How Trump Can Navigate His Ukrainian Dilemma and Help Conclude the War

Recent actions taken by the Trump administration have brought into question over a decade of US opposition to Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine.

These developments have raised the possibility of President Donald Trump following in the footsteps of many predecessors by attempting his own reset with Russia.

This situation has led to factually inaccurate US criticisms directed at the leader of a nation that is bravely defending its existence against a nuclear superpower that frequently labels the US as a foe.

How did we find ourselves in this position? And what are the steps to move forward?

According to Trump’s adversaries, these occurrences were a foregone conclusion. They believe Trump has always harbored a fondness, or at the very least, a blind spot for autocrats, especially Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Thus, Trump was destined to broker a deal that would weaken an already struggling Ukraine and introduce new challenges for US allies in Europe.

However, this perspective overlooks a significant aspect of Trump’s stance displayed since last spring, when he endorsed a long-awaited US aid package for Ukraine, noting that the country’s survival is “essential” for the US.

This aspect gained further prominence during the US presidential race and afterward, with Trump asserting that he could rapidly bring about an end to the war and achieve lasting peace — initially claiming he could do so within 24 hours.

His team even leaked key components of this plan: it called for concessions from Ukraine (territorial compromises and a minimum 20-year pause on NATO membership) and from Russia (acceptance of European troops in a demilitarized zone and substantial arms supplies to Ukraine to prevent future Russian aggression).

While Ukraine showed some flexibility regarding territory, Russia outright rejected Trump’s team’s proposals.

As a result, Trump, in his initial days back in office, identified Putin as the barrier to peace and alluded to the possibility of exerting pressure on Moscow.

Why would Trump engage in this behavior—essentially indicating that he bears responsibility for this war—if his intention was to betray Ukraine?

After claiming for months that he could swiftly create a stable peace in Ukraine, he cannot plausibly shift the blame for his failure to achieve this onto President Joe Biden.

If Trump’s goal hasn’t been to forsake Ukraine, what would account for his team’s recent statements and actions?

The answer likely lies in the peculiarities of Trump’s diplomatic style. While he is usually quick to use aggressive rhetoric with allies, his approach to tyrants of militarily strong nations tends to be more lenient.

This was evident during Trump’s engagements with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un in his first term.

After initially dubbing Kim “Rocket Man,” Trump employed flattery in pursuit of a nuclear agreement with North Korea.

Ultimately, however, Trump withdrew from negotiations once he was convinced he could not achieve a favorable deal.

Besides his solitary moment of honesty regarding Putin as an impediment to peace in Ukraine, Trump’s strategy towards Russia has been one of gentler engagement—particularly following the February 12 phone call between him and Putin.

This interaction led to a meeting between American and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia without Ukrainian representation, prompting a worried response from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, followed by a heated exchange between Trump and Zelensky.

This dynamic has not benefited either party: Zelensky requires US backing against Putin’s continued hostility, while Trump seeks a quick, lasting peace that isn’t attainable without Ukraine’s agreement.

Putin aims to delay an agreement to gain extra time to seize more Ukrainian territory and expel Ukraine’s forces from Russia’s Kursk region.

Trump’s contentious exchanges with Zelensky inadvertently provide Putin with a rationale to avoid compromise, placing Trump in a predicament of his own creation.

This situation is politically damaging for Trump. Although his MAGA supporters may appreciate the confrontational exchanges, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, which have typically backed Trump, have criticized him for creating this scenario.

In a more measured approach, over a dozen Republican lawmakers have publicly articulated facts that contradict many of Trump’s recent assertions.

Meanwhile, Putin watches the unfolding drama with amusement.

The situation is far from dire. The conflicts between Trump and Zelensky are largely superficial.

On Friday, Trump moderated his stance on claiming Zelensky “provoked” the war, asserting that only he and Biden could have averted it through better diplomacy.

Concurrently, Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special presidential envoy, has visited Kyiv for discussions with Ukraine’s leadership and their team.

Reports suggest they are ongoing discussions concerning a deal on rare-earth and critical minerals, along with potentially other matters, allowing both leaders to refocus on the essential task of aligning their strategies to press Putin to cease his aggression in Ukraine.

This approach could help extricate Trump from his self-imposed dilemma, restoring the focus for peace negotiations where it truly belongs: in the Kremlin.

To facilitate this process, the Trump team could publicly affirm that Russia is indeed the aggressor.

Meanwhile, the Zelensky administration can maintain the momentum by communicating any of its concerns regarding Trump’s strategies through private channels.

John Herbst, former ambassador to Ukraine and Uzbekistan, serves as senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.