President Donald Trump appears to be well on his way to a geopolitical shift in U.S. policy, from backing Ukraine’s existential fight for survival in the face of Russian aggression to siding with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The pivot has been jarring: the United States voted with Russia in the United Nations against a resolution condemning Russia’s war; Trump blamed Ukraine for the war; he berated President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the media and then verbally ganged up on him in view of cameras at the White House alongside Vice President JD Vance; and Trump briefly suspended both aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine in an effort to coerce compliance. In Trump’s own words, he “trusts” Putin and insists that “we are doing very well with Russia […] I’m finding it more difficult, frankly to deal with Ukraine.”
But the path forward, if the Trump administration prioritizes a Russo-American reset over the survival of Ukraine, may be muddier for Trump and Putin than either of them imagine.
This war is being fought more over sovereignty than territory. Since 2014, when Russia’s military aggression started with the capture of Crimea and a swath of Ukraine’s east, Ukraine has stuck to its sovereign choice of Euro-Atlantic integration and domestic reforms. It’s a choice that Putin refuses to accept and tried to reverse in 2022 with his full-scale push for Kyiv to overthrow Ukraine’s government, install a puppet regime, and dismantle Ukraine’s independent State.
Yet Ukraine has demonstrated a steely, steadfast commitment to safeguarding its sovereignty. To succeed, Ukraine needs to prevent a third invasion, which would be inevitable should Putin succeed in his second. With NATO membership apparently taken off the table by the United States, any sustainable peace plan must include credible security guarantees, robust armed forces, and freedom from Russia’s meddling in domestic politics.
Such a plan is not on offer from Russia. Trump says he trusts that Putin wants peace, but it should not be surprising that something more concrete than Trump’s personal beliefs is necessary to convince Ukraine that Russia wants a ceasefire and is prepared to negotiate in good faith and make meaningful concessions. The last time Russia offered a concrete outline of its idea of “peace,” in Istanbul in March 2022, the proposal amounted to Ukraine’s capitulation. It demanded a severe reduction in Ukraine’s armed forces and weapons stockpile, a Russian veto on any future security assistance to Ukraine, no provisions for Russian withdrawal from any Ukrainian territory, plus limits on Ukrainian sovereignty through requirements that Ukraine adopt language and national identity laws dictated by Russia.
Putin has repeatedly brought up the Istanbul talks as a viable path to “peace,” which suggests he is likely to leverage those elements again and not offer any genuine concessions. Putin stressed last week that Russia would make no concessions in peace negotiations, and the Russian Foreign Ministry in recent weeks has rejected both European peacekeepers in Ukraine and French President Emmanuel Macron’s temporary ceasefire proposal. Putin reacted to the U.S.-Ukraine ceasefire proposal by adding demands that Ukraine stop mobilization and troop training, and the West halt the supply of weapons.
Misunderstanding Ukraine
Trump administration officials are acting as if they believe that, with enough pressure, Ukraine can be made to submit to any terms. But if they think so, they underestimate and misunderstand Ukraine — its objectives in the war, its capabilities, and its political dynamics — almost as badly as Putin misjudged them in 2022. The Ukrainian government is ready to negotiate, as evidenced by their agreement this week in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to a 30-day ceasefire proposed by the United States. But neither Zelenskyy nor any other legitimate Ukrainian politician would ultimately sign a capitulation masquerading as a peace deal, even under simultaneous pressure by Trump and Putin. In the aftermath of Trump and Vance’s attempt to pressure and humiliate Zelenskyy in the White House, the Ukrainian political spectrum has rallied around the president and his public approval rating increased by 10 percentage points, reaching 67 percent. Polls also show that Ukrainians overwhelmingly distrust Putin – he remains the most negatively perceived foreign leader, trusted by just 1percent.
Forcing Zelenskyy out would not solve Trump’s and Putin’s problem. Two of Zelenskyy’s possible political competitors, former President Petro Poroshenko and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, recently met with the Trump administration and have affirmed that they have no interest in replacing Zelenskyy and oppose elections while the war is ongoing. It’s a sign of deep misunderstanding of Ukrainian politics that the Trump administration would think installing one of these as leaders of Ukraine would in any way resolve the impasse and secure a quick deal in Russia’s favor. Poroshenko was the harder-line candidate to Zelenskyy’s “peace” campaign in 2019 and since 2022, he has spent his time raising funds for the Ukrainian army and donating equipment. Tymoshenko was the main competitor to pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych in the 2010 presidential race. Both politicians’ parties in parliament have supported the pro-Western policies and the war efforts of the government. General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the former commander of Ukraine’s armed forces who has not declared any political ambitions but who could be the most serious hypothetical competitor to Zelenskyy given his standing in the polls, would not give in to Russia either.
The obstacle to Ukrainian capitulation should Putin push for it again and hoodwink Trump into supporting him is therefore not Zelenskyy but the Ukrainian political class and society’s commitment to not let their country become Russia’s vassal. Polls show that pro-Russian politicians who could hypothetically deliver Ukraine to Russia have support only in the low single digits.
The ceasefire proposal that emerged from the Ukrainian and US delegation talks in Saudi Arabia might be a hopeful start, but it would ehardly be “75 percent of the way” towards a final settlement, as Trump imagines. In the negotiations over the details of the final peace settlement that are yet to happen, it is unlikely that any fundamentally new positions will emerge. In this case, the US will have to take a side – backing Ukraine in its quest to remain a sovereign state or backing Russia’s aim to end Ukraine’s sovereignty by way of a negotiated surrender. Trump’s actions and rhetoric to date suggest that the US would side with Russia. For Trump, the possibility that “Ukraine may be Russian someday” could be a price he’s willing to pay for resetting the Russo-American relationship, declaring the war to be over thanks to his effort, and getting rid of Zelenskyy, for whom he likely harbors a longstanding grudge for having refused to launch a politically motivated investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden that Trump demanded in 2019 in exchange for aid, leading to his first impeachment.
Scenarios Under Maximalist Russian Demands
However, if Russia remains uncompromising in its maximalist demands, Ukraine will not give Trump and Putin the satisfaction of digging its own grave and lying in it voluntarily. If Ukraine rejects a lopsided Putin-Trump settlement, two scenarios could be envisaged.
In the first scenario, Ukraine would call out Trump’s betrayal, rally Europe to its cause, and continue resisting Russian aggression. Ukraine refused to surrender under more dire circumstances in 2022, when Russian troops were outside Kyiv and Western aid had not arrived. Today, Russia is bogged down in Donbas, where it sends some of its wounded soldiers to battle on crutches and has to rely on donkeys and horses due to equipment shortages. Ukraine reportedly has military resources to continue defending for another six months, and EU leaders have announced a plan to spend 800 billion euros more on defense to begin filling the gap in anticipation that the Trump administration may significantly curtail, if not end, its role in Europe’s defense. Other substantial defensive measures, such as the “Sky Shield” air protection zone, are also being discussed.
With Europe’s backing, Ukraine may be able to maintain its freedom – with a fight — in the short term, while Trump ends up in a position of needing to repeatedly back Russia – via a withdrawal of U.S. intelligence and weapons, at the least — as it inflicts more death and destruction on Ukraine. Instead of a quick diplomatic victory, Trump may lose patience with his new ally, Russia. Putin would need to continue bearing the costs of his war effort and showing that he “has all the cards,” as Trump seemingly believes, even as analysts point to severe constraints Putin is facing in Russia’s economy and its military. These constraints can get worse still if Europe inflicts more economic damage on Russia through additional sanctions and the confiscation of Russia’s frozen assets.
The second scenario in the event Ukraine rejects a settlement it considers equivalent to capitulation is Putin’s eventual military victory in Ukraine with American help. If Trump sticks to siding with Russia, continues to deny military assistance to Ukraine or even helps Russia by sharing intelligence or lifting sanctions, and European support falls short, Ukrainian front lines are likely to buckle. As resilient as Ukraine has been, it cannot fight a Russia supported by the United States. Putin would attempt another push for Kyiv, as control of the central Ukrainian government is his longstanding objective.
Should the Ukrainian government be overthrown and the capital occupied but still without formal Ukrainian capitulation, Trump wouldn’t have an opportunity to take credit for “ending the war.” A large-scale Ukrainian insurgency, much of it well-armed, would be virtually certain. A new refugee crisis would rival the 2022 wave, as life under Russian occupation is unacceptable to the vast majority of Ukrainians. A puppet government backed by Trump and Putin would confront the same problem that Russia would have faced if it had managed to take Kyiv in 2022 – the need for occupation forces to keep the puppet in power. Given Ukraine’s size and population and in the context of a large-scale insurgency, would the Trump-Putin alliance culminate in what was until recently entirely unthinkable: a joint U.S.-Russian force backing a pro-Russian puppet in Kyiv?
To bring true peace to Ukraine and restore stability in Europe, the Trump administration needs to understand that its interest lies not in backing Putin but rather in putting real pressure on the Russian dictator. Serious threats to tighten and expand sanctions, confiscate Russia’s frozen assets, and back Ukraine’s defense fully, the new U.S. administration has a chance to extract concessions from Russia and help bring about the historic peace deal Trump claims he can achieve.