Susan Rice Calls Trump A 'Surrender Monkey' For Trying To Appease Putin On Ukraine | HuffPost Latest News




Skip to Main Content×Main MenuU.S. EditionNewsU.S. NewsWorld NewsBusinessEnvironmentHealthSocial JusticeCrimePoliticsCongressExtremismOpinionEntertainmentCulture & ArtsMediaCelebrityTV & FilmBooksLifeWellnessTravelTechStyle & BeautyFood & DrinkParentingRelationshipsMoneyHome & LivingWork/LifeShoppingVoicesBlack VoicesQueer VoicesLatino VoicesIndigenous VoicesAsian VoicesWomen's VoicesHuffPost PersonalNEW: GamesHoroscopesVideoFrom Our PartnersMy 5-To-9NewslettersInternationalU.S.U.K.EspañaFranceΕλλάδα (Greece)Italia日本 (Japan)한국 (Korea)Follow UsTerms | Privacy PolicyPart of HuffPost Politics. ©2025 BuzzFeed, Inc. All rights reserved.×What's Hot



Log InGo Ad-FreeNEWSPOLITICSENTERTAINMENTLIFEPERSONALVOICESSHOPPINGGAMESU.S. EditionOpen editions submenuPoliticsDonald TrumpUkraineVladimir PutinSusan Rice Calls Trump A 'Surrender Monkey' For Trying To Appease Putin On UkraineThe former U.S. national security adviser also likened Trump to U.K. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, whose failed foreign policy benefitted Adolf Hitler.By Marco MargaritoffTrends ReporterOct 5, 2024, 05:21 PM EDTLEAVE A COMMENTLOADINGERROR LOADINGFormer U.S. national security adviser Susan Rice delivered a damning critique Thursday of Donald Trump and his foreign policy agenda for aiming to appease Russian President Vladimir Putin during the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.“The fundamentals of national security — that America needs to be strong, that we need to stand with our allies, we need to stand for our values, we have to mean what we say … never used to be under serious question,” she told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.Advertisement

“And along comes Donald Trump, who really is like the Neville Chamberlain of the Republican Party,” Rice continued. “He’s an appeaser. He’s a surrender monkey. And that’s what we’re seeing in his approach to Ukraine.”Chamberlain exercised a policy of “appeasement” during his tenure as British prime minister in the years leading up to World War II, in a failed attempt to prevent Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler from expanding German control of Europe and waging war on the United Kingdom.Trump has long been accused of having a curious relationship with Putin and recently refused to endorse a Ukrainian victory over Russia.Advertisement

“We’ve seen him fold to blandishments from Xi Jinping and many others when it was convenient for him and served his personal interests,” Rice told O’Donnell, referring to the many instances in which Trump has praised the Chinese president from the White House.“So that is why more than 700 Democrats, Republicans and Independents — very senior national security leaders — came together to oppose Donald Trump and support [Vice President] Kamala Harris,” she continued, referring to an open letter published last month.The document was signed by current and former defense officials, including former defense secretaries Chuck Hagel and William Cohen — Republicans who served respectively under Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton — as well as ex-CIA director Michael Hayden.Advertisement

Rice, who called Trump “an appeaser,” said Harris would be “a strong commander-in-chief.”Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated PressTrump spokesperson Steven Cheung told The New York Times that these were “the same people who got our country into endless foreign wars and profited off of them while the American people suffered.”Go Ad-Free — And Protect The Free PressThe next four years will change America forever. But HuffPost won't back down when it comes to providing free and impartial journalism.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless newsroom. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time,  we're offering an ad-free experience. to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time,  we're offering an ad-free experience. to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.Rice maintained that national security could be a bipartisan middle ground.“Until recently, foreign policy and national security were played between the 40-yard lines between Democrats and Republicans,” she told O’Donnell. “There was a center that was a responsible, rational center.”Advertisement

Rice concluded by emphasizing Harris “has the temperament and the intellect and the vision and the experience to be on day one an effective and strong commander-in-chief.”RelatedDonald TrumpUkraineVladimir PutinSusan RiceMichael Moore Warns 'Move To The Center' Could Cost Harris The PresidencyEx-Trump Aide Slams JD Vance For 'Straight Up' Lying About 1 Particular IssueKamala Harris And Liz Cheney Campaign Together For The First Time Go to HomepageLEAVE A COMMENTSuggest a correction|Submit a tipAdvertisement
From Our Partner






From Our Partner



HuffPost Shopping'sBest FindsNewsletter Sign UpPoliticsSign up for HuffPost's Politics email to get our top stories straight in your inbox.Successfully Signed Up!Realness delivered to your inboxBy entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.





Close What's HotMore In Politics

NEWSPOLITICSENTERTAINMENTLIFEVOICESHUFFPOST PERSONALSHOPPINGNEWSLETTERSAbout UsAdvertiseContact UsRSSFAQCareersUser AgreementComment PolicyDMCA PolicyHuffPost Press RoomAccessibility StatementPrivacy PolicyConsent PreferencesPrivacy SettingsPart of HuffPost Politics. ©2025 BuzzFeed, Inc. All rights reserved.The Huffington Post






Revisionism is mandatory for Republicans. History changes to fit their narratives.

Trump/JD Vance and their followers are really escalating their use of Kremlin talking points this election cycle in order to rationalize their stance against the war in Ukraine. More specifically, to justify their opposition to Democrat support for Ukraine in this war, while exploiting yet another conflict to try and bolster Trump's campaign.

Trump and Vance have pushed the idea of caving into Putin's demands if they win the next election. Arguing that if we just give Putin what he wants, the war will end, la-dee-frickin-da. However, much like Churchill didn't negotiate with Hitler because Hitler was a dangerous expansionist looking to consolidate power wherever and whenever he could, and any overtures of peace were merely strategic moves, U.S leaders should take the same stance against Putin.

That's because Putin is also looking to consolidate power. His goal is to annex Ukraine in its entirety, rob its people of their independence, then continue with his "special military occupation" into other regions of Eastern Europe, where he will expand his oil empire and create soviet-like "spheres of influence" in every territory that his military occupies.

This is a good opportunity to remind people just how much of an asset Trump has been to Putin.

While Trump was president he frequently repeated Kremlin propaganda about things like the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Georgia, about NATO in particular, about the threat and existence of Russian cyber attacks and election interference, even siding with Putin over our own intelligence agencies on the matter.

Trump also refused to condemn Russia for its attacks on Ukrainian military vessels in 2018.

Trump has repeated Putin's false claims about Ukraine in general. Especially claims that served as a pretext for war.

Trump said that Putin did *"an amazing job of taking the mantle"* when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. And in 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump encouraged the annexation of the territory and repeated a Kremlin talking point, saying, *"The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were."*

After the 2016 election, The Trump transition team pleaded with the Russians to not escalate in response to sanctions that were imposed under Obama. Michael Flynn asked the Russian ambassador personally not to escalate the situation because the incoming Trump admin intended to have a good relationship with Putin.

Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he was considering lifting Russian sanctions, he said, *"If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody's doing some really great things?"*

In 2017, lawnakers passed a bipartisan bill that included new Russian sanctions. Trump was reluctant to signing the bill and it was reported that the Trump admin demanded that the language in the bill be "watered down." Those involved in passing the sanctions said that Trump would have likely shot them down if they didn't pass with a veto proof majority in both houses.

In response to Putin being labeled a "killer" for murdering his political opponents, Trump said in 2015, *"I haven't seen any evidence that he killed anybody, in terms of reporters."* Then again in response to the same accusations in 2017, he said, *"There are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?"*

Trump even considered returning multiple spy bases to Russia located in Maryland and New York after the Obama administration seized the compounds and expelled all Russian "diplomats."

Trump shared highly classified intelligence with two senior Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting in 2017.

Trump has also repeatedly attacked NATO, aligning himself with Putin and one of his most important goals—the weakening of NATO. Trump has called NATO "obsolete," and has reportedly, on many occasions, said that he wants to withdraw from NATO completely.

Trump even proposed working directly with Russia on a cyber security taskforce. It received swift bipartisan backlash and Trump was forced to backtrack after lawmakers had to remind him that Russia was responsible for repeated cyber attacks against the U.S.

The Trump administration lifted sanctions on Russian Oligarch, and Putin ally, Oleg Deripaska.

Trump also tried to rescind Russian sanctions after defector, Sergei Skripal was poisoned in an assassination attempt by Russia.

Trump abandoned our Kurdish allies and withdrew from Syria, which helped aid Russian proxy wars and gave Putin the opportunity to take over abandoned U.S. military outposts.

Let's not forget that Trump froze aid to Ukraine and delayed sales of important Javelin, anti-tank missiles when Ukraine was desperate for these things in its fight against Russian proxies. Javelin missiles in particular have proved to be a major front-line defense for Ukraine against Russian military advances.

Trump has called Putin's invasion of Ukraine "genius," and "savvy," and has continuously threatened to not honor our commitment to any NATO countries who are "delinquent." Encouraging Russia to do whatever it wants to allies who don't contribute enough to military spending and threatening the security of the entire alliance in the process.

Trump described NATO as if it was going out of business, saying, *"I went to NATO. And NATO was essentially going out of business 'cause people weren't paying and it was going down, down, down,"*

Trump has a severe misunderstanding of how this all works.

in 2014, NATO members agreed to move "toward" spending 2 percent of GDP on national defense by 2024.

> The 2 percent is a benchmark that each member should spend on its own defense in order to be able to contribute to the joint defense of the alliance. However, the goal is voluntary, and there is no debt or "delinquency" involved.

Trump thinks there is some NATO fund or something. Each country's spending doesn't go towards NATO, but towards their own defense.

Trump has called the U.S., *"the schmucks that are paying for the whole thing."* Still not understanding that the funding benchmark has to do with each individual country's own defense spending. We're not paying for NATO, and in fact, our defense spending has been decreasing for years.

The thing is, NATO was established after WWII to help combat Soviet expansion. Republicans, much like Trump, have argued NATO is irrelevant now that the Soviet Union is gone. This is absurd.

Trump and his supporters have the audacity to claim that if Trump were president, this war would have never happened. Not only is that egregiously false, but it's very likely, judging by everything I've pointed out, that Trump helped accelerate this war in the first place, and if he is elected again, he will continue to help advance Putin's autocratic and violent agenda.