When President Trump took office 100 days ago, he correctly understood the moment was ripe to change the course of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Russian casualties were up to 1,500 every day, while Ukraine was slowly losing territory and facing increasing challenges mobilizing soldiers. While his claims to be able to produce results in 24 hours were hyperbolic, smart diplomacy using carrots and sticks had a chance. Many observers of the war welcomed any suggestion that Trump was ready to use America’s outsized economic, military and diplomatic leverage to push towards a ceasefire or even lasting peace. Even many Ukrainians skeptical of Trump’s pro-Russian reputation drew hope that his unpredictability and deal making could end their country’s suffering.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Unfortunately, Trump’s actions over the last three months have squandered the opportunities the United States had to de-escalate the violence and end the war in a way that advances American interests. The Russians needed to understand that the military and economic pressure on them would increase. The Ukrainians needed confidence that after signing a deal they would have the capabilities and security guarantees to prevent a future invasion. Rather than focusing on these key elements to diplomatic success, Trump has failed to take advantage of America’s sources of strength while actually giving away several valuable sources of leverage.
First, alliance leverage. One of Ukraine’s chief assets in the war is the backing of democratic partners in Europe, Asia and North America. With these forces united, Ukraine had a better chance of negotiating an outcome that protects its own interests as well as those of Europe and democracies elsewhere in the world. Now, rather than leading a coalition to counter Russia and get a fair deal for Ukraine, the U.S. is frequently at odds with its European partners. Excluding Europe from most negotiations on Ukraine and threatening crippling tariffs on our closest European allies have only compounded the sense of unease. As a result, the phrase “de-risking”, which was originally coined to describe how countries could lessen dependence on China, is now being used as Western allies try to insulate themselves from erratic U.S. policy.
Second, sanctions leverage. The new administration has prioritized bilateral relations with Moscow, suggesting the U.S. could reap economic and geopolitical benefits by establishing “trusting, friendly” ties with Russia. The Trump team seems to believe Russia, with a GNP the size of Italy’s and a notoriously risky investment climate, can yield business opportunities and that warm relations will persuade Russia to help us deal with Iran or even turn Moscow from its “no limits” partnership with China. In reality, the prospect of normalized ties has benefitted to Putin. Where Russia’s access to technology, trade and diplomatic respectability were previously important sources of leverage for the U.S., the Trump team is now in the position of trading concessions on Ukraine for purported benefits elsewhere in the relationship.
Third, time leverage. Secretary of State Rubio and others have made no secret of the administration’s eagerness to complete a deal and, privately, officials acknowledge that the 100-day milestone looms large in White House thinking. Imposing deadlines can be a useful tool in diplomatic negotiations, but parties to a war that both sides regard as existential are unlikely to treat a date on the American political calendar as sufficient motivation unless there are material costs for non-compliance. Because Ukraine fears the consequences of a reduction in U.S. support, Kyiv has been flexible in readily agreeing to Trump’s ceasefire proposals. Moscow, however, sees Trump’s self-imposed deadline as a no-lose chance to escalate its demands. And since Trump has not indicated he will seek funding for additional military support, they consider time as their ally. Either the Americans stay involved and advocate for Putin’s objectives or Trump walks away, allowing Russia to continue the war while continuing to normalize relations with Washington. When historians evaluate Trump’s policy on the Ukraine war, the end result will be what matters, not whether it was accomplished in 100 days or 1000 days.
Finally, moral leverage. Since WWII, the U.S. has been a staunch defender of peace and stability in Europe on the basis of territorial integrity. Administration officials perform verbal gymnastics to avoid saying that Russia attacked Ukraine. Trump himself has suggested moral equivalence between the two sides, claiming Ukraine was at fault for provoking the war, that President Zelensky was illegitimate and that the U.S. should recognize Russia’s annexations of Ukrainian territory. Compounding matters, Trump has openly questioned the territorial integrity of our own neighbors, pointedly refusing to rule out the use of force to “obtain” Greenland. The Russians see Trump’s ambitions for territorial expansion in the Western Hemisphere as analogous to their own role in the former Soviet space. When asked about the controversy, Putin unsurprisingly was open to the idea of America changing the borders of a European country, citing the long-standing American interest in Greenland and saying the matter has nothing to do with Russia. The Soviets respected Ronald Reagan for calling things by their name, including when he labeled their country an evil empire. Putin sees an America without a moral compass as an opportunity to steer us—and the world—to a system where might equals right.
Having surrendered so much leverage unilaterally, it is not surprising that the negotiations have not reduced the violence, let alone narrowed the fundamental differences between the parties. Nor is it surprising that the stronger party, Russia, has been the chief beneficiary: when the U.S. weakened itself it also weakened Ukraine. From Moscow’s vantage point, the past three months have been miraculous: Putin can now envision a path to win the war in Ukraine, a possibility that did not exist three months ago because the United States was blocking its way. As a bonus for Moscow, the resulting tensions in the trans-Atlantic relationship may metastasize into an irreparable split between the United States and Europe.
Our allies are famously patient in waiting for America to do the right thing after, as Churchill once observed, “exhausting all the alternatives.” In this case, there is no doubt that the United States will sooner or later rediscover the importance of containing rather than indulging the disruptive ambitions of Putin’s Russia. Until then, Ukraine and Europe will largely need to fight this struggle on their own.