The verbal sparring between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office is a mirror of history, reflecting the ease with which the United States during Trump’s first term allowed the nascent Afghan democracy to be dismantled by the Taliban – all in the name of a rushed exit strategy.
In the final days of the Afghan Republic, Trump’s top negotiators arrived in Kabul with a blunt message for President Ashraf Ghani: step down and accommodate the Taliban, as the United States wanted to leave the region in a hurry. This push was part of a broader effort that led to the infamous Doha Agreement of 2020, which set the stage for the Taliban to sweep into Kabul the following year.
The collapse of Afghanistan and Trump’s handling of the Ukraine war bears striking similarities. As the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan, the United States under Trump engaged with them directly in Qatar, sidelining allies and even abandoning its own partners in the region. The same pattern is emerging today in Saudi Arabia, where Russia is now at the centre of discussions with the United States without Ukraine at the table.
While the contexts of Afghanistan and Ukraine are vastly different, Trump’s methods show notable similarities, offering insight into his broader vision for American foreign relations.
Despite the backlash over Afghanistan’s return to the Taliban’s grip – which unfolded in the early months of the Biden administration, with Trump brazenly claiming the withdrawal wouldn’t have been as chaotic had he remained in power – Trump’s foreign policy approach has remained consistent. His hallmark style, characterised by unpredictability, direct engagement with adversaries, and an often dismissive attitude toward allies, has not wavered.
In the Afghan case, US officials at the time knew but didn’t much care that Ghani would need to give up government. Trump’s team pushed Ghani to free hundreds of convicted Taliban fighters and accept other concessions. This was on top of the Taliban’s refusal to engage with the Afghan government as they negotiated with the United States in Doha.
While the contexts of Afghanistan and Ukraine are vastly different, Trump’s methods show notable similarities, offering insight into his broader vision for American foreign relations. Both his dealings with the Taliban and Russia share a foundational principle: direct engagement with adversaries, regardless of their authoritarian track records or human rights violations. Trump’s foreign policy often prioritised rapid conflict resolution and the reduction of American military involvement abroad.
Trump began peace talks with the Taliban in 2018, aiming to end the nearly two decades of US military presence in Afghanistan. These negotiations were controversial, as critics argued that direct and high-level engaging with an organisation responsible for egregious human rights abuses, particularly against women and minorities, legitimised a terrorist group. However, Trump viewed the Taliban as a pragmatic partner who could help facilitate a deal, as he believed his “America First” approach required a withdrawal from the costly and unpopular war. For him, setting aside ideological concerns in favour of pragmatic solutions was the key to achieving a deal.
It’s important to remember that the Afghan forces had already taken on national security responsibilities in 2014, years before Trump took office, when US and NATO forces transitioned to a training and advisory role. Under Afghan leadership, the country had defended itself against the Taliban until Trump’s intervention, which helped legitimise the insurgents.
In Afghanistan, Trump’s focus was on troop withdrawal, regardless of the consequences for the democratic world and the millions of Afghans who would fall under the Taliban’s brutal rule.
Trump’s approach to Putin during the Ukraine crisis followed a similar pattern of cautious diplomacy, focused on engagement and de-escalation. His admiration for Putin and his desire to improve US-Russia relations are often apparent in his rhetoric, which downplayed Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. His reluctance to impose severe sanctions on Russia and his frequent praise for Putin’s leadership raises concerns that Trump prioritises a personal rapport over holding Russia accountable for its actions.
Another parallel between Trump’s dealings with the Taliban and Russia is his reliance on personal diplomacy. For example, then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Taliban leaders in Doha while the Afghan government struggled to survive. In a tweet in February 2020, Pompeo claimed, “For the first time, [the Taliban] have announced that they’re prepared to break with their historic ally, al-Qaeda.” This statement highlighted the personal nature of Trump’s diplomatic approach – one that often bypassed multilateral discussions in favour of one-on-one engagements with leaders of adversarial regimes.
The meetings of Trump’s team with the Taliban in Doha was emblematic of this style, as they negotiated the terms of a US troop withdrawal without the Afghan government or the involvement of international allies. The deal to engage with the Taliban reflected Trump’s preference for direct negotiations, even at the expense of broader diplomatic frameworks.
Similarly, Trump’s relationship with Putin is characterised by personal chemistry and informal diplomacy. The high-profile summit held in Helsinki in 2018, where Trump questioned US intelligence reports on Russian interference in American elections, underscored his preference for building personal ties rather than relying on institutional safeguards. During his first term, Trump’s dealings with Putin were often marked by a willingness to overlook Russia’s adversarial actions if it helped advance a stronger bilateral relationship.
In Afghanistan, Trump’s focus was on troop withdrawal, regardless of the consequences for the democratic world and the millions of Afghans – particularly women – who would fall under the Taliban’s brutal rule. Similarly, his approach to Ukraine appears pragmatic, though more ambiguous. While he has publicly committed to NATO, his actions suggested a readiness to entertain diplomatic engagement with Putin, even to consider lifting sanctions, if it benefited US economic interests. His transactional view of foreign policy has led to criticism that he sees global relations in terms of personal gain rather than long-term stability and the defence of human rights. Afghans know this well.
The article appeared in the lowyinstitute