Former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton believes that former President Donald Trump views his policy on Russia through the lens of his personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Trump thinks Putin is his friend. He trusts Putin," Bolton told the Kyiv Independent.
"Putin, on the other hand, sees Trump as an easy mark. As a former KGB agent, he knows exactly how to manipulate him—and I believe he’s been doing so since the inauguration, if not earlier," Bolton explained.
Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor from 2018 to 2019, offers a critical perspective on Trump’s leadership in his 2020 memoir, The Room Where It Happened. The book details Bolton’s concerns over Trump’s impulsive decision-making and lack of understanding regarding foreign policy.
In a recent interview with the Kyiv Independent, Bolton shared his insights on Trump’s approach to Russia, the unrealistic notion of aligning with Moscow to counter China, and missed opportunities over the past decade to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine and beyond.
This conversation took place just hours before Putin suggested he was open to a ceasefire—on the condition that Ukraine ceases receiving military aid and building its defenses. The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that negotiating with Russia is easier than with Ukraine. Despite Russia’s continued attacks, he insists that Putin wants peace. Why do you think Trump is so eager to cater to the Kremlin’s interests, despite its aggressive stance?
John Bolton: Trump has long believed that if he has a good personal relationship with a foreign leader, then the U.S. has good relations with that country. The reverse is also true in his mind—if he dislikes a leader, relations with that nation are automatically strained.
He has publicly stated in recent weeks: "Putin says he wants peace, and I trust him. If he didn't want peace, he would tell me." That statement alone reveals how he sees Putin.
But Putin doesn’t see Trump as a friend. He sees him as easily manipulated. Since his days in the KGB, Putin has mastered the art of influencing people, and he has used that skill with Trump from day one.
Trump’s perception of Russia as an easy negotiating partner dates back to 2018, when he nearly withdrew from NATO before meeting Putin in Helsinki. As he left for the summit, he told reporters, "I’ve got NATO, then I meet Prime Minister Theresa May, then Putin. You know, the meeting with Putin could be the easiest of them all. Who would think it?"
The answer? Only Trump. That was six years ago, and his outlook hasn’t changed. The facts about Russia’s aggression simply don’t matter to him—he prioritizes his personal view over reality.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has had a difficult relationship with Trump, largely due to the infamous "perfect phone call" in 2019, which led to Trump’s first impeachment. Zelensky has made efforts in recent months to establish better relations with him, but as seen during a disastrous Oval Office meeting, those attempts have failed. Meanwhile, figures like U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who once stated "I don't care what happens to Ukraine," are reinforcing Trump’s stance.
It’s an uphill battle.
The Republican Party has historically supported strong defense policies and deterrence against adversaries like Russia. What has driven the shift in attitudes toward Ukraine?
John Bolton: I believe most Republicans still support Ukraine—certainly among voters, and even among members of Congress. However, many Republican lawmakers remain silent out of fear of Trump.
They worry that opposing him will lead to primary challenges from Trump-backed candidates. In deep-red districts, where winning the Republican nomination all but guarantees election, that’s a serious risk.
That said, the tide may be turning. Trump’s tariff policies are raising concerns, adding to unease over his stance on Russia and Ukraine. If European allies continue clarifying the stakes, we’ll have to fight this battle day by day.
The Kremlin has indicated that Trump’s foreign policy aligns with its interests. What impact would a U.S.-Russia alliance have on the global stage?
John Bolton: It could be devastating for NATO.
In 2018, I saw firsthand how close Trump came to withdrawing from the alliance at the Brussels summit. His distaste for NATO hasn’t changed. Even without a formal exit, he could severely weaken the alliance by undermining its cohesion and deterrence capabilities.
This would have global consequences. China, for instance, is closely watching how the U.S. handles Ukraine. If America and NATO fail to defend a European nation against invasion, Beijing will likely assume the U.S. won’t stand up for Taiwan or other allies in the South China Sea.
Some argue that Trump views a rapprochement with Russia as a way to counterbalance China. Given China’s recent, albeit limited, support for Ukraine, how do you see this dynamic evolving?
John Bolton: The idea that the U.S. can use the Ukraine war to separate Russia from China is pure fantasy.
Strategically, it would be beneficial to pull Russia away from China. But in reality, their partnership has only grown stronger, independent of Ukraine or U.S. actions.
While their alliance is not flawless—China is clearly the dominant partner—Beijing has been instrumental in supporting Russia. They’ve helped Russia bypass financial sanctions, increased purchases of Russian oil and gas, and even explored expanding pipeline capacity to reduce reliance on the Persian Gulf.
China has also provided political cover for Russia throughout the war, and they would expect the same support in return if tensions rise over Taiwan or the South China Sea.
The notion that Russia could be pried away from China through a Ukraine settlement is unrealistic. China has no interest in Ukraine’s success—Beijing understands that Ukraine’s sovereignty is a threat to Russia’s ambitions, and by extension, to China’s long-term strategic goals.
Given your hawkish stance on Russia, do you believe there was a moment in the past decade when the U.S. could have effectively deterred Russian aggression?
John Bolton: Absolutely.
In 2008, at the NATO summit in Bucharest, President George W. Bush advocated for fast-tracking Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO membership. That was the moment to act.
Just months later, Russia invaded Georgia, occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia—territories they still control today.
The only real deterrent against Russian aggression is NATO membership, as Finland and Sweden realized after decades of neutrality. Had Ukraine joined NATO in 2008, Russia likely never would have invaded.
After Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and occupation of Donbas, the West failed to impose serious consequences. President Barack Obama avoided strong action, emboldening Russia further. The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, planned by Trump and executed by Biden, further reinforced the perception of Western weakness.
Missed opportunities have led us to where we are today.
The Trump administration has suggested the next move on a ceasefire is Russia’s. Given Moscow’s history of violating agreements, what role does the U.S. play if Russia inevitably blames Ukraine?
John Bolton: First, any ceasefire that freezes the conflict along current lines benefits Russia—it legitimizes their territorial gains.
That’s been their playbook before. Putin has little reason to negotiate because Trump has already given him much of what he wants. However, Putin also needs to be cautious not to lose credibility with Trump.
Instead of outright rejecting a ceasefire, I expect Putin to say something vague like, “I agree in principle and am ready to proceed.” This allows him to maintain leverage while continuing his strategy.
Comments
Post a Comment