The Case for a Joint Harris-Trump Declaration — on Ukraine

T he conflict in Ukraine is not an international “dispute” to be resolved by negotiations. It is a war of aggression by Russia that must be decisively stopped if the world is to have a peaceful future — because tyrants from Beijing and Pyongyang to Tehran are carefully watching to see whether aggression pays benefits.

To that end, the Harris and Trump campaigns should find common ground on at least this one issue — and agree to a joint declaration putting Vladimir Putin on notice that, if he has not announced and started a complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine before our next president takes the oath of office on January 20, 2025, he will face far more serious consequences than he has already.

There are certain premises and assumptions widely shared by most Americans:

• All other things being equal, peace is preferable to war.
• As the great Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu observed about 2,500 years ago, subduing the enemy without fighting is preferable to winning 100 victories in 100 battles. In other words, deterrence should be our goal.
• Rational people tend to pursue their perceived self-interests.

Putin invaded Ukraine in the belief that the Russian military would quickly gain victory. If we want Putin to change his policy, we must give him persuasive reasons to conclude that doing so is very much in his self-interest. In the process, it would be useful to signal to the Russian people that an immediate withdrawal is also very much in their interest.

Deterrence is a function of two perceptions: strength and will. No serious person doubts America’s military strength. In 1991, Operation Desert Storm demonstrated to the world that the United States military is a powerful force that they don’t want to challenge. In just 100 hours of ground combat, Saddam Hussein’s military lost more than 3,000 tanks, nearly 2,000 armored vehicles, and more than 2,000 pieces of artillery. Estimates of Iraqi military deaths varied greatly, but the Defense Intelligence Agency ultimately estimated 100,000. In contrast, the United States suffered fewer than 150 killed in action (and roughly the same from noncombat causes), while our British allies lost fewer than 50 KIA. Iraq was unable to destroy a single M1 Abrams tank. American fighter aircraft and bombers were so effective that most of the Iraqi air force that had not already been destroyed fled to Iran after American stealth technology had destroyed their ground-based radars and communication systems — leaving them essentially blind.

Given the difficulties the Russian military has faced fighting in Ukraine, Putin has no stomach to take on the United States and NATO. His one hope is that our partisan domestic differences and the war-weariness of many Americans will leave us without the will to resist his aggression. But while our military might stand as a deterrent, there are still steps short of committing American troops that we can take to bring Putin’s aggression to an unsuccessful end — and to signal that America is united toward that objective.

It is true that Ukraine is not yet a member of NATO, and from that some suggest that we have no treaty obligation to come to its defense. But in 1928, the United States and France took the lead in negotiating the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which “renounce[d] war as an instrument of national policy.” The Soviet Union quickly signed on. Today, there is a very broad and important consensus that aggressive war is a criminal act. And it is very much in our interest to reaffirm and help to enforce that principle.

Seventeen years later, the United States again took the lead by inviting countries to San Francisco to negotiate the United Nations Charter, which in Article 1(1) commits all 193 members “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. . . . ” We have thus far failed in that duty, providing Ukraine with only those resources necessary to prevent a quick defeat. Some would have us believe that treaty obligations and other instruments of international law are not really “law,” but Article VI(2) of our Constitution declares in part: “All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

A joint Harris-Trump declaration might put Putin on notice that, if he has not announced and started a withdrawal by the time the next president takes office, the United States and other peace-loving nations will greatly expand sanctions, increase aid for the people of Ukraine, remove constraints on how military equipment can be used, and make it clear that sanctions will remain in effect until Putin is in the custody of an appropriate international tribunal to be tried as a war criminal. Russia might also be required to compensate the people of Ukraine for all the damage that occurred during this unlawful international aggression.

Among other measures, the world community might also prohibit Russian athletes from participating in any international sporting competitions (unless they decide to defect and compete under other flags). Russian participation in other international competitions, such as chess, might also be banned until full compensation has been made. Countries that provide military equipment or other assistance to the Putin regime might also be subject to strong international sanctions. Our NATO allies, meanwhile, should increase their military preparedness and demonstrate their solidarity with Ukraine.

During Tuesday night’s debate, former president Trump declared: “people [are] being killed by the millions. . . . Now you have millions of people dead. . . .” Reliable data are difficult to find, but if the estimates of Russian and Ukrainian military deaths and civilian deaths were understated five-fold, the total deaths would not reach even 1 million.

Polls show less than one-third (29 percent) of Americans believe we are providing too much support to Ukraine. Trump should remember that the Republican platform embraces the doctrine of “Peace through Strength” six different times. Joining in a joint declaration would be an excellent way to send a strong signal to Mr. Putin that beginning an immediate withdrawal from Ukraine is in his interest and that of his country.

In January, America will have a new president. By that time, unless Putin withdraws his forces promptly, he should suffer the maximum consequences so that other tyrants will not be incentivized to emulate his criminality.