It may be that Trump forgot, but it’s far more likely that he never knew or never cared about the policy that became a foundation for international stability for the past 80 years. It’s not as if such things matter much to Trump when he’s got outcomes to accomplish to create the appearance of success, no matter what the cost.
Threats to run for a third term notwithstanding, Mr. Trump is a lame-duck president, which makes him more prone to take rash actions on the international stage. As his own threats to take over Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal suggest, he is sympathetic to the idea of big countries taking over smaller ones, and he is behaving far more erratically in the realm of foreign affairs than he did in his first term. That he might become the first American president to confer legitimacy on the annexation of another country’s territory is a real, and terrifying, possibility.
To date, a few countries have accepted Russia’s claim to the Crimea. Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. Trump’s proposal to end the Ukraine war includes adding the United States to this august list of nations.
In addition to reportedly freezing the current territorial lines, prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO, and lifting sanctions on Russia that have been in place since 2014 when it annexed the Crimean Peninsula, the proposal offers Moscow a diplomatic gift that would set an extremely dangerous precedent: formal recognition of its control over Crimea.
So what’s the problem? After all, isn’t the reality on the ground that Russia seized Crimea and controls it? Doesn’t that mean it’s Russia’s? Is there something wrong with accepting this reality? That’s where the Welles Declaration, named for FDR’s Secretary of State, Sumner Welles, comes into play.
Acceding to Russian control of Ukraine would break with an over-eight-decade, bipartisan tradition of opposing the changing of international borders by force. This policy was first articulated in 1940, after the Soviet Union annexed the three Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The acting secretary of state, Sumner Welles, issued a statement that would come to have a profound impact on American foreign policy and international relations. “The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities no matter whether they are carried on by the use of force or by the threat of force,” Welles said. “Unless the doctrine in which these principles are inherent once again governs the relations between nations, the rule of reason, of justice and of law — in other words, the basis of modern civilization itself — cannot be preserved.” More than 50 countries followed America’s lead in refusing to recognize the puppet governments installed by Moscow in the three annexed countries.
Simply put, big countries cannot seize territory by force, or threat of force, and be rewarded by recognition of the seized land being their territory. The rationale is plain. Seize territory by force and you will never enjoy the legitimacy of international recognition. Does he get it? Does he care?
Alas, longstanding principles and traditions have never had much influence on Mr. Trump’s decision making. The most charitable explanation for this impetuous plan is that it’s a product of his impatience with diplomacy and desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said that he would end the war within 24 hours of being inaugurated. When that didn’t happen, he tasked an envoy, the retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, with solving the conflict within 100 days.
While this may be true, it ignores the fact that Trump’s desire for a quick fix to appear omnipotent fails to take into account why he’s taken Putin’s side, choosing a communist dictator over a democratic ally, the invader over the invaded.
The likelier motive for Mr. Trump’s proposed acquiescence to Russian colonialism is that it’s a genuine reflection of his worldview, namely, the principle that might makes right. Mr. Trump either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that this conflict began 11 years ago when Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. That this act was gravely immoral, never mind illegal, does not factor into Mr. Trump’s geopolitical calculus.
While this too may be true, it similarly fails to explain Trump’s need to gain Putin’s love. But while the Welles Declaration has served well to prevent the taking of territory by force with the exception of Russia and first its seizure of Crimea and now its effort to seize the rest of Ukraine, is it time to burn it on the altar of Trump’s ambition?
After 11 years of grinding conflict, it’s entirely understandable that Mr. Trump wants to end this war. But he must not mistake a temporary cessation of hostilities — which is all that his proposal would achieve — with a just and lasting peace. Unless Ukraine is provided with an explicit security guarantee (which in all likelihood means NATO membership), Russia will just bide its time until the moment is opportune for it to invade again.
Whether Mr. Trump is in or out of office when this happens, it will destroy his legacy.
If the best argument for Trump adhering to the Welles Declaration is that his failure to do so will “destroy his legacy,” then he’s got nothing to lose. Much as it has served us and most of the world well for more than 80 years, it hardly matters when it’s in the way of Trump’s impetuousness.