demands for the Sudetenland. Like Hitler, Putin is a pathological liar. Nothing he says should ever be accepted at face value.
Countries do not have a right to invade neighboring internationally recognized sovereign countries with the goal of annexing land. Ever. For any reason whatsoever.
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 12:46pm
DPR/LPR had seceded de facto and had compelling reasons for doing so.
Ukraine 1991 is a bad war aim and bottom line I need I40 open.
$200bn that’s obscene.
Jose Pablo
Feb 20 2025 at 1:17pm
Countries do not have a right to invade neighboring internationally recognized sovereign countries with the goal of annexing land. Ever. For any reason whatsoever.
Hear, hear! it shouldn’t be that difficult to understand the great benefits of this after analyzing 2,500 years of European history.
And if you relax the “for any reason” part just a little bit (way less than you need to relax it to justify Russia the way Trump or Craig do), China has a very strong case to invade Taiwan. It would, no doubt, be Taiwan’s fault if they don’t accept that they have been part of China for more than 200 years.
Or the British fault if Spain invades Gibraltar.
Or Cuba’s fault if the US invades Cuba
Or Panama’s fault if the US invades the Panama Canal
Or Denmark’s fault if …
Uff …
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 1:34pm
But the people in the DPR and LPR, 90% of whom speak Russian, have a right to secede from Ukraine and that was partly Ukraine’s fault.
Glad you brought up Taiwan too because China technically wouldn’t be invading they’d be asserting sovereignty, no? One China, right?
Do you believe in territorial integrity? I don’t, the people of Ukraine could secede from Soviet Union, the people in DPR can secede from Ukraine, the people in Taiwan can secede from China and so too I hope the people of TN and the people of FL from the federal government.
Ukraine 2014 was the deal, Z should’ve taken it, now he paid the opportunity cost of a worse result hoping for a better one and he just spebt a million souls for a negative return on blood. It’s the ultimate sunk cost fallacy and that’s why he needs to exit stage left hopefully sooner rather than later (I suspect he might be setting up an ‘exile’ of sorts in UAE)
Jose Pablo
Feb 20 2025 at 1:34pm
Or Cuba’s fault if the US invades CubaOr Panama’s fault if the US invades the Panama CanalOr Denmark’s fault if …
Actually, I just realized you are even more right than I thought!
It could very easily be the case that Trump actually supports the Russian way of solving disputes among sovereign nations.
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 2:03pm
You mean the American way, right?
Would you wave your magic wand and make the DPR rejoin Ukraine even though the people there clearly don’t want to?
End the ‘special military operation’ and just resume the Donnass Conflict?
Jose Pablo
Feb 20 2025 at 2:18pm
Countries do not have a right to invade neighboring internationally recognized sovereign countries with the goal of annexing land. Ever. For any reason whatsoever.
Craig, what is the part of this paragraph that is so difficult to get?
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 2:42pm
Because the DPR and LPR have a right to secede. There are two theories of statehood, the declarative and the constitutive. The latter is based on the concept that a nation’s existence is dependent on that nation being recognized as a nation by other nations. Diplomatically there are times the US follows this rule kind’ve, and Sumner is grabbing onto that when he writes ” internationally recognized sovereign countries” but in the American foundation, America ‘declared‘ its independence and so too did the DPR and LPR and they and in fact established their independence de facto.
So yeah Russia is wrong to invade Ukraine, but Ukraine was wrong to invade the DPR/LPR after years of independence.
Russia is wrong, doesn’t mean Ukraine should get 1991.
And ultimately what I really care about is that is simply not a $200bn question for the American people.
Jose Pablo
Feb 20 2025 at 3:01pm
is simply not a $200bn question for the American people.
I agree—the cost for the American people of departing from Scott’s doctrine is far higher (like, wayyyyy higher) than $200 billion.
The Pax Americana has been greatly beneficial to the U.S. Departing from it would cost America much more than $200 billion.
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 3:13pm
“the cost for the American people of departing from Scott’s doctrine is far higher (like, wayyyyy higher) than $200 billion.”
Gonna hafta send me that spreadsheet and make sure to change the socialist calculation tab!
“Pax Americana”
You mean the perpetual state of armed conflict. Fight them there or we’ll have to fight them here? General Westmoreland. They aren’t coming, JP, they never were.
steve
Feb 20 2025 at 8:35pm
Because part of Ukraine might want to secede Russia gets to invade? First, it’s not really clear that a majority wanted to secede. Second, even if they did that is an internal matter. Russia doesnt get to invade to guarantee the outcome they want.
Steve
Janet Bufton
Feb 21 2025 at 10:35am
This is not how any of this works. Spanish-speaking Latin Americans don’t necessarily want to join Spain. The United States does not condescend to annexation by England when Americans speak English.
This isn’t about pointless adherence to old borders, it’s about people. People in a country don’t need to have distinct languages to be allowed to govern themselves. They don’t have to share some sufficiently distinct (sufficient to whom?) national purpose. They just have to say no.
Russia has not allowed free elections in Russian-speaking regions. They did not voice diplomatic support for peaceful, organic secession movements. The people in these regions do not welcome the Russian invasion, they resist—a revealed preference if ever there was one, as the cost of resistance is higher than any of us can likely imagine. At every step, Russia has attempted to manipulate Ukrainian politics, and when that failed Russia used force—revealing their “preference” wrt respecting the sovereignty of Ukrainians.
Craig
Feb 21 2025 at 11:27am
“They did not voice diplomatic support for peaceful, organic secession movements. The people in these regions do not welcome the Russian invasion, they resist”
You’re wrong, the people in the DPR and LPR fought UKRAINE for TEN YEARS, lost 20k people doing so, achieved de facto independence, complete with their own flag, which strangely resembles a Confederate battle flag, they tax people there, have their own militia/military, etc they have all of the organs of a state. They didn’ just voice ‘dipplomatic support for peaceful, organic secession movement’ they declared independence and fought for it.
The Russians held a referendum and of course the Russians won that. But nobody thinks Ukraine would prevail in a neutral party fair plebiscite/referendum.
Not only are they NOT resisting the Russians, they are openly fighting WITH THEM.
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 12:56pm
As for the Peace in Our Time argument it fails here because after appeasing Hitler, Hitler rolled over France in 1940 and won the early war. If Russia appeased and they renege NATO can roll over them then. It doesn’t matter its not close. Its 4-5:1
TravisV
Feb 20 2025 at 1:22pm
Prof. Sumner wrote:
“Countries do not have a right to invade neighboring internationally recognized sovereign countries with the goal of annexing land. Ever. For any reason whatsoever.”
Craig, your replies to that have been non-responsive. Do you agree with Sumner’s quote above or disagree with it? What is your position?
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 2:47pm
Sounds to me like he might be phrasing the question to justify a Chinese invasion of Taiwan given the fact that Taiwan isn’t ‘internationally recognized‘ [One China]
Is it ok to invade countries that AREN’T internationally recognized? Like Taiwan or the DPR?
TravisV
Feb 20 2025 at 3:59pm
Craig, that’s another non-responsive answer. Yet again, you’re on skates unable to control your feet.
What is YOUR position?
Should countries have a right to invade neighboring internationally recognized sovereign countries with the goal of annexing land. Or shouldn’t they?
When will you provide an answer to those simple questions?
Craig
Feb 20 2025 at 4:52pm
I want to know what YOUR position is. I’m not discussibg it any further unless you answer MY question?
Is it ok to invade countries that AREN’T internationally recognized? Like Taiwan or the DPR?
TravisV
Feb 20 2025 at 7:35pm
Craig,
My answer is “no.” It is NOT okay for any country to invade North Korea or Taiwan.
Now: what is your position. Do you agree with Prof. Sumner’s simple point or disagree with it?
Craig
Feb 21 2025 at 11:28am
DPR = Donetsk LPR = Luhansk, the pre-invasion territories that were de facto independent, not North Korea.
robc
Feb 21 2025 at 4:01pm
Travis,
What about the Confederate States of America? Are they like Taiwan or is it ok to invade them?
Jose Pablo
Feb 20 2025 at 1:01pm
Very good post!
You can also observe the revealed preferences of the Trump team in Vice President Vance’s very valuable (though certainly unsolicited) feedback on the health of European democracies, compared to the complete absence of similar (and equally unsolicited) feedback on Russian democracy.
Either he believes that the Russian model is one that Europe (and perhaps the U.S.) should follow, or it’s simply that he values Europeans enough to offer them valuable lessons, but doesn’t extend the same courtesy to Putin and the Russians.
In either case, I look forward to Vice President Vance’s insightful remarks on the People’s Republic of China model of government.
Mactoul
Feb 20 2025 at 11:17pm
They can secede but where is this right to secede?
Does an American State has this right? Lincoln didn’t think so.
Again, they can invade and annex if they can. But where is the question of this alleged right to invade and annex?
I doubt even Hitler would have put it this way. It is rather a duty to pre-empt an attack or a duty to save one’s fellow countrymen being oppressed.
But liberalism tends to be mute on duties and vocal on alleged and imaginary rights.
Craig
Feb 21 2025 at 12:12pm
They can secede but where is this right to secede?
The UN charter has two principles that often conflict. Territorial integrity and self determination. The right to secede is the natural right of revolution, very much Locke, and of course the precedent for Americans would be the DoI….when a long train of abuses…..the American Revolution IS a secession.
“Does an American State has this right? Lincoln didn’t think so.”
And the Union won the war. The Confederates claimed a legal right to secede under the Constitution itself.
American law distinguishes between unlawful rebellion and the lawful natural right of revolution. So when Franklin says they must all hang together or they would all hang separately he’s acknowledging that under ENGLISH law they are traitorous rebels subject to execution. Under AMERICAN law they are patriots asserting their natural right to revolt against the ‘intolerable’ — they made no appeal to English law their appeal was based on the fundamental right of revolution against intolerable oppression.
The people in thise regions have a legit gripe against Ukraine and they fought for ten years prior to invasion NOT to be part of Ukraine. Putin’s invasion didn’t ‘start’ the war, the invasion was an escalation of the pre-existing Donbass Conflict.
Mactoul
Feb 24 2025 at 1:14am
What is relevance of American laws on secession et al to Ukraine, Taiwan, Luhansk etc etc?
Craig
Feb 24 2025 at 10:11am
Because the US is being asked to backstop this to the tune of hundreds of billions specifically and generally spending a trillion a year, every year, (defense + VA) to maintain its posture. Meanwhile the life expectancy in TN is 71, think about that.
Now in Ukraine I’m not willing to spend hundreds of billions in support of territorial integrity when its clear to me areas of Ukraine don’t want to be part of Ukraine. Somebody needs to tell them that’s too bad but that’s not a hundred billion dollar bill to me. Meanwhile on the other end of the world we’re standing for the exact opposite principle. Our official policy is one China. Notwithstanding the US is supporting Taiwan’s independence, de facto. Which we should because Taiwan doesn’t want to be part of the PRC.
If it were up to me, its not, I’d hold neutral 3rd party plebisictes but I’m not so guess what? If Crimea ends up with Russia, I don’t care. Sorry but turns out there’s alot of Russians there.
Comments are closed.