Trump's Sound and Fury on Ukraine

by Ambassador Thomas Graham (Retired) and David Bernell

It has been over three and a half years since Russia invaded Ukraine, and war has raged in what has largely become a stalemate since the end of the first year of fighting, though Russia has seen some recent gains on the battlefield. President Trump asserted during the election campaign that if he were elected president, he would end the war in Ukraine in one day. It is now seven months into his presidency and peace in Ukraine is as elusive as ever.

Trump has changed his positions on the war and how to end it many times, and his path has been so erratic that it has been difficult to follow. He and J.D. Vance berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office in February, and he has repeatedly accused Ukraine of starting the war, going so far as to halt arms shipments and intelligence sharing with Ukraine for a short time. He has offered up concessions to Russia, such as saying there would be no NATO membership for Ukraine, while asking for nothing in return. He has talked with Putin directly in several instances, and has sent envoys to talk with Russian officials about how to end the war, while specifically leaving Ukraine and other countries out of these talks, leading to concerns that Trump would sell out Ukraine. And in general, Trump has been inclined to see the war from Moscow’s point of view, as opposed to the that of the Ukrainians, NATO, the EU, and what had been the United States’ view until January 20.

At the same time, Trump has not abandoned Ukraine, NATO, the EU, or the American position on the war adopted by President Biden. Ukraine still receives arms and intelligence from the United States, and while it seems that additional direct American military aid may not be forthcoming, European countries announced an agreement after a meeting with Trump that they would purchase weapons from the United States and supply them to Ukraine. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have already committed to $1 billion in arms purchases for Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, Germany, Finland, and Canada have also expressed their intent to participate in this arrangement.

Trump and Zelensky also reached an agreement that they would together support a ceasefire as a start to comprehensive negotiations to end the war. And in what may have been a brief glimmer of hope for Ukraine, Trump began to talk like a Ukrainian ally for a while. In May Trump said, “I'm not happy with what Putin is doing. He's killing a lot of people,” and that “[Putin] has gone absolutely CRAZY!” At a cabinet meeting in July, Trump said that, “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.” (Trump’s critics noted that he seemed to be the last person in the world to understand this.) Also in July Trump announced that he was giving Putin fifty days, until September 2, to reach an agreement to end the war. If Russia did not take action by this time, then the United States would impose tariffs on Russia, along with secondary tariffs on purchasers of Russian products. After a couple of weeks, however, Trump changed his mind and said he was giving Putin only ten days to come to an agreement to end the war, with a deadline of August 8.

Trump Sides with Russia on One Day…

As part of his continually changing policy on the war in Ukraine, Trump sent his advisor and special envoy Steve Witkoff to Russia for talks on August 6. What came out of these meetings put American policy on yet another trajectory. Witkoff reported that his talks with Putin offered a significant breakthrough, and an announcement that Trump would meet in person with Putin very soon. However, Witkoff provided multiple and contradictory claims about what Russia seemed willing to do (pull Russian forces out of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in exchange for complete control of Donetsk; pull Ukrainian forces out of Donetsk in exchange for a cease-fire) and soon after it was widely suggested that the meeting mostly reflected Witkoff’s incompetence and his misunderstanding of what Putin was suggesting, not a major breakthrough in the Russian position. Subsequent statements by the Russian government also confirmed that Witkoff’s optimistic reports were off the mark. Moreover, by arranging a summit meeting, Trump and Witkoff were giving Putin something he has craved: standing and legitimacy with the United States and diminished isolation in the international arena.

Trump invited Putin to the United States, to meet on August 15 in Alaska, where Trump literally rolled out a red carpet and had a military flyover for Putin. (Supporters of the president said the flyover was a show of force; critics deemed it as simply another honor for a brutal dictator and internationally wanted war criminal who would be arrested if he dared to set foot in any other Western nation.) Prior to the meeting, which occurred several days after which the sanctions for failing to end the war were supposed to be applied to Russia, Trump said that if he did not secure a cease fire at the upcoming meeting, “I’m not going to be happy” and there would be “severe consequences.”

Trump didn’t get a ceasefire in Alaska, and he didn’t impose severe consequences on Russia. Instead, he changed his mind yet again, deciding to adopt Putin’s position that no ceasefire was necessary, and that Ukraine would have to give up land in exchange for an end to the war. Trump used the term “land swaps,” but the Russian proposal offered little to Ukraine in the “swap,” only a withdrawal of the Russian military from a small amount of occupied land in Ukraine. In short, Trump’s instincts to side with Russia and Putin won the day, which gave Putin exactly what he wanted: no ceasefire, no commitment to do anything differently, no change in the Russian position on the war, no new penalties from the United States (but no end to existing U.S. sanctions on Russia), and an easy victory in getting Trump to be so easily be swayed to the Russian position, all while buying time for Putin to drag out his empty diplomacy while his military continues to pound Ukraine, wear it down, and perhaps achieve a military breakthrough. (Oddly, the U.S. did move ahead in imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on goods from India as a penalty for the country continuing to import Russian oil.)

In a burst of overstatement typical of the administration, Trump’s envoy Witkoff said that the summit had achieved “epic progress.” He told Fox News that Putin for the first time went along with the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine, and this would be something similar to collective defense clause in NATO’s Article 5, but without NATO membership. (A Ukraine adviser during the first Trump term noted that, “Witkoff has confused everyone by saying that the guarantee would be modeled after NATO’s Article 5, yet without an American pledge to intervene in defense of Ukraine. Well, that’s the essence of Article 5, so what are we even talking about?”) The administration touted this development and spoke about holding a meeting with Trump, Zelensky and Putin. It even got European countries thinking about troop commitments to Ukraine as part of an agreement. However, the Russian government quickly put an end to these speculations, explaining that their idea of a security guarantee was nothing like NATO’s Article 5, and wouldn’t include foreign troops stationed in Ukraine. Rather, they envisioned an agreement that would provide Russia with a role and a veto over any actions taken, effectively negating any protection for Ukraine. Nor would any meeting take place between Putin and Zelensky.

In the end, in return for giving Putin a summit meeting in the United States, honoring him as a statesman, and offering generous concessions to Russia, Trump got…absolutely nothing. “He got played again,” said Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO. “It took two minutes on the red carpet and 10 minutes in the Beast [the presidential limousine] for Putin to play Trump again. What a sad spectacle.” Trump unsurprisingly proclaimed the meeting a great success, saying “the meeting was a 10.”

…Then Trump Sides with NATO and Ukraine the Next Day

Trump announced upon his return to Washington that he would meet President Zelensky the following Monday in the White House. This caused a great deal of concern among the leaders of several European nations and NATO, who worried that Trump’s tilt in the direction of Russia and his comment on land swaps, (along with their recollection of Trump’s meeting with Zelensky in February) all pointed toward discord and trouble. If Trump were to advocate Putin’s position in the meeting with Zelensky (who would clearly reject it), it could result in another Oval Office fracas, and lead Trump to characterize Zelensky as the one who doesn’t want peace while proclaiming Putin as the true man of peace.

In order to fortify Zelensky against Trump, and to press for security pledges to Ukraine, a delegation to accompany Zelensky was established on very short notice. The British Prime Minister, the French President, the German Chancellor, the President of Finland, the Italian Prime Minister, the Executive Director of the European Union, and the Secretary General of NATO all arrived in Washington to meet with Zelensky and Trump on August 18. The group presented a united front and offered no shortage of flattery to Trump in order to help keep him on their side. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni credited Trump with making progress in resolving the war, saying “Something has changed, thanks to you,” while NATO head Mark Rutte said to Trump, “I really want to thank you for your leadership.”

At the end of the day, the group could say that they had largely achieved their goal of keeping Trump in their corner. They even got him to offer American support for what officials called “a robust security pledge” to Ukraine, though Trump was vague in specifying what this might include, saying only that the United States would provide Ukraine “very good protection.” For their part, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron both stated after the meetings that this commitment was a major outcome of the talks. Still, European leaders have in mind the permanent stationing of British, French and other NATO countries’ troops in Ukraine on a permanent basis.

Activity But Not Progress

Two dynamics are at play in this diplomatic standoff. The first is that both the Russians and the Europeans (Ukraine, EU, NATO) are trying to win Trump over to their respective sides. Both know Trump’s tendency (or perhaps fixation) toward favoring Putin and Russia. Both seem well aware that he can be quickly swayed in one direction or another. Both seem to know how to appeal to Trump, whether through flattery, appearing strong, or offering inducements. And both seem aware that Trump isn’t ready or willing to go all in with either of them. For these reasons, both have engaged in a continual tug of war to inch Trump closer in their direction. American arms, intelligence, and diplomatic backing count for a lot in the war, and their presence or absence will have a major – maybe even determinative – impact on its outcome.

The second dynamic is notable for its lack of movement or change, and that is the position taken by the two countries in the fight about what is and is not acceptable as part of a settlement or peace agreement. Neither Russia nor Ukraine has changed their goals or their non-negotiable terms and conditions. Putin still wants territory and a vassal state in Ukraine or a full takeover of the country. He launched the war to reassert Russian power and bring all of Ukraine back under the hand of Russia. He has not made a single step in the direction of peace; he has only increased the violence against Ukraine in the service of his war aims. Zelensky and Ukraine, along with their friends in the EU and NATO, want territorial integrity, real sovereignty and independence, and tangible security guarantees for Ukraine. Ukraine will not agree to hand over territory to Russia, nor consent to any security arrangement that leaves them vulnerable to Russian aggression. In short, Russia will never agree to anything that leaves Ukraine with anything approaching real independence and sovereignty, and Ukraine will never agree to anything less. There is nothing new here.

The only way either side can get the minimum of what they want right now is military victory. And the only way to a settlement that favors Ukraine is for the United States to provide additional aid in significant amounts to make the war unwinnable and untenable for Russia. Then the U.S. and its allies will have to offer ironclad security guarantees to Ukraine – ideally with troops from Britain, France and others – or membership in NATO in order to protect the country over the long term. Seizure of Russian assets in Western financial institutions and turning them over to Ukraine would offer an additional blow to Russia and a boost to Ukraine’s war efforts.

In contrast to a forceful American approach, Trump’s frenetic activity and flip-flopping has resulted only in a dizzying shift in the American position on the war over the past few months, grounded in Trump’s belief that he is the most important actor in this conflict and the one person who can end the war. He craves attention and accolades and is setting himself up to win such things as both sides seek to curry favor with him. In the end, however, even Trump’s position hasn’t really changed all that much. He will neither fully support nor abandon Ukraine. And he will neither fully embrace Putin nor treat him like an enemy and pariah. For all of the news, commentary, analysis, and worry about what the Trump administration is going to do, the President’s encounters have largely entailed (both thankfully and also worryingly) little of substantive action. They are “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”