In One of the defining features of EU Today is its extensive network of contributors, spanning not only Europe but the wider world. Among them is Victor Rud, a board member of the Ukrainian American Bar Association and chairman of its Foreign Affairs Committee.
Rud frequently writes on Ukraine’s international position and has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump, particularly in the context of Trump’s approach to the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Trump’s stance on the war has raised concerns among Western analysts, particularly his perceived willingness to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin’s interests. Rud argues that this is part of a longstanding pattern in American foreign policy, where Ukraine has frequently been sidelined in favour of maintaining a working relationship with Russia.
“Trump is taking the position, literally every single position, that Putin wanted,” Rud stated, warning that this approach is dismantling the post-World War II global order.
The Historical Context
Rud traces this pattern back to the aftermath of World War I, when President Woodrow Wilson, despite advocating for self-determination, ignored Ukraine’s warnings that Russia was rebuilding its imperial ambitions.
In the years that followed, Ukraine suffered at the hands of both Communist and White Russian forces, culminating in the Holodomor, a famine engineered by Stalin that killed millions.
Despite these atrocities, the United States formally recognised the Soviet Union in 1933, solidifying its place on the world stage while Ukraine languished under Soviet oppression.
The post-Cold War period, Rud notes, followed a similar pattern. When Ukraine regained independence in 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union led to American geopolitical supremacy. However, instead of supporting Ukraine’s development, the U.S. prioritised relations with Russia, funnelling billions of dollars into the country with little oversight.
“Ukraine was stripped of its nuclear and conventional arsenals, while the U.S. poured money into Russia with no accountability. And here we are,” he remarked.
Trump’s Approach to Ukraine and Russia
Against this historical backdrop, Rud sees Trump’s stance on Ukraine as particularly alarming. He argues that every major position Trump has taken aligns with Putin’s interests, from questioning NATO’s relevance to advocating for a swift resolution to the war that would largely favour Russia.
Trump’s rhetoric has also been accompanied by a systematic dismantling of key institutions. His previous administration was marked by efforts to weaken NATO, and his second term could bring further destabilisation. Rud warns that Trump’s team, including figures such as J.D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard, is following a clear script designed to undermine Western alliances and embolden authoritarian regimes.
The Wider Geopolitical Consequences
The implications of Trump’s policies extend far beyond Ukraine. Rud highlights how Trump’s unpredictability and isolationist tendencies serve Putin’s interests by sowing division within the West. European nations, he argues, are unprepared for the geopolitical shifts that may follow. He points to the Munich Security Conference and Emmanuel Macron’s recent diplomatic overtures as evidence of a fragmented and ineffective European response.
Furthermore, Rud raises concerns about the broader rise of the far right in Europe, many elements of which have historical ties to Moscow. “Russia is a master at raking coals with someone else’s hands,” he said, pointing out that far-right European politicians often deny Russian influence despite frequent participation in Kremlin-backed events.
The Ceasefire Question
Recent discussions about a possible ceasefire in Ukraine have only deepened these concerns. While Putin has not formally agreed to a ceasefire, his statements and strategic manoeuvres suggest he may be positioning himself for one. However, Rud is adamant that any ceasefire would serve Russia’s interests, allowing it to consolidate its territorial gains and prepare for future offensives.
“How are you going to maintain it? Are you going to have 35,000 American troops in Ukraine as we’ve had in Korea for 75 years?” he asked. “The goal is not territory. The goal is the destruction of Ukraine as a viable state.”
Trump’s proposed approach, which prioritises a quick resolution regardless of the consequences, risks creating a “frozen conflict”—a situation Russia has mastered in other regions, including Georgia and Moldova. Such an outcome would leave Ukraine vulnerable to further Russian encroachment while undermining global confidence in Western security commitments.
Europe’s Role and the Path Forward
Europe, according to Rud, must recognise the gravity of the situation. The EU’s decision-making process, which requires unanimity among 27 member states, presents a significant obstacle to a unified response. Putin has successfully cultivated allies within the bloc, with leaders like Viktor Orbán acting as obstacles to decisive action.
Rud suggests that European nations that share common values and strategic interests must take the lead, regardless of broader EU consensus. He identifies the UK, Poland, the Baltic states, and certain Nordic countries as potential leaders in this effort.
However, he also acknowledges the limitations of Britain’s current government, which he describes as reactive rather than strategic.
The fundamental issue, according to Rud, is not just military capability but political will. Ukraine, despite being vastly outnumbered and outgunned, has managed to hold off Russian advances for three years. This resilience, he argues, should serve as a wake-up call for Western nations.
Victor Rud’s analysis presents a stark warning: the West is at a critical juncture, and failure to act decisively will have lasting consequences. Trump’s approach to Ukraine, whether driven by personal ambition or external influence, risks undermining decades of international order. Meanwhile, Europe’s internal divisions leave it vulnerable to further Russian aggression.
The challenge for policymakers is clear. A ceasefire that favours Russia would be a strategic defeat for Ukraine and the West. Instead, European and American leaders must recognise the stakes and commit to sustained military and economic support for Ukraine.
“We have to wake up our electorates and tell them: you’re going to pull in your belts by a couple of notches, and we have to gear up. This is no joke.”
