Apart from arms support, Trump hasnt done much in Ukraine as far as I can tell. He's certainly not a dove, but he seems less interested in interfering with the inner politics of allied or dependent nations than his predecessors. Basically, the whole issue is that the one time he did interfere in domestic Ukrainian issues in an inappropriate fashion was when he asked for the investigation into Biden, i.e. when he was pressuring them out of a personal motive.

He really doesnt have to be a dove to be cross with the foreign policy/cia apparatus - note how much the foreign policy and IC establishment figures hate his policies on NK, Iran, Syria, China, partially also his policy on Israel and SA.
And there's no clear pattern of hawkism or dovishness: he's dovish on NK, Russia and SA, hawkish on Iran, China and Israel, indifferent on Syria and Ukraine.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 1 2019 12:42am

To look at it from a slightly different angle: Trump is less interested in the United States projecting its power abroad, and more interested in focusing the United States' power domestically. Therefore, it really is no surprise to me that he is vehemently opposed by those bureaucrats and institutions whose whole career consists of managing, utilizing and expanding American influence abroad.

Your fundamental mistake here is assuming trump has a coherent set of ideas on foreign policy (or almost anything)

He's meandering a lot, and on a day to day basis, he's mostly driven by his narcissism - but I think it is hard to deny that his foreign policy does have an overarching theme/ideology: "America first". He wants the US to stay out of anything that doesnt yield immediate and tangible benefits.
This stance explains both his coziness with MBS and deployment of troops to SA and also his disregard for Syria and Afghanistan. It explains his disdain for lazy Nato allies and his pragmatic willingness to work with Russia and NK.

Describing it as America First after describing it as narcicistic is a mind boggling amount of spin, just FYI

Best way ive heard it desceibed is "short sighted and transactional", but even that kind of fails since most of the "transactional" aspects are straight up lies, like his claim that Saudi Arabia is paying us for military action.

The little, day to day decisions are driven by his narcissism, but the more strategical aspects do almost always adhere to the America First doctrine (= stay out of anything that doesnt yield immediate and tangible benefits for America).

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 1 2019 01:51am

Better described as short term gains, not America First. The idea that he does things "america first" is to imply that other administrations dont focus on their own country as a first priority which is dumb as hell and is just buying into the propaganda.

Trump is short sighted, and thats not part if his foreign policy plan, its a fundamental part of him as a person.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 1 2019 02:14am

It's gonna be hilarious to see all the quotes that will come from this topic after Trump wins in 2020.

We’re involved in a multi year trade war that puts ‘America first’.

Not sure what short term gains you’re seeing here considering it’s essentially short term pain to achieve something long term.

In a real sense, they didn't.

Freerolling NATO is obviously not in the short or long-term interests of the United States. It was at a time when the USSR was an existential threat to the United States, but the foreign policy establishment often finds it hard to adapt.

Our China policy has been driven by economics concerns for decades. Under Nixon, that made sense, there was a strategic need for rapproachment in order to outflank the USSR. Under Clinton and Bush, there was (misguided) hope that economic growth would inspire economic liberalization. That ship has sailed, and yet there's still intense resistance to a trade war that absolutely must occur.

North Korea is a nuclear armed state. The United States is not in any position to remove Kim from power. Obama ignored North Korea for years, which wasn't the worst option, but Trump should not be condemned for attempting to negotiate with a dangerous regime in a volatile part of the world. Analyzing Kim's purges, he's concerned with Chinese influence over North Korea and has taken concrete action to thwart it. The United States has a unique opportunity to drive a wedge between the DPRK and China.

Iran is the natural Middle Eastern powerhouse. That's just a function of demographics and geography. Assuming we have interests to protect in the region, which (oil), yes, we do, we should look to constrain powerful states and aid their weaker neighbors as a form of balance. That explains 90% of American involvement on behalf of Saudi Arabia. Obama's Iranian policy emboldened and enriched Iran and disheartened our natural allies. And for what? A more active Iran? Trump has restored pressure on Iran, and the end result hasn't be war.

There are small failures here and there; his generally poor temperament and horrible organizational skills means that American policy comes across needlessly muddy. But by and large, it has been a marked improvement on Obama.