By David French
It’s certainly reasonable that many millions of Americans have turned their attention to Springfield, Ohio, following the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. When Trump reiterated the absurd rumor that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were killing and consuming pets, he not only highlighted his susceptibility to conspiracy theories once more, but also placed the immigrant community in Springfield at significant risk. Bomb threats have led to two consecutive days of school closures, leaving some Haitian immigrants now “terrified for their lives.”
That’s appalling. It’s indefensible. However, this is not Trump’s only dreadful moment during the debate. Most strikingly, he refused to state — despite repeated inquiries — that he desired Ukraine to succeed in its conflict with Russia. Trump emphasized cessation of the war over its victory, a stance that may appear justifiable, until one realizes that attempting to enforce peace at this juncture in the conflict would almost certainly secure a Russian victory. Russia would dominate a vast expanse of Ukrainian territory, and Vladimir Putin would rightfully conclude that he had outmaneuvered both Ukraine and the United States. He would have gambled with the “iron dice” of war and emerged victorious.
There is no scenario where a Russian victory serves America’s best interests. A Russian win would not only expand its sphere of influence, but would also spell a human rights disaster (Russia has committed war crimes against Ukraine’s civilian population since the onset of the war) and endanger the survival of Ukrainian national identity. It would upheave the global power dynamics.
Moreover, a Russian triumph would increase the likelihood of World War III, rather than decrease it. It would teach Putin that aggression is rewarded, that the West’s resolve is fragile, and that military subjugation is preferable to diplomatic resolution. China would absorb a similar lesson as it watches Taiwan from across the strait.
If Putin is thwarted now — while Ukraine and the West are imposing massive costs in Russian personnel and resources — it would convey the exact opposite message, significantly increasing the chances that Ukraine’s invasion is Putin’s final war, rather than merely his latest.
But that’s not how Trump perceives Ukraine. He shows profound resentment toward the nation, and it was this bitterness that helped reveal how perilous he was long before the Big Lie and Jan. 6.
Remember Trump’s first impeachment and the “perfect” phone call with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukraine had been embroiled in a low-intensity conflict with Russia since its 2014 invasion of Crimea and involvement in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, and it was in dire need of American military support. In his conversation with Trump on July 25, 2019, Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine was “almost prepared to purchase more Javelins from the United States for defensive reasons.”
Trump reacted almost like a mob leader. He needed a little quid pro quo. “I would like you to do us a favor,” he said, “considering our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to investigate what happened with this entire situation regarding Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike… I believe one of your wealthy individuals… The server, they claim Ukraine has it.”
Aware that Joe Biden could be a strong challenger in 2020, Trump also urged Zelenskyy to probe the Biden family. This attempt to persuade a foreign nation to investigate a domestic political rival garnered the most attention and outrage regarding the exchange, but I wish to focus on Trump’s initial request for Zelenskyy to locate “the server.”
In that instance, Trump articulated one of MAGA’s most peculiar conspiracy theories: that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election, with part of the evidence supposedly residing in an imaginary CrowdStrike server in Ukraine.
At a pivotal moment in history — when an American ally was seeking arms to defend itself against an aggressive global power — Trump responded with a corrupt and delusional demand: that Zelenskyy fulfill a series of personal requests, including an unattainable demand to locate a non-existent server in Ukraine.
Trump was managing American foreign policy based on his personal grievances, rather than on American interests. Even more troubling, his negative disposition towards Ukraine is not grounded in a grand strategic framework; it is based on his personal outrage over Ukraine’s imagined role in a fabricated conspiracy. It was a remarkable exhibition of corruption and unsuitability.
Trump’s supporters claim that he did not achieve his goals. The administration ultimately authorized the sale of Javelin missiles and Zelenskyy was never required to investigate the Bidens, nor did he have to embark on a server search. However, this hardly absolves Trump’s initial demands, and it offers little reassurance when considering the possibility of a second Trump term.
Those Trump supporters who are candid enough to admit that he is self-serving and erratic tend to flip his liability into an asset. They argue that world leaders are unsettled by Trump, making them more prudent as a result.
However, there lies a distinction between “crazy like a fox,” where there is a method to the perceived madness, and Trump’s volatility. He operates in a predictably (and thus manipulable) irrational manner. For instance, in last week’s debate, Trump’s notorious outburst about Haitians consuming pets was triggered by a clear provocation from Harris.
As my colleague Ezra Klein notes in his analysis of the debate, Harris redirected a challenging question on immigration by discussing Trump’s crowd size. In real time, Harris’s strategy was so transparent that I believed even Trump would recognize the maneuvering. He could have immediately seized the upper hand by pointing out Harris’s misdirection as an effort to divert the topic and then firmly restating his points about border security.
But no. He couldn’t resist. She wounded his pride, and he is incomplete without that pride.
When the stakes are highest — for the election, for the nation, or for the global order — Trump is not merely focused on himself; he contemplates himself in the most unstable of fashions. He cannot grasp reality. After observing him up close for nine years, our adversaries and allies realize this to be true. They know he is both naive and impulsive.
Trump’s hesitance to acknowledge the straightforward truth — that a Ukrainian victory is in America’s national interest — illustrates that he remains a captive of his own resentments, and there is no one remaining who can prevent him from inflicting his worst actions.
