• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

War Mongers Versus Putin Lovers

How Caricatures Poison the Ukraine Debate

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Write an essay on how communication between "war mongers" and "Putin-lovers" - as the caricature goes - on Ukraine fails.
• Is this really a war between democracy and autocracy - another frequently used frame?
• Is it the struggle then perhaps between idealism versus realism - a third common frame?
• Give examples of media voices that give these extremist points of view.
• Are there also Western extremist media voices?
• Are there any media voices that provide a pragmatic and moderate analysis?
• Where would you place Donald Trump, who recently abandoned Ukraine and sides with Putin?
• Is that an example of maverick geopolitics or pragmatic wisdom?
• Is it a return to 19th century politics, in which 20th century achievements are jettisoned?
• Many see this "multipolar world" as an advance over US hegemony.

Write an essay on how communication between “war mongers” and “Putin-lovers” - as the caricature goes - on Ukraine fails.

The Breakdown of Dialogue on Ukraine: Between "Warmongers" and "Putin-Lovers"

Discussions about the war in Ukraine have become deeply polarized, often collapsing into caricatures that obscure rather than clarify reality. Those advocating for continued Western military support are frequently dismissed as "warmongers," while critics of NATO expansion or proponents of negotiations with Russia are labeled "Putin-lovers." These rhetorical labels, though simplistic, reflect a broader failure of communication. Instead of fostering understanding, discourse around Ukraine has become an exercise in mutual condemnation, where both sides talk past each other rather than engage in meaningful dialogue.

The "Warmonger" Perspective

From the perspective of those critical of Russia's invasion, supporting Ukraine is not a matter of aggression but of defense and moral responsibility. They see Ukraine as a sovereign nation that has been unjustly attacked, and they argue that providing military aid is necessary to uphold international law, deter further Russian expansionism, and prevent the normalization of territorial conquest in the 21st century. To them, negotiations that involve Ukraine ceding territory are not a path to peace but a capitulation that rewards aggression.

However, critics of this stance often accuse its adherents of being reckless, pushing for escalation without considering the risks of nuclear confrontation or the economic and humanitarian toll of prolonging the war. The term "warmonger" is thus wielded to suggest that those supporting military aid are indifferent to peace, willfully blind to the potential for diplomacy, or even complicit in Western imperial ambitions. The accusation, however, flattens the moral and strategic complexities of the situation, reducing legitimate security concerns to a lust for conflict.

The "Putin-Lover" Perspective

On the other side, those who question the dominant Western narrative on Ukraine—whether by highlighting NATO's role in provoking Russia, advocating for a negotiated settlement, or critiquing the Western economic and military response—are frequently dismissed as "Putin-lovers." This label suggests that anyone who departs from the mainstream view must be aligned with, or apologetic for, Russia's actions.

In reality, many who oppose Western involvement in Ukraine are not motivated by admiration for Putin but by skepticism toward American foreign policy, concerns about economic consequences, or fears of escalation into a broader war. Some see the conflict as a geopolitical struggle in which Ukraine is being used as a pawn in a larger U.S.-Russia rivalry. Others emphasize the need for peace over victory, arguing that an endless war serves neither Ukraine nor global stability.

However, just as "warmonger" oversimplifies the pro-Ukraine position, "Putin-lover" erases the diversity of thought among those critical of the West's approach. It shuts down debate by implying that any critique of NATO or Western policy is equivalent to endorsing Putin's invasion. This not only misrepresents the range of arguments but also reinforces an "us vs. them" mentality that stifles discussion.

Why the Conversation Fails

The fundamental problem with this polarized discourse is that it prioritizes moral posturing over genuine engagement. Each side views the other not as debating in good faith but as either naive, dangerous, or outright complicit in war crimes. This results in several dysfunctional patterns:

Strawman Arguments – Each camp tends to misrepresent the other's position. Pro-Ukraine advocates are depicted as reckless interventionists willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, while critics of Western policy are accused of parroting Kremlin propaganda. This reduces complex positions to easily dismissible caricatures.

Moral Absolutism – There is little room for nuance in a debate framed as a battle between good and evil. Those who suggest that Western policies may have contributed to the crisis risk being labeled "Putin apologists," while those who support military aid are seen as bloodthirsty neoconservatives. This black-and-white framing makes compromise or mutual understanding impossible.

Echo Chambers and Censorship – Many discussions occur within ideological silos, reinforced by media ecosystems that selectively highlight information supporting their narrative. Some critics of the war find their views marginalized or deplatformed, while some pro-Ukraine voices see any criticism of NATO strategy as treasonous. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle where each side becomes more convinced of its own righteousness.

Emotional Investment Over Strategic Thinking – The war is often framed in existential terms, making any deviation from one's chosen stance seem like a betrayal. For those supporting Ukraine, any suggestion of compromise feels like abandoning a nation fighting for its survival. For critics of Western intervention, supporting military aid is seen as fueling endless suffering. These emotional stakes make rational discussion exceedingly difficult.

Toward a More Constructive Dialogue

If there is to be any hope for meaningful discussion about Ukraine, both sides must move beyond the rhetoric of "warmongers" and "Putin-lovers" and acknowledge the complexities of the conflict. This requires:

Recognizing Legitimate Concerns – Supporting Ukraine does not mean being indifferent to peace, and advocating for diplomacy does not mean endorsing Russian aggression. Both perspectives can coexist, and acknowledging this would go a long way in fostering better discussions.

Embracing Uncertainty – The war's outcome is uncertain, and so are its long-term consequences. Pretending that any single policy approach guarantees success is unrealistic. Acknowledging the limits of our knowledge encourages humility rather than absolutism.

Prioritizing Strategic Interests Over Ideological Litmus Tests – Instead of treating support for Ukraine or skepticism toward NATO as ideological markers, discussions should focus on practical questions: What policies will most effectively end the war while securing Ukraine's sovereignty? What are the real risks of escalation? How can diplomacy be pursued without undermining international norms?

In the end, the war in Ukraine is not just a geopolitical struggle but a test of how democracies engage with complex, morally fraught conflicts. If discussion continues to be dominated by name-calling and mutual vilification, the possibility of thoughtful policymaking—and ultimately, a resolution to the war—will only become more distant.

Is this really a war between democracy and autocracy - another frequently used frame?

The idea that the war in Ukraine is fundamentally a struggle between democracy and autocracy is a powerful narrative, but it is also an oversimplification. While it captures some elements of the conflict—such as Ukraine's desire to align with Western democratic institutions and Russia's increasingly authoritarian governance—it ignores key geopolitical, historical, and strategic dimensions.

Why the Democracy vs. Autocracy Frame Is Appealing

This framing serves several purposes, particularly in the West:

Moral Clarity – Positioning Ukraine as a democratic underdog resisting an authoritarian aggressor makes it easier to rally public and political support. The war is no longer just about borders or power struggles but about fundamental values.

Mobilizing Support for Western Involvement – The idea that Ukraine is fighting on behalf of the “free world” against autocracy strengthens the case for Western military and economic aid. It turns the war into a frontline battle in a global ideological struggle.

Demonizing Russia – While Putin's Russia is undoubtedly authoritarian, the democracy-vs-autocracy frame portrays the war as a simple case of good versus evil, making negotiations or alternative perspectives seem like appeasement.

Why This Frame Is Incomplete

While democracy and autocracy do play a role, they are not the sole or even primary drivers of the conflict. Several factors complicate this black-and-white view:

Ukraine's Democracy Is Still Developing

While Ukraine has made democratic progress since 2014, it is not a fully consolidated democracy. Issues such as corruption, oligarchic influence, media restrictions, and political repression remain significant. During the war, Ukraine has suspended opposition parties, centralized media, and postponed elections—understandable wartime measures, but ones that blur the neat democracy-autocracy dichotomy.

Russia's invasion is not primarily about Ukraine's internal governance but about its geopolitical orientation. If Ukraine were a non-aligned autocracy rather than a Western-leaning democracy, it is unclear whether Putin would still have invaded.

Russia's Motivations Go Beyond Ideology

Russia is not trying to install a global autocratic order; its foreign policy is driven more by geopolitical concerns than by spreading authoritarianism. Putin's primary goal has been to prevent Ukraine from fully integrating with the West, particularly NATO.

The Russian government frames its invasion not as a battle against democracy but as a struggle against Western domination and historical injustice. While this is propaganda, it suggests that Russia's motives are more about power and security than ideology.

The West's Support Is Not Always About Democracy

The U.S. and its allies have historically supported both democracies and autocracies when it suits their strategic interests. Ukraine's cause aligns with Western geopolitical objectives—weakening Russia, strengthening NATO, and reinforcing U.S. influence in Europe.

If this were purely a battle of political systems, one might expect a stronger push for democratic reforms within Ukraine and more pressure on authoritarian allies like Saudi Arabia.

Global South Perspectives Differ

Many countries in the Global South reject the democracy-vs-autocracy framing because they see the war as a regional or geopolitical struggle rather than a universal ideological one.

For these nations, the conflict is about great-power rivalry rather than a moral battle, which explains why many have taken a neutral stance instead of fully backing Ukraine.

A More Nuanced Understanding

Instead of viewing the war purely as a clash of political systems, a more accurate framing would consider:

Geopolitical competition – The war is, at its core, about Ukraine's position in the post-Cold War order and whether it will remain in Russia's sphere of influence or fully integrate with the West.

Sovereignty and security – Ukraine is fighting to maintain its independence, regardless of whether it is a democracy or not. Russia, in turn, is acting from a position of imperial nostalgia and security concerns, not necessarily out of ideological opposition to democracy.

Internal political struggles – Ukraine's fight for sovereignty intersects with its democratic aspirations, but democracy itself is not the primary reason for the war.

While it is true that Ukraine represents a model of political openness compared to Russia, reducing the war to a simple democracy-autocracy binary obscures the deeper power dynamics at play. This framing may be useful for rallying support, but it does not fully explain the war's causes or complexities.

Is it the struggle then perhaps between idealism versus realism - a third common frame?

Framing the Ukraine war as a struggle between idealism and realism offers more depth than the "democracy vs. autocracy" binary, but it still oversimplifies the conflict. While there are certainly elements of both idealistic and realist thinking in how different actors approach the war, the reality is more complex.

The Idealist Perspective

Idealists tend to frame the war as a moral struggle—a fight for Ukraine's sovereignty, democracy, and the broader principles of international law. From this viewpoint:

Russia's invasion is a blatant violation of Ukraine's rights, and the international community has a moral obligation to support Ukraine.

Ukraine must regain all its lost territory, including Crimea, to uphold the principle that borders cannot be changed by force.

Diplomacy should not reward aggression; negotiations should only happen on Ukraine's terms.

Western support for Ukraine is not just about geopolitics but about defending a rules-based international order where smaller nations are not at the mercy of larger, more powerful neighbors.

This perspective dominates in many Western governments, media, and advocacy circles. It is often associated with liberal internationalism, which argues that international institutions, shared values, and collective security can shape a more just world order.

The Realist Perspective

Realists, by contrast, emphasize power dynamics and national interests over moral imperatives. From this perspective:

The war is not just about Ukraine's sovereignty but about the balance of power between the West and Russia.

Ukraine is in a geopolitically sensitive position, and NATO's expansion eastward inevitably provoked Russian aggression.

Wars do not end with total moral victories; compromise and diplomacy—even if it means territorial concessions—are necessary to achieve peace.

The West's commitment to Ukraine must be weighed against its own strategic and economic interests; prolonging the war may be more costly than forcing a settlement.

Realists tend to view great-power competition as the driving force behind conflicts. They argue that moral ideals cannot override geopolitical realities and that nations ultimately act based on security concerns, not abstract principles.

Why This Frame Is Still Limited

While the idealist vs. realist framework helps explain some differences in opinion, it is not a perfect fit:

The West Is Not Fully Idealist, and Russia Is Not Fully Realist

While Western leaders invoke ideals of democracy and sovereignty, their decisions are also deeply pragmatic. Economic sanctions, military aid, and diplomatic strategies are guided by national interests, not just moral principles.

Russia, despite its coldly strategic approach, also justifies the war in ideological terms, invoking historical destiny, Slavic unity, and anti-Western narratives that extend beyond pure realism.

Ukrainians Themselves Have a Mixed Approach

Ukraine fights with idealistic motivation (defending its homeland and democratic aspirations) but employs realist strategies (securing Western aid, using asymmetric warfare, and leveraging international alliances).

While Ukraine's official position rejects territorial compromise, President Zelensky has at times suggested pragmatic diplomatic approaches—though always from a position of strength.

Neither Approach Fully Resolves the Conflict

Idealists struggle with the question of how far to go—should the West support Ukraine until it fully defeats Russia, even if that risks escalation?

Realists struggle with the fact that Russia may not accept a negotiated settlement, especially if Putin sees the war as existential.

Both perspectives can be self-fulfilling—idealism can prolong conflicts by rejecting diplomacy, while realism can enable aggression by rewarding power grabs.

A More Practical Framing: Pragmatism vs. Extremes

Instead of seeing the conflict as idealism vs. realism, a more useful framework might be pragmatism vs. extremes:

Pragmatists recognize Ukraine's right to defend itself but also acknowledge the need for strategic flexibility, risk assessment, and realistic paths to peace.

Extreme idealists push for total victory at any cost, even if it risks wider war.

Extreme realists argue for abandoning Ukraine or forcing it into an unfavorable settlement, regardless of its long-term consequences.

Ultimately, most decision-makers blend idealism and realism. The challenge is not choosing one over the other but striking the right balance between principles and practical constraints.

Give examples of media voices that give these extremist points of view.

In the discourse surrounding the Ukraine conflict, certain media figures have adopted extreme positions, either advocating for total military victory or suggesting abandonment of Ukraine to Russian influence. Here are examples from both ends of the spectrum:

Advocates of Total Military Victory:

Anton Krasovsky: A former presenter on Russia's state-funded RT network, Krasovsky has made incendiary remarks regarding Ukraine. He has referred to Ukrainians as "animals" and expressed a desire for a "final solution" to the conflict. In October 2022, he suggested that Ukrainian children who criticized Russia should be drowned or burned, leading to his suspension from RT.

Vladimir Solovyov: A prominent Russian television presenter known for his vehement support of the Kremlin, Solovyov has called for escalated military actions against Ukraine. He has advocated for missile strikes on European capitals and has repeatedly suggested the use of nuclear weapons, reflecting an uncompromising stance on achieving Russia's objectives.

Margarita Simonyan: As the editor-in-chief of RT and Rossiya Segodnya, Simonyan has been a vocal supporter of Russia's actions in Ukraine. She has dismissed anti-war protests, stating, "If you are ashamed of being Russian now, don't worry, you are not Russian." Simonyan has also propagated unverified claims about Ukrainian forces, including accusations of attacking children in Mariupol with banned cluster munitions.

Dmitry Medvedev: The former Russian president and current deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council has emphasized Russia's objective to achieve "maximum defeat" of Ukraine. He has underscored the importance of inflicting significant losses on Ukrainian forces to achieve Russia's strategic goals.

Advocates of Abandoning Ukraine:

Tucker Carlson: A host on Fox News, Carlson has questioned U.S. involvement in supporting Ukraine, suggesting that the conflict is not America's concern and that resources should not be expended on Ukraine's defense.

Candace Owens: A conservative commentator, Owens has echoed sentiments that the U.S. should not involve itself in the Ukraine conflict, implying that Ukraine's issues are not of strategic importance to America.

Russian State Television Hosts: Figures like Olga Skabeyeva have highlighted statements suggesting that certain Western leaders are not imposing conditions on Russia for peace in Ukraine, focusing demands solely on Kyiv. This narrative implies a lack of Western support for Ukraine, aligning with the perspective of reducing or withdrawing support.

Karen Shakhnazarov: Initially supportive of the invasion, the filmmaker and pundit called for an end to the conflict, citing the risk of a humanitarian disaster and expressing skepticism about Russia's ability to seize major Ukrainian cities. His stance reflects a perspective of disengagement from the conflict.

These examples illustrate the polarized media perspectives on the Ukraine conflict, ranging from calls for uncompromising military action to arguments for complete disengagement.

Are there also Western extremist media voices?

Yes, there are also Western media voices that take extreme positions on the Ukraine war, either advocating for maximalist military intervention or for completely abandoning Ukraine. Here are some examples:

Advocates of Total Military Victory

Anne Applebaum (The Atlantic, The Washington Post) – Applebaum is a vocal advocate for defeating Russia entirely, often arguing that negotiations with Putin are futile. She has pushed for more aggressive military aid to Ukraine, including advanced weaponry, and warns that any compromise will embolden Russia to continue its expansionist ambitions. While she presents well-reasoned arguments, critics say her position leaves little room for diplomatic solutions.

Eliot Cohen (The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs) – Cohen has taken a hardline stance, arguing that the U.S. and its allies should pursue a "decisive victory" over Russia. He has called for NATO to escalate military aid significantly, including providing Ukraine with fighter jets and long-range missiles. His view aligns with the belief that a Russian defeat is necessary to prevent future wars.

Bill Kristol (The Bulwark, Weekly Standard) – A neoconservative commentator, Kristol has strongly supported the idea that the U.S. must ensure Ukraine's total victory. He has advocated for policies that some critics believe could escalate the conflict into a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Max Boot (The Washington Post) – Boot has consistently pushed for increased Western involvement, framing the war as a test of American and European resolve against authoritarianism. While he stops short of calling for direct NATO intervention, his rhetoric often dismisses diplomatic efforts as appeasement.

Advocates of Abandoning Ukraine

Tucker Carlson (formerly of Fox News, now independent) – Carlson has repeatedly criticized U.S. support for Ukraine, arguing that it serves no American interest and only prolongs the war. He has echoed Russian narratives that NATO provoked the conflict and has suggested that the West should focus on diplomacy rather than military aid. His interviews with Putin and other pro-Russian figures have fueled accusations that he is spreading Kremlin talking points.

Douglas Macgregor (The American Conservative, Fox News guest) – A retired U.S. Army colonel, Macgregor has called for the U.S. to stop supporting Ukraine and let Russia achieve its objectives. He argues that Ukraine cannot win and that continued Western aid only leads to more deaths. His views have been criticized for being overly sympathetic to Russia's strategic goals.

Candace Owens (Daily Wire, social media) – Owens has dismissed the war as a distraction from domestic issues, arguing that Ukraine is corrupt and undeserving of U.S. support. She has also suggested that Zelensky is manipulating the West into funding a war that does not benefit American citizens.

Glenn Greenwald (Rumble, formerly The Intercept) – Greenwald has consistently questioned Western narratives about Ukraine, portraying U.S. support as driven by military-industrial interests rather than genuine concern for democracy. While he does not explicitly support Russia, his arguments often align with the idea that the U.S. should withdraw from the conflict entirely.

These figures represent the extremes of Western discourse on Ukraine. While mainstream Western media generally supports Ukraine, these voices push the debate to its outer edges—either demanding total Russian defeat or arguing for disengagement and Ukrainian concessions.

Are there any media voices that provide a pragmatic and moderate analysis?

Yes, several media figures and analysts provide pragmatic and moderate takes on the Ukraine war, balancing the need for Western support with the risks of escalation while considering diplomatic and strategic realities. These voices neither call for total war nor complete abandonment but advocate for a measured approach based on evolving conditions.

Moderate and Pragmatic Analysts

1. Stephen Walt (Foreign Policy, Harvard University)

A leading realist scholar, Walt argues that while the U.S. should support Ukraine's sovereignty, it must also be realistic about its long-term objectives. He warns against escalatory policies that could drag NATO into a direct war with Russia and believes that negotiations will eventually be necessary.

He criticizes both extreme militarism (pushing for total Russian defeat) and naïve idealism (assuming Russia will simply accept Western-imposed conditions).

2. Thomas Friedman (The New York Times)

A respected foreign affairs columnist, Friedman has supported aid to Ukraine while cautioning that the West should avoid open-ended commitments without clear objectives.

He has raised concerns about Western overconfidence in assuming Ukraine can achieve a total military victory and has emphasized the need for long-term diplomatic engagement.

3. Fiona Hill (Brookings Institution, Former U.S. National Security Council)

A Russia expert, Hill argues that Russia cannot be allowed to win but also warns that pushing for Putin's total defeat could be dangerous, especially if it leads to a desperate escalation.

She believes that the U.S. must balance military aid with diplomatic efforts and that Ukraine's long-term security will depend on a combination of deterrence and negotiation rather than outright victory.

4. Rajan Menon (Defense Priorities, City College of New York)

Menon advocates for a flexible strategy, recognizing that Ukraine needs military support but also emphasizing that U.S. interests must be defined carefully—i.e., avoiding an unwinnable war of attrition or direct NATO-Russia conflict.

He is open to negotiations if conditions are favorable, but does not argue for immediate concessions.

5. Emma Ashford (Stimson Center, formerly Cato Institute)

A restrained realist, Ashford has argued that while supporting Ukraine is important, the U.S. should avoid policies that could turn this into a never-ending proxy war.

She critiques calls for regime change in Russia as unrealistic and warns that pushing Putin into a corner could make negotiations harder in the future.

6. Michael Kofman (Center for Naval Analyses, War on the Rocks podcast)

Kofman provides one of the most grounded military assessments of the Ukraine war, avoiding both optimistic pro-Ukraine cheerleading and pessimistic defeatism.

He focuses on actual battlefield dynamics rather than ideological arguments, offering pragmatic insights into what military aid is actually useful and what long-term outcomes are feasible.

7. Anatol Lieven (Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft)

Lieven takes a restrained but not isolationist approach, arguing that the West should support Ukraine within reason, ensuring that its security interests are protected but without setting unrealistic goals like total Russian defeat.

He stresses the need for backchannel diplomacy to prepare for eventual peace talks.

What These Analysts Have in Common

They support Ukraine's sovereignty but recognize the limits of military solutions.

They acknowledge the need for Western aid while warning against open-ended escalation.

They advocate for diplomacy as a necessary tool, rather than dismissing it as weakness or appeasement.

They base their arguments on real-world military, economic, and political realities, rather than ideological narratives.

These voices offer a sober, strategic perspective that avoids both utopian idealism and cynical isolationism, making them essential reading for anyone seeking a balanced understanding of the conflict.

Where would you place Donald Trump, who recently abandoned Ukraine and sides with Putin?

Donald Trump's stance on Ukraine aligns more closely with the realist-isolationist camp, but with a distinct personalized and transactional approach. Rather than fitting into a coherent geopolitical framework like classical realism, his position appears driven by a mix of America First nationalism, skepticism of foreign entanglements, admiration for authoritarian strongmen, and a desire to undercut establishment policies.

Trump's Position on Ukraine: Abandonment and Alignment with Putin

Cutting U.S. Support to Ukraine – Trump has repeatedly said he would end the war in 24 hours but has not provided details on how. The implication is that he would pressure Ukraine into making territorial concessions rather than defeating Russia. Recently, he discouraged Republican lawmakers from passing further Ukraine aid, accelerating a shift in GOP policy.

Admiration for Putin – Trump has long expressed personal admiration for Vladimir Putin, calling him “smart” and suggesting that NATO's expansion provoked Russia's invasion. This aligns him with pro-Russian realists, though more traditional realists (e.g., Henry Kissinger) still recognize Russia as a threat.

Anti-NATO Rhetoric – Trump has threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO and has suggested he would not defend European allies who fail to pay their share. This approach undermines the collective deterrence strategy that has helped contain Russian aggression.

Transactional Foreign Policy – Rather than viewing Ukraine as a strategic ally, Trump treats foreign aid as a business deal, questioning why the U.S. should fund Ukraine while European nations contribute less. His worldview prioritizes immediate American economic benefits over long-term geopolitical strategy.

Where Trump Falls on the Ukraine War Spectrum

While Trump shares some views with realists who question endless military aid, he goes further by actively undermining Ukraine and NATO, making him closer to an isolationist or even pro-Russian position rather than a balanced realist one. His approach is not about diplomacy or stability, but rather disrupting the existing U.S.-European security structure, which aligns with Putin's interests.

Is that an example of maverick geopolitics or pragmatic wisdom?

Whether Trump's stance on Ukraine represents maverick geopolitics or wisdom depends on the lens through which one evaluates foreign policy.

The Case for Maverick Geopolitics

Trump's approach breaks sharply from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has dominated U.S. strategy since World War II. His stance could be seen as a form of disruptive, outsider geopolitics that challenges conventional wisdom:

Rejecting "Forever Wars" – By opposing military aid to Ukraine, Trump aligns with Americans who are weary of costly foreign entanglements (Afghanistan, Iraq) and prefer a more inward-looking national strategy.

Pressuring Europe – Trump's threats to pull back U.S. support have forced European countries to increase their defense spending, which he sees as a victory.

Transactional Realism – He treats alliances and conflicts as business deals, demanding immediate returns rather than long-term strategic investments.

Negotiating From Strength – His claim that he could "end the war in 24 hours" suggests that he would use brute-force dealmaking to pressure Ukraine into accepting Russian demands, thereby stopping the war.

This maverick approach is disruptive, rejecting traditional diplomacy and emphasizing raw power dynamics over alliances and norms. Some see it as a radical "realpolitik" move—forcing Ukraine to settle the war quickly rather than prolonging it through Western aid.

The Case Against Wisdom

While some view Trump's foreign policy as refreshingly pragmatic, others argue that his Ukraine stance is shortsighted and reckless, undermining U.S. interests in the long run:

Encouraging Aggression – By signaling that the U.S. won't back Ukraine, Trump emboldens not just Russia, but also China (Taiwan) and Iran (Middle East conflicts). A weak U.S. response to Ukraine could invite future military aggressions elsewhere.

Weakening NATO and U.S. Influence – Threatening to abandon NATO allies and withdrawing support for Ukraine diminishes U.S. credibility globally. Countries that once relied on U.S. security guarantees may seek other arrangements, possibly with China.

Empowering Putin – Instead of forcing a diplomatic solution, Trump's stance gives Putin leverage, allowing him to dictate terms without making meaningful concessions. This is not traditional realism (which seeks balance) but rather one-sided appeasement.

Overlooking Strategic Value – Ukraine's resistance has significantly weakened Russia's military, reducing its future threat to Europe without direct U.S. troop involvement—a strategic win for Washington. Cutting off Ukraine aid squanders this advantage.

Verdict: Maverick or Wise?

If one believes the U.S. should avoid foreign entanglements at any cost, then Trump's approach might seem wise—prioritizing American interests over global commitments.

If one believes that strategic alliances, deterrence, and global stability matter, then his stance appears reckless—a short-term gain that risks long-term chaos.

Ultimately, Trump's Ukraine position is maverick geopolitics, but whether it is wisdom or folly depends on one's view of America's role in the world.

Is it a return to 19th century politics, in which 20th century achievements are jettisoned?

Yes, in many ways, the Ukraine war and the surrounding geopolitical shifts resemble a return to 19th-century power politics, undermining some of the key diplomatic and institutional achievements of the 20th century. The world seems to be moving away from rules-based international order and toward a more pragmatic, raw power-driven approach.

Why It Resembles 19th-Century Politics

Great Power Competition Overrules International Law

In the 19th century, international relations were dominated by "spheres of influence" and great power rivalry rather than respect for sovereignty or legal norms.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine echoes this: instead of respecting Ukraine's post-1991 independence, Russia treats it as a buffer state that must remain under its control, much like how European empires operated in their colonies and borderlands.

War as a Tool of Statecraft

The 20th century saw efforts to delegitimize war through institutions like the United Nations, the EU, and NATO, emphasizing diplomacy and deterrence.

The 19th century, by contrast, was marked by frequent wars of conquest, shifting alliances (e.g., the Congress of Vienna system), and power balancing.

The Ukraine war shows that war is back as a primary tool of geopolitics, as Russia pursues territorial expansion through military means rather than diplomacy.

Decline of International Institutions

The UN, OSCE, and even NATO's deterrence framework have struggled to prevent conflicts like Ukraine.

The multipolar fragmentation of global politics (U.S. vs. China vs. Russia vs. regional players) resembles the pre-WWI world, where no single system governed international affairs.

In the 19th century, organizations like the Concert of Europe managed power competition temporarily but failed to prevent wars—much like today's institutions appear increasingly ineffective.

Realpolitik Over Ideology

The Cold War (20th century) was shaped by ideological competition (democracy vs. communism), leading to structured alliances and proxy wars.

The 19th century was more about pragmatic realpolitik—alliances formed and dissolved based on national interest rather than ideology.

Today, the U.S. supports autocracies (e.g., Saudi Arabia) while opposing Russia, and China maintains trade with both NATO and Moscow—a very 19th-century-style power balance.

Weakening of Liberal Globalization

The 20th century saw economic globalization, interdependence, and institutions (WTO, EU, IMF) that were meant to prevent war by making economies mutually reliant.

Today, globalization is being weaponized:

Sanctions, economic warfare, and energy blackmail resemble the trade wars of the late 1800s.

China and Russia are decoupling from the West, creating competing economic blocs instead of a single global system.

What 20th-Century Achievements Are Being Jettisoned?

Post-WWII norms against territorial conquest (Russia's invasion violates this).

The idea that economic interdependence prevents war (Europe's reliance on Russian gas didn't stop the invasion).

International law as a meaningful deterrent (UN resolutions are ignored, much like in the pre-WWI era).

Multilateral diplomacy as the primary conflict-resolution method (instead, we see unilateral actions and coercion).

Conclusion: A Dangerous Regression?

The world is shifting away from the institutional, cooperative order of the 20th century and back toward a 19th-century world of power struggles, shifting alliances, and military aggression. This raises the question: are we heading toward a new equilibrium or another major global conflict, much like how 19th-century power games eventually led to World War I?

Many see this “multipolar world” as an advance over US hegemony.

Yes, many argue that a multipolar world is an improvement over U.S. hegemony, seeing it as a more balanced, less domineering global order. Proponents of multipolarity believe it allows for greater diversity in global leadership, reduces dependence on a single superpower, and gives regional powers more autonomy. However, critics warn that multipolarity can lead to greater instability, fragmentation, and power struggles, much like the rivalries of the 19th century that eventually led to World War I.

Why Some See Multipolarity as an Advance

End of Western Dominance

Many countries, particularly in the Global South, view multipolarity as a liberation from Western-led institutions (IMF, World Bank, NATO) that have often dictated terms to developing nations.

Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa see it as an opportunity to carve out independent foreign policies rather than being forced to choose between U.S. and China/Russia blocs.

Economic Decentralization

The rise of China, India, and BRICS reduces reliance on the U.S. dollar, giving nations more financial independence.

Alternative financial systems (e.g., China's Belt and Road Initiative, Russia's trade with Asia) allow developing economies to diversify their economic partnerships instead of being tied to Western financial rules.

More Equitable Global Decision-Making

Multipolarity allows regional powers (e.g., Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia) to have greater influence in shaping global rules, instead of decisions being made in Washington, Brussels, or Beijing.

Groups like BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and ASEAN are emerging as alternative power centers to Western-led institutions.

Check on U.S. Military and Political Power

U.S. hegemony has led to unilateral military interventions (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan) that many countries resented.

Multipolarity theoretically prevents any single country from imposing its will globally, making interventions harder.

Why Others See Multipolarity as Dangerous

Risk of Great Power Conflicts

The 19th-century multipolar world led to constant wars (Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, eventually WWI).

A world where Russia, China, the U.S., and regional powers constantly compete may be more prone to military conflict, not less.

Lack of Global Stability

U.S. hegemony, despite its flaws, provided a predictable international system (security guarantees, global trade rules, and alliances).

Without a single dominant power, disputes (Ukraine, Taiwan, Middle East tensions) have no clear mediator—potentially leading to prolonged instability.

Competing Economic Systems

Instead of a globalized economy, multipolarity leads to rival economic blocs:

China and Russia pushing de-dollarization

U.S. and EU enforcing sanctions regimes

Countries caught in the middle face economic uncertainty

Authoritarian-Led Multipolarity

If multipolarity means a balance between democracies and autocracies, it could weaken global human rights and democracy.

China and Russia advocate for state sovereignty over intervention, which could mean fewer international responses to human rights abuses (Xinjiang, Ukraine, Iran protests, Myanmar, etc.).

Is Multipolarity an Advance or a Regression?

If one values decentralization and reduced U.S. dominance, multipolarity is an advance.

If one values stability and clear rules of order, multipolarity risks chaos.

It depends on whether the world's rising powers can cooperate within a new framework or whether they will compete aggressively, repeating the mistakes of the past. Will this multipolar world lead to balance—or another great-power war?