A former national security adviser to Donald Trump warned that the U.S. president’s proposed deal to end the war in Ukraine “comes pretty close to surrender” to Vladimir Putin’s objectives — and cautioned that the process could lead to the U.S exiting NATO.
John Bolton, who served under Trump for seventeen months from 2018 to 2019 in his first term in the White House before leaving in a rift over foreign policy, told POLITICO’s Power Play podcast that the result of any such agreement would be to weaken both Ukraine and Europe’s security.
Speaking to Power Play host Anne McElvoy, Bolton predicted that that a hasty end to the war in Ukraine could swiftly open the door to the U.S exiting NATO.
“I thought Trump would withdraw from NATO and he hasn’t done that yet, but you can hear the music begin to play,” Bolton said. “There’d be a cease-fire in place, a militarized zone would be created, negotiations would begin, Ukraine would agree not to join NATO — which is a settlement that really, they could have written in the Kremlin.”
Peacekeepers warning
As European leaders scrambled this week to respond to proposals to end the war without the involvement of Ukraine, and as President Trump doubled down on criticism of the Ukrainian leadership, Bolton told the podcast that leaders including U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer were at risk of making the wrong decisions by accepting a Trump-Putin deal was likely to proceed and planning for its aftermath.
Asked how he viewed Starmer’s pledge to be “ready and willing” to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to police a cease-fire, Bolton was dismissive.
“I’m against deploying a peacekeeping force,” he said. “Experience with the United Nations has demonstrated that once you deploy a peacekeeping force, it can become a permanent part of the landscape, and in this case amount to a de facto partition of Ukraine that could become de jure after a period of time.”
Bolton asked: “What exactly is the role of the force to be? Is it to enforce a cease-fire, in which case the rules of engagement would have to authorize the peacekeepers to use force to keep the cease-fire from breaking down?
“Or is it a U.N. kind of peace force, where violators get waved at by the peacekeepers as they go merrily on their way? These are critical differences, and at least I haven’t heard any discussion among the Europeans which of the two they have in mind.”
The former national security adviser argued that Europe would do better to back Ukraine strongly by replenishing weapons and support, rather than engaging in planning for future scenarios agreed between Trump and Putin.
“There’s no absolute obligation to have negotiations with a cease-fire,” he said. “So unless you’re prepared to give up on any possibility of Ukraine getting its territory back, the idea that you’re going to freeze the existing lines of control is potentially very dangerous.”
Ditch the Europe talks — and court Rubio
President Macron sought to define a unified European position in talks on the Trump-Putin plan earlier this week. But Bolton voiced doubts about the ability of Europeans to act as a collective block on the emerging U.S.-Russia alignment.
He said: “NATO had a common position up until February. 11 when the Putin-Trump phone conversation took place. Now, I don’t know where the U.S. is with regard to the position that NATO formally took as an institution.
“But I think major European states can speak on their own. Individual states speak from a position of power. They have military force. They make decisions to provide Ukraine with military assistance, including lethal assistance. The European Union doesn’t do that.”
Asked if anything might change Trump’s mind after a week in which the president hardened his support for a deal and dismissed Ukrainian objections, Bolton suggested European leaders should court U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to mitigate damage and prevent a rout in Ukraine turning into an American exit from NATO.
“He doesn’t do policy in the sense people normally understand that term,” said Bolton of the “chaotic” Trump. “And therefore, working with different members, talking to Marco Rubio, talking to (National Security Advisor) Mike Waltz, as opposed to talking to (Secretary of Defense) Pete Hegseth could make a difference.”
The current scenario, Bolton said, would test Rubio’s previously stated commitment to keeping the U.S. in the Atlantic security alliance, pointedly adding: “Well maybe he’s not Marco Rubio anymore.”
Bolton pointed out that Rubio and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine had previously introduced legislation meant to stop a president from withdrawing from NATO without majority support in both houses of Congress.
“It showed Rubio as a defender of NATO,” Bolton recalled. “And it was in the context, clearly, of concern about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“So maybe he doesn’t believe that anymore: I don’t know. But it seems to me it’s a proposition worth testing.”
The post Trump’s Ukraine plan is ‘close to surrender,’ warns ex-adviser John Bolton appeared first on Politico.
