When US President Donald Trump returned from Beijing last week and told Fox News that Taiwan presents “a little bit of a difficult problem,” he wasn’t just making conversation. He was showing his hand again – revealing that his foreign policy runs on personal relationships and gut feelings, not strategy.
“When you look at the odds, China is a very, very powerful, big country. That’s a very small island,” Trump explained. Then he pulled out the geography card: Taiwan is 59 miles from China but 9,500 miles from the US.
His point was clear – distance matters, size matters, and the US shouldn’t be sending its kids halfway around the world to defend a small island against a vastly more powerful neighbor.
If that logic sounds familiar, it should. Trump has been making the exact same argument about Ukraine for years.
“Trump has made clear that Ukraine's fate is their problem, not America's.”
Ukraine sits roughly 5,000 miles from Washington. It borders Russia – a nuclear superpower with overwhelming conventional military superiority in the region. And Trump’s response? “It’s not our war.” That phrase – repeated by both Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio – has become the administration’s mantra when it comes to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Trump hasn’t just stayed neutral on Ukraine. He’s actively pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept Russia’s terms for a peace settlement. He has publicly declared that Zelensky has “no cards to play” – essentially telling Ukraine’s president to surrender on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s terms or face abandonment.
When European allies have pushed for stronger support of Ukrainian sovereignty, Trump has made clear that Ukraine’s fate is their problem, not America’s.
Sound familiar? It’s the same playbook he’s now using with Taiwan.
The real pattern: appeasement as doctrine
Here’s what’s consistent in Trump’s foreign policy: distance only becomes insurmountable when he wants to appease an autocrat. Putin wants Ukraine. Distance doesn’t matter – Trump just calls it “not our war.”
China’s President Xi Jinping wants the US to back off Taiwan? Suddenly 9,500 miles is too far. The distance argument isn’t a principle. It’s a convenient excuse to be deployed whenever he needs to keep a strongman happy and, if possible, make a deal with them.
Geography doesn’t disappear when Trump needs something else, as the Iran war shows. It only becomes insurmountable when he’s appeasing someone. That’s not inconsistency. That’s a remarkably consistent doctrine of appeasement, just dressed up in geographic language to make it sound strategic.
Why this? Why now?
So why does Trump consistently defer to Putin in ways he doesn’t with any other adversary? Business interests – Trump Tower Moscow, Russian oligarch money through his properties perhaps? Kompromat – the kind intelligence agencies whisper about, Epstein connections that keep resurfacing?
And why abandon Taiwan now specifically?
Desperation for a foreign policy win after the Iran fiasco and sliding approval ratings? Chinese business deals that benefit from keeping Xi happy? Or is it simpler and worse – just a delusional, self-centered leader making impulsive decisions based on ego and whoever flattered him last?
We don’t know. And that’s the problem. Foreign policy shouldn’t be a guessing game about whether the US president’s commitments depend on his business deals, his need for a win, what Putin might have on him, or just his inability to think beyond himself. But that’s exactly what we’re doing now.
What comes next
Think about what every US ally is asking right now: Does this mean anything? Or does it all depend on whether Trump likes the other guy, or thinks he can outsmart them for his own benefit?
If distance and power imbalances are what matter, then South Korea should be panicking. The Baltic states should be rethinking everything. Perhaps Poland, too? Every ally sitting next to a stronger adversary should be doing the same math. The logic would have to apply everywhere.
But it doesn’t. It only applies when Trump wants it to.
For 70 years, America’s alliances have been built on a simple premise: we keep our word. Not because it’s easy or cheap, but because it works. Because if you abandon one ally, every other ally must wonder if you’ll abandon them too.
China’s watching. Russia’s watching. Iran, North Korea – everyone who benefits when America pulls back. They’re all drawing the same conclusion: American promises are negotiable depending on Trump’s mood.
What’s already happening?
“Taiwan is caught in the worst bind.”
Right now, in capitals across the world, allies aren’t waiting around to see what Trump does next.
South Korea’s defense budget just hit record levels. They’re 120 miles from a nuclear-armed dictatorship, and they’ve relied on the US for 70 years. Now they’re asking, if Trump won’t defend Taiwan, what happens when North Korea makes a move? They’re not waiting for an answer.
Japan is talking openly about scrapping constitutional limits on military power. Maybe even nukes. That conversation was taboo five years ago. Now it’s mainstream policy debate.
Taiwan’s caught in the worst bind. It can race toward formal independence and force America’s hand, or it can start making deals with Beijing. Sitting still while Trump tweets about how far away they are isn’t a strategy.
Poland’s doing the math too. They’re 300 miles from Russia – about the same distance as Beijing to Taipei. They’ve spent billions integrating with NATO, hosting US troops, buying US weapons. Now they’re watching Trump tell Taiwan it’s too far and too small to matter. Poland’s not exactly huge compared to Russia either. It is already talking about European nuclear deterrence.
Australia’s hedging. Deepening ties with India, strengthening ASEAN relationships, keeping channels open with Beijing. When your security partner starts talking about how far away you are, you make backup plans.
The pattern is unmistakable.
What congress and allies need to do
Congress needs to act now – not to stop Trump specifically, but to fix the vulnerability he’s exposed. Pass legislation that makes defense commitments harder to abandon on a presidential whim. Require congressional approval before withdrawing from mutual defense treaties. Make it legally messy to just walk away from allies.
Allies need to do their part, too. Strengthen regional security arrangements that don’t depend entirely on Washington. Japan, South Korea, Australia – they need tighter coordination, more military integration, shared intelligence that doesn’t route through the US first. Europe needs to fund its own defense, not just talk about it.
The Ukraine-Taiwan recognition question
Here’s a question that should make everyone uncomfortable: Should Ukraine formally recognize Taiwan’s independence?
Think about what that would cost Kyiv. Ukraine is already isolated and bleeding resources – dependent on a fragile coalition that includes countries terrified of antagonizing Beijing.
China’s been carefully neutral on the war. Not helping Russia militarily (at least not openly). Not condemning the invasion either. Ukraine needs that neutrality. It can’t afford to turn Beijing into an active enemy.
And what would Ukraine gain? Taiwan can’t send troops. It can’t provide the artillery shells or air defense systems Ukraine desperately needs. Recognition would be purely symbolic.
Meanwhile, Beijing would use it as justification to deepen ties with Moscow. Maybe it would start shipping weapons to Russia and apply economic pressure on any country still trading with Ukraine.
Strategically, it’s a terrible move.
But here’s the other side. There’s a moral symmetry that’s hard to ignore. Ukraine is fighting for the principle that big countries can’t just swallow smaller neighbors because they’re close and convenient; that sovereignty matters; and that democracies have a right to exist even when they’re surrounded by autocracies.
That’s exactly Taiwan’s situation.
“Ukraine shouldn't have to choose between its survival and its principles.”
If Ukraine matters to the democratic world – and it does – then Taiwan should too. Recognizing Taiwan would be saying aloud what Trump’s doctrine denies: that proximity to a great power doesn’t erase your legitimacy; that distance from Washington doesn’t make you disposable; and that the international order can’t just reward authoritarian geography.
It would break the logic Trump is trying to normalize.
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? Trump’s doctrine creates these impossible choices. Allies have to either accept the new rules – that might and proximity matter more than principle – or they take stands that are morally necessary but strategically catastrophic.
There’s no clean option. There’s no path that doesn’t cost something vital.
Ukraine shouldn’t have to choose between its survival and its principles. Taiwan shouldn’t have to wonder if democracies will defend democracy. Poland shouldn’t have to build nukes because American promises aren’t reliable anymore.
But that’s where we are.
That’s what happens when alliances become transactional, when commitments depend on one president’s mood and business interests. Allies face impossible choices – right now, today – where doing the right thing might cost them everything, and the pragmatic move means accepting that power and proximity are all that matter.
The deeper issue
Step back from Taiwan and Ukraine for a second. The real problem isn’t any one alliance. It’s that we have a US president whose predecessors were viewed as leaders of the free world; and who treats alliances like personal assets.
That’s the vulnerability Trump has exposed. The institutions that were supposed to prevent this – Congress, the courts, the bureaucracy – have so far failed. This isn’t a Trump problem. It’s a system problem.
So what does such a now seemingly increasingly fragile system tell us, or rather warn us of? That we’re this vulnerable to one person’s whims?
This is the question that should occupy our thoughts at night. Because it’s a deepening nightmare.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.