"Eliminationist Rhetoric" and the fight for Ukraine

Trump is a rhetorical protégé of Putin.

Just Security, “an online forum for the rigorous analysis of security, democracy, foreign policy, and rights” based at the NYU School of Law, released an interesting little project after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine: a tracker entitled “Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collection”.

It lists the instances in which Russian officials disparage or deny Ukrainian statehood, presaging the invasion of Ukraine, starting in 2008 with this statement from Putin to then-President George W. Bush, as reported by an anonymous source:

“You don’t understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us.”

This rhetorical tactic of casually tossing out denials of sovereignty so threatening and so extreme that they befuddle any person or institution capable of mounting an effective response may sound familiar to Americans who listen to Donald Trump, who regularly denies the rights of statehood in his speeches and statements.

Both as a presidential candidate, president-elect, and as the sitting President of the United States, Trump has publicly called into question the current and future governing status of Greenland, Panama, and even Canada. He has suggested forcing all residents out of Gaza and into neighboring countries, ignoring the wants and needs of both Gazans and those other nations. And, just this week, the Trump Administration has shown that they care little for the right of Ukraine to have a say in their own fight for freedom by apparently unilaterally announcing negotiations with Russia to end the Russo-Ukrainian War and making a priori concessions on behalf of the Ukrainians. Later assurances that Ukraine would have a role in these negotiations seemed like an afterthought, and just today (Saturday) it was announced that the U.S. and Russia would meet in Saudi Arabia to discuss the future of Ukraine—without Ukraine.

The important bit about the analogy between Trump’s rhetoric and Putin’s is that Putin was always deadly serious. Trump may be a notorious bloviator, but he currently holds the most powerful political position in the world and leads the most powerful armed forces in human history. Trump’s disrespect for sovereignty is consistent. There is no reason to think that Trump is less sincere in his imperialistic perspective or less likely to follow through on his audacious plans.

A critical outcome of 2025’s remaking of the U.S. government will be a jarring realignment of foreign policy in both rhetoric and action—from using tariffs as threats to potentially not only appeasing but outright assisting Russia.

---

Ukraine: Not the Aggressor

As the U.S. opens talks with Russia regarding the future of Ukraine, it’s worth remembering how this war began. Russia has proven itself adept at Western disinformation campaigns, and this is especially true for justifying its continuing aggression against Ukraine. The Canadian government provides useful resources explaining the disinformation here and here. The think tank Chatham House provides a debunking here. Americans’ knowledge of international affairs can be haphazard, so there is plenty of space for spreading both disinformation as well as real information to remind why Ukraine is rightfully an independent country and not a vassal of Russia.

A Brief History of the Ukraine War

In a 1991 referendum, Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly for independence from the U.S.S.R. Even more than 50% of the largely ethnic Russian Crimea voted for independence. This referendum ultimately led to the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. Ukraine would spend the next decades asserting its right to independence, with Russia providing several assurances that Ukrainian sovereignty would be respected. Nonetheless, Russia continually applied pressure to keep Ukraine aligned with itself instead of forming closer alignments with Europe and the West. When Russia’s attempts to use “soft” power (installing loyal politicians) failed, they turned to outright military aggression in 2014, with the annexation of Crimea.

Here’s a sparse timeline of major events in Ukraine’s struggle to maintain independence from Russia:

The eastern regions of Ukraine experienced more economic hardship than Ukraine’s west as the new nation transitioned away from its former communist institutions. The eastern population often favored Russian-leaning or Russian-backed politicians. After the pro-Western Maidan Revolution, pro-Russian protests broke out across eastern Ukraine and other Russian-speaking areas. Russia took advantage of the unrest to annex Crimea, thus formally beginning the Russo-Ukrainian War. The War in Donbas began as Russia sent troops and arms to fight against the Ukrainian army from 2014 up until the “full-scale” invasion of 2022. Attempts at ceasefire reduced fighting, but casualties continued to accrue. Notably, these agreements did not keep Russia from escalating the war.

Russia launched their full-scale invasion and missile attack of Ukraine in 2022, with the goal of capturing Kyiv and every other major city.

The Russian armed forces failed—that is the only reason Ukraine exists today.

Russia was forced to retreat from much of its initial attack position, including from Kyiv and Kharkiv, Ukraine’s two largest cities, although Russia was able to capture territory in the southeast and east. The fighting has since largely become a war of attrition. In 2024, Ukraine launched a surprise offensive into Russian territory, in order to claim land that could potentially be swapped in a future peace negotiation.

Perhaps the most important thing to understand about the history of the war and about Ukraine’s position in the upcoming negotiations is that Ukraine has many reasons to want binding security assurances. Russia’s goals are greater than what they’ve yet been able to achieve. Given that Russia has been consistently violating existing security agreements, there is no reason to think Russia would respect future weak agreements, either with another military attack or through election interference.

There is, of course, one very quick way to end the war. The war could end in a matter of minutes. Putin could order his Russian troops to march out of Ukraine.

Recommended reading on Ukraine and war coverage: Kyiv Independent, Illia Ponomarenko, Luke Harding, Serhii Plokhy, The Counteroffensive with Tim Mak, here on Substack. The Atlantic Monthly and The New Yorker have had commentary and long-form reportage. 20 Days in Mariupol is an Academy Award-winning documentary about the siege of the city.

Why would the U.S. do what Russia wants?

There is bipartisan agreement among Americans that Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted and that Russia is an enemy (or at least a competitor rather than a partner). However, there is a bipartisan divide in support for Ukraine and NATO. Republicans are disillusioned with the idea of the U.S. continuing to support Ukraine, and by extension, Europe. Trump, the leader of the Republican Party openly admires Putin—he once called Putin’s invasion ‘genius’—and he seems to have swayed the Party into either agreeing or acquiescing. It’s more evidence of the enormous impact that Donald Trump’s force-of-personality crusade has had on the culture, beliefs, and motivations of the United States.

It was not that long ago that leading Republicans were vocally denouncing Russia. Several Senate Republicans, including Trump’s new Secretary of State Marco Rubio, joined Senate Democrats in 2022 in cosponsoring a Senate Resolution denouncing Russia for crimes against humanity and war crimes against Ukraine. It was agreed to by the full Senate in a voice vote. Now, just two years later in 2024, Republicans are backing a president who praises Russia and a vice president who said in 2022, just after the Russian invasion, “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine”.

Not only does Trump respect Putin’s supposed strength, he might also simply find Ukraine to be a pestering irritant, as might Elon Musk. The first Trump impeachment resulted from a phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump suggested that Ukraine could start an investigation into Joe Biden in exchange for U.S. military assistance. Trump was withholding Congressionally appropriated aid for Ukraine, and only released the aid after a complaint was issued.

Musk initially received praise for “gifting” Starlink to Ukraine (in a move that proved to be immensely profitable in resultant government contracts for SpaceX). Starlink has been integral to both military operations and civilian services in wartime Ukraine. Musk, however, eventually faced criticism for limiting the use of Starlink in and near Russian-controlled areas, and his ability to personally make decisions regarding the war effort caused concern among elected officials. In addition, Russian forces have somehow gained use of Starlink terminals. USAID, one of the primary funders of Starlink use in Ukraine (now made essentially defunct by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency) opened an investigation in 2024 into its oversight of Starlink.

Both Trump and Musk saw the Russo-Ukrainian War as an opportunity to advance their personal interests, but both of their efforts were complicated by whistleblowers and others who wanted to help Ukraine. Now, Trump and Musk might see a chance to quickly rid themselves of Ukrainian concerns by forcing an end to the war.