In giving Putin so much on Ukraine, Trump is attacking America’s allies, not its adversaries
Donald Trump is taking a significant gamble with his approach to Ukraine. By pushing toward an endgame and engaging Russian President Vladimir Putin so warmly, he risks making premature concessions to a leader whose ambitions may extend far beyond Ukraine.
This week on Fox News, Trump suggested that Ukraine “may be Russian some day” and floated the idea that U.S. aid should come with strings attached — specifically, access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth signaled that Ukrainian NATO membership is off the table. To many this may seem like pragmatic dealmaking, but if Putin believes the United States is ready to accept a Russian-controlled Ukraine he’ll see little reason to stop there.
It’s not paranoid to think that Russia’s — not only Putin’s — ambitions do not end with Ukraine. If they perceive weakness in Western resolve, he could set his sights on Moldova, the Baltics, or seek greater influence (even restored control) over Central and Eastern Europe. That is why U.S. policy toward Ukraine has never been just about Ukraine — it is about whether military aggression in Europe will be tolerated or deterred.
I do concede that Trump is touching on an uncomfortable truth: Ukraine faces serious challenges in fully reclaiming all of its lost territory, and its allies will not support a forever war on principle. While President Joe Biden did not explicitly state as much, policymakers and analysts do quietly acknowledge that rolling back Russian control entirely, in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, is unlikely. On these very pages several months ago, former Romanian prime minister Mihai Razvan Ungureanu and I outlined endgame scenarios in that vein. So the real shock for Ukrainians is not necessarily in the substance of Trump’s remarks but in their directness — which is indeed unwise.
There is a better way, and it’s pretty obvious.
If a negotiated settlement is to happen, and if Russia’s land grabs are to be acquiesced to on the basis of pragmatism and realpolitik, it must come with clear guarantees for Ukraine’s security and future, as well as compensation for its losses in terms of both lives and territory. This may not be terrible for Kyiv.
There is a scenario in which Ukraine, in exchange for relinquishing 20 percent of its land, could secure EU membership and significant economic and military support from the Europeans. So the EU should be preparing a plan that shoves bureaucracy aside and pretty much guarantees Ukraine a prosperity that Russia will not experience for decades at best. In the long run, EU integration may be more valuable to Ukraine than NATO membership, as NATO’s Article 5 does not actually guarantee any specific military response — contrary to widely-held misconceptions.
Trump’s general style of diplomacy, if one is to be generous, seems aimed at expanding the “Overton window” of discourse — placing ridiculous ideas on the table, like the exodus of over 2 million Gazans, probably to achieve something else less ridiculous, like Arab world pressure on Hamas. It involves scaring people into thinking you’re crazy.
It’s not always pretty, but that’s something you could conceivably present as the “art of the deal” — the title of the book (supposedly) written by Trump in the 1980s. But with Putin on Ukraine, he seems to be doing the opposite — something that looks like the art of the sellout: Instead of setting high demands as a starting point, he is jumping straight to concessions.
Even as Vice President JD Vance was meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky this week at the Munich Security Conference (and also taking shots at his hosts and meeting with Germany’s far-right leader), Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was shocking allies by suggesting that the US is disinterested in the continent’s security, would block Ukrainian membership in NATO (which had been promised in 2008) and will not be part of any multinational peacekeeping force in Ukraine after the war.
This approach risks revealing an American hand too soon, in a way that weakens Ukraine’s position rather than strengthening it. It seems like a quick-fix attempt at brokering a deal without fully assessing the risks.
Basically, it seems that Trump is way too eager to negotiate directly with Putin, which may provide him with some big-power ego satisfaction but also gives Putin exactly what he wants: an entirely unwarranted equal footing with the leader of the free world.
If Ukraine is to make territorial compromises (which, in one way or another, I have been predicting for three years — see below interview), it should be as part of a broader strategy that secures its future. It shouldn’t be strong-armed in mafia fashion by Trumpian demands for mineral wealth as some sort of collateral.
Indeed, Trump’s reported plan to condition U.S. aid to Ukraine on “paybacks” is execrable because it treats vital military assistance as a transactional leverage tool rather than a strategic necessity. Ukraine’s survival is in America’s interest, deterring Russian aggression and preserving NATO’s credibility. Forcing allies into payments undermines trust within the alliance and signals that U.S. commitments are unreliable, emboldening adversaries. Trump’s approach echoes his past quid pro quos on Ukraine (which, by the way, got him impeached), this time with consequences that could reshape Europe’s security order catastrophically.
“In Ukraine we watch this in frustration. Unlike in the Middle East, in our case Trump is pressing America’s ally and not its adversary,” says Andriy Taranov, a board member of Ukraine’s public broadcasting company. “It is a strange form of negotiation which may not be suited for this part of the world.”
Beyond the immediate risks to Europe and Ukraine, Trump’s approach could have long-term consequences for U.S. credibility. If Ukraine is forced into a premature settlement without adequate safeguards, other U.S. allies — including those in NATO and the Indo-Pacific — would be reasonable to question the reliability of American commitments.
Countries like Taiwan, which rely on U.S. deterrence against China, may wonder whether future American support will also come with conditions or concessions. If Beijing perceives that Russia was able to secure territorial gains through persistence and negotiation rather than outright victory, it may conclude that similar tactics could be used in Taiwan.
SUBSCRIBE TO “ASK QUESTIONS LATER”
Taiwan may have nowhere to go, but let’s just say that Brazil and India — with 1.5 billion people — do. That’s not the kind of outcome American tough-guys used to aim for.
Strong leadership requires recognizing that some conflicts cannot be resolved with quick fixes — especially when dealing with an adversary who may see compromise as a sign of weakness rather than a step toward peace. If the goal is simply to end the war regardless of the consequences, the result may be a settlement under duress that invites further instability.
The stakes are far greater than one country’s borders — at stake is the very balance of power in Europe for decades to come, and American credibility at a time when China is ascending and Russia wants to restore its superpower status under its own mafia boss.
If America is still the leader of the free world, it should have a leader who is thoughtful, wise, brave, free of ego, and aware of the lessons of history. Instead, it has Trump. Be very afraid.