Trump's Disastrous Foreign Policy Debate

Donald Trump faceplanted in the first presidential debate, gave Russia a green light to wait for a possible Trump election to take advantage in Ukraine War.

The first of two presidential debates took place on June 27, and, while neither candidate did a good job, Donald Trump’s responses to many of the questions, including those on foreign policy, lead to questions about whether he could serve as a capable commander-in-chief.

With U.S. adversaries like Russia, China, and North Korea either actively engaged in wars of aggression or threatening the prospect of wars against U.S. allies, the stakes are high, but Trump didn’t have answers.

When asked if Trump would accede to Russian demands that Russia get to keep territories of Ukraine that it has occupied or annexed, Trump went on a rant about how doesn’t think veterans should support President Biden. He claimed that Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if he had been president and that Hamas, which launched multiple rocket attacks and sniper attacks against Israel in 2019, wouldn’t have attacked Israel if he were president.

After being pressed with a follow-up, Trump finally said, “No, they’re [Putin’s terms are] not acceptable.”

But in the very next breath, Trump suggested that he would cut funding for Ukraine, which could effectively let Putin achieve his goals of conquest.

Trump criticized Biden for funding Ukraine: “He’s given $200 billion now or more to Ukraine. He’s given $200 billion.”

Per the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. Congress has appropriated $175 billion in Ukraine-related aid bills since Russia invaded. Of that, $107 billion went to the Ukrainian government, while the rest was spent by the U.S. on activities supporting the U.S. policies. Also, $70 billion of the funding that went to Ukraine was spent on weapons, much of which ended up going to American military contractors.

But the general point that the Biden administration has spent about $200 billion supporting Ukraine’s defense efforts is true, and Trump attacked Biden for having pushed for that spending. He also attacked Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, calling him, “the greatest salesman ever,” and accused him of ripping off Americans when he asked for more funding.

The takeaway is that Trump opposes the U.S. funding Ukraine at its current level and potentially at any level. That’s a losing position if the U.S. views Russia as a threat that must be constrained. Without U.S. funding for Ukraine, the Russian military would have had much greater success in its invasion. Having funded Ukraine and shared intelligence that helped Ukraine prepare for the invasion, Ukraine held off the brunt of Putin’s assault and caused great military losses for Russia. Russia’s power and prestige has taken a dive, while the U.S. spent relatively little money and didn’t lose any soldiers.

Trump’s opposition to funding Ukraine also contradicts his claim that he would “have that war settled between Putin and Zelenskyy as president-elect before I take office on January 20th.”

If Putin knows that a hypothetical President Trump is going to oppose funding for Ukraine, he would have no reason to settle the war now or in the near future. He would wait for the results of the election; if Trump wins, and if Trump follows through on cutting funding for Ukraine, then Putin would be able to carry on his war of aggression and would likely have much greater success, as Ukraine would be lacking resources.

President Biden did a poor job responding to Trump’s missteps on foreign policy and other issues. Biden’s voice was weak. His sentences came out in jumbled syntax, and he mixed up words many times. In one instance, he mixed up Trump’s name with Putin’s when he made reference to Trump’s comments that, “I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to you if a NATO member doesn’t meet spending targets.

Many times when Trump made questionable claims, delusional promises, and sympathetic comments towards Putin’s positions, Biden simply did not challenge Trump on those statements.

For Biden, the debate was an epic failure of style as well as a lesser failure on substance. Biden made many valid points on foreign policy. Speaking of South Korea’s support for Ukraine (which is increasing since Putin met with Kim Jong-Un), Biden said:

And by the way, I got 50 other nations around the world to support Ukraine, including Japan and South Korea, because they understand that this was – this – this kind of dislocation has a serious threat to the whole world peace. No – no major war in Europe has ever been able to be contained just to Europe.

But there was much Biden could have said that he didn’t, and there were many opportunities Biden missed to challenge Trump. (He did not, for example, press Trump on whether he would continue funding Ukraine.)

Both candidates did poorly at the debate for different reasons. For Biden, his failures as a debater do not speak to anything that would be cause for concern about his ability to manage U.S. foreign policy. Rather, they cause questions about his abilities as a candidate. For Trump, however, his inability to articulate an agenda for a strong U.S. foreign policy that challenges America’s adversaries, however, directly calls into question his ability to serve as president.