CNN
—
New developments Tuesday reinforced the idea that President Donald Trump has significantly shifted his view of the Ukraine war.
But his short time horizons and lack of specificity on what exactly he will do for Ukraine, which are hallmarks of his leadership, mean the most critical factor preventing an end to the conflict will remain unchanged. There is little reason to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin will change his own calculations on a war he sees as a historic imperative and that may be existential for him politically.
Still, some things have undeniably changed.
Worst-case scenarios for what the first six months of Trump’s second term could mean for Ukraine didn’t come to pass.
This assessment excludes the Ukrainian civilians killed in Russia’s recent deadly escalation of drones and missile strikes, including on apartment blocks.
But Trump hasn’t folded to his erstwhile friend Putin. He’s not left Europe in the lurch under the shadow of an increasingly expansionist Russia amid the continent’s worst land war since World War II. Trump seems more warmly disposed toward NATO than he has been for years.
Ukraine faces the possibility of losing territory to a Russian summer offensive and more horror that civilians must bear. But diplomatically, it’s in a more favorable position with the Trump administration than anyone could have dared hope when President Volodymyr Zelensky got an Oval Office dressing-down in February. That means its hopes of surviving as an independent, sovereign state have improved.
Trump’s hostility toward Kyiv and misgivings about pumping US aid into a World War I-style quagmire might mostly be motivated by his dismay that Putin snubbed his peace plans, which were slanted toward the Kremlin.
But he at least has now shed some misconceptions that by force of personality alone he can bend Putin to his will. And by promising Patriot missiles to Kyiv — which Trump said on Tuesday are “already being shipped” — and being open to a new Russia sanctions push in Congress, he’s added steel to American peacemaking.
Trying to coerce Putin to the table may not work either. But at least Trump isn’t giving Ukraine away.
Trump’s shift will allow all sides to recalibrate to new realities. Although, as CNN’s Matthew Chance pointed out, Trump’s 50-day deadline for Moscow to talk peace offers a seven-week window for the cynics in Moscow to lock in as many gains as possible by raining fire and death on Ukraine.
Still, Trump has given himself some time to decide where he wants to go on Ukraine. And NATO states can enhance their own utility to Trump following a successful alliance summit.
Zelensky can try to build more goodwill with Trump to shape his approach to any future peace deals — though his experience in the Oval Office is a warning not to try to push the president too far.
And while the caveats about Putin being willing to wage indefinite war still apply, there’s a small chance a few more weeks will persuade Putin to contemplate a US off-ramp to a deal likely to hand him territory he’s seized in the three-year war and that he could spin as a win for Russian pride and security as well as a rebuke to the West.
Trump appeared optimistic Tuesday as he defended the ultimatum’s timeline. “A lot of opinions change very rapidly — might not be 50 days, might be much sooner than 50 days,” the president said.
It would be unwise to assume Trump’s estrangement with Putin is permanent.
His anger seems mostly born of disappointment that Putin has not delivered him a win with a peace deal that might yield a Nobel Prize rather than any deep sentimental or geopolitical concern for the implications of abandoning Ukraine.
And, as usual, the president has tempered previous vehement criticism of the Russian leader. After slamming Putin’s “bullsh*t” last week, Trump on Monday told the BBC: “I’m not done with him.”
Trump is transactional, operates in short windows of time and constantly seeks to land minor wins he can highlight. So, if he turned around and said he was meeting Putin in a summit next month or got mad at a new perceived slight from Zelensky, no one would be surprised.
“My concern here is that Donald Trump has the ability to be swayed very quickly,” said Sabrina Singh, a former Pentagon deputy press secretary who is now a CNN global affairs commentator.
“I fear that it’s only a matter of time until there’s another call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin where Putin gives some sort of concessions and says we’ll give a temporary five-day ceasefire and then turns around and says well, ‘Ukraine violated this ceasefire so we’re going to continue on with our war,’” Singh said on CNN News Central.
Still, Trump’s change of position is significant.
By following through on his vow to send “top of the line weapons” to Ukraine quickly, he is taking a big step. Patriot anti-missile defense systems could save many civilian lives, but Trump is embracing a political risk in ditching campaign-trail skepticism toward Ukraine shared by many MAGA supporters.
Trump has also shown more openness to sanctions. Trade between the US and Russia is minuscule at this point, so bilateral punishments won’t mean much. But if Trump does make good on a threat to impose secondary sanctions on nations that buy Russian products, especially energy exports, he could choke Moscow’s economy and war machine.
Still, would he really target India and China — two leading purchasers of Russian goods, in a move that could severely disrupt US relations with those giant powers and throw the global economy into turmoil? His erratic history of imposing and then suspending tariffs as part of his global trade war suggests not. Moscow may be banking on it.
It also matters what, if any, additional weapons Trump may send to Ukraine. Its most optimistic supporters were delighted on Tuesday when the Financial Times first reported that the president had asked Zelensky in a phone call about Kyiv’s capacity to target both Moscow and St. Petersburg. But Trump toned down the speculation on Tuesday, although aides told CNN that he has not ruled out shipping certain categories of offensive weapons to Ukraine that he’s so far been unwilling to provide.
“No, he shouldn’t target Moscow,” Trump told reporters, referring to Zelensky. “I’m on nobody’s side. You know whose side I’m on? Humanity’s side.”
Though he’d likely not admit it, the president is in a similar spot to one long occupied by his predecessor President Joe Biden. He’s considering how far he can push Putin while avoiding inflammatory steps that might cross his invisible red lines and widen the war.
Trump’s new tolerance and even appreciation for NATO follows genuine fears that his new term might trigger the political earthquake of a US withdrawal.
Credit goes to quiet diplomacy by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, who’ve worked on Trump and counseled Zelensky on how to approach the US in recent months.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, meanwhile, choreographed an alliance summit in the Netherlands last month that delivered a political triumph for the president. An agreement that NATO states would spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035 allowed Trump to argue he’d forced Europe to get serious about protecting itself and alleviating the burden on the US.
Alongside Rutte in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump praised Europe’s spirit for the war in Ukraine, adding, “Ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing — it’s a very good thing.”
Now, NATO has solved another political problem for the president. It’s effectively being used as a front for him to send Patriot missiles to Kyiv. European nations are sending the batteries to Kyiv, after which US NATO allies will buy replacements from the US.
Rutte portrayed this diplomatic ballet as another win for Trump.
“Mr. President, dear Donald, this is really big, this is really big,” Rutte said, using characteristic praise that comes across as sycophancy to many but that Trump takes at face value. “You called me on Thursday, that you had taken a decision, and a decision is that you want Ukraine (to have) what it needs to have to maintain — to be able to defend itself against Russia — but you do want the Europeans to pay for it, which is totally logical,” Rutte said.
The NATO conduit offers at least symbolic distance for Trump as he sends weapons to Ukraine for use in a war against Russia. It allows some level of plausible deniability if MAGA activists disapprove. And it satisfies Trump’s obsession with driving a good financial deal. Expect to hear him argue he’s secured new sales and even jobs for US defense workers.
The promise that other offensive weapons could also get to Ukraine using the same route is unspecific, however. It’s not clear whether Ukraine will get weapons that will enable it to make battlefield advances against Russia. And it’s unlikely that any US assistance will mirror the vast packages of military assistance and aid that were approved by Congress in the Biden administration.
The atmosphere on Capitol Hill is also changing. A drive to sanction Russia more severely already had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and Trump has shown he can muster majorities in the House for his priorities.
Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham and his Democratic co-sponsor Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Monday that their bill could be a “real executive hammer” to isolate Russia. But the measure could still stir dissent in the GOP base at a time when Trump is already upsetting some supporters over the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who opposes more aid to Ukraine, said Tuesday he doesn’t see an urgent need for a bill now that Trump has threatened to impose sanctions on Russia and even secondary punishments on India and China.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul blasted the initiative as “one of the most dangerous bills ever to come before the Senate.” He predicted a total cut-off of trade with China, India and Turkey if they were to be hit by US punishments.
So the domestic politics of Trump’s Ukraine shift are not yet fully settled.
And neither, really, is the geopolitical situation.
Trump has adopted a tougher policy toward Putin, but it’s not definitive or guaranteed to last. The extent of future US military support for Ukraine remains unclear, even if Kyiv’s government is in better standing with the president than ever before. And European NATO states can breathe a sigh of relief about Trump, but his trade war threats have caused a deep transatlantic rift.
All of this means that Putin’s key calculation all along — that he can outlast the West on the war in Ukraine — seems unlikely to significantly shift.
