Donald Trump didn't even hesitate. When Vice President JD Vance suggested bringing in Indian troops to police a ceasefire line in Ukraine, Trump shut it down with a laugh.
"The Indians won't do that," Trump said, according to a newly published book. "They won't pay for something like that."
The behind-the-scenes clash happened on January 30, 2025, exactly ten days after Trump took the oath of office for his second term. The details, exposed by New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in their book Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, reveal just how chaotic, transactional, and intensely personal the administration's foreign policy strategy remains.
This wasn't a casual chat. It was a high-stakes Oval Office meeting designed to set the "commander's intent" for ending the war.
The Vance Alternative to NATO Insanity
Retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, serving as the special presidential envoy for Ukraine and Russia, walked into the room to pitch a formal proposal titled An America First Plan: Trump's Historic Peace Deal for Russia-Ukraine War.
The baseline of Kellogg's plan made sense for the administration's goals. The U.S. wouldn't officially recognize Russia's land grabs, but Ukraine would have to stop trying to retake that territory by force. To lock in the ceasefire, Kellogg proposed putting boots on the ground to monitor the zone. His initial pick? Peacekeeping troops from Britain, France, and the Netherlands.
Vance saw an immediate problem with that.
Using NATO troops inside Ukraine is a massive provocation to Moscow. Vance argued that sending European soldiers into the conflict zone would escalate tensions, risk broadening the war, and ultimately drag the U.S. right into the fire. He wanted an alternative. He asked then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz if non-European forces could handle the job instead.
Waltz agreed that outside forces would be better. That's when Vance dropped the names of two wealthy, heavily armed non-Western nations: Saudi Arabia and India.
Trump's Transactional Reality Check
Trump's rejection wasn't about geopolitical alignment or India's military capability. It was purely financial.
According to the book, Trump chuckled at Vance's suggestion and immediately brought up his favorite metric for international relations: who pays the bill. While Trump noted that Prime Minister Narendra Modi "really liked him" and wanted to visit Washington, he bluntly remarked that "the Indians do not ever pay for anything."
He had no problem if Britain or France wanted to send their own troops to die or sweat in the Ukrainian trenches, provided the U.S. wasn't stuck with the bill or the military liability.
This window into the Oval Office shows the deep disconnect between Vance's ideological desire to dismantle global alliances and Trump's raw, business-first worldview. Vance was thinking about systemic escalation and the dangers of NATO overreach. Trump was thinking about ledger books and checkbooks.
Dislike for Zelensky and the Tariff Shadow
The meeting also highlighted Trump's deep-seated resentment toward Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. As Kellogg tried to get through his presentation, Trump repeatedly cut him off to vent about the Ukrainian leader.
"He's a bad negotiator," Trump said during the briefing, adding that Zelensky had "destroyed his country" but remained "really good at getting stuff from the Biden administration." Trump then called Ukraine the most corrupt country in the world.
This hyper-focus on money and perceived unfairness isn't isolated to European defense. Later chapters in the book show Trump bringing up India again in an entirely different context: technology and trade.
During a March 10 meeting with tech CEOs in the Roosevelt Room, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick asked executives what it would take to build more factories in America. Trump hijacked the conversation to blast foreign trade barriers, specifically calling out New Delhi.
"Those who won't build here are going to have massive tariffs to pay," Trump warned, claiming that India slaps a 175% tariff on American goods. "We're treated so unfairly."
What This Means for Global Alliances
If you're watching this from New Delhi or Riyadh, the takeaway is crystal clear. The current White House doesn't view strategic partnerships through the lens of shared democratic values or long-term regional stability. Everything is a negotiation, and every cost must be borne by someone else.
Vance's instinct to leverage India shows that a faction of the American right views New Delhi as a crucial counterweight that can relieve the U.S. of its global policing burdens. But that strategy will always run into Trump's fundamental belief that Washington is being ripped off by its allies.
For international policymakers trying to navigate this administration, the playbook requires shifting away from grand diplomatic frameworks. To get Washington's sign-off, you don't pitch geopolitical harmony; you show them exactly how your plan saves American dollars on day one.
Indian troops deployment in Ukraine debate
This broadcast provides immediate regional analysis and expert panel commentary on how New Delhi viewed the leaked proposal from the White House.
