The change in Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding the Russian president and his aggression against Ukraine was met in Kyiv with both optimism and concern. Might this rhetoric later turn into the direct opposite, if Trump so easily abandoned his previous approach to Putin and his policies?
Yet in fact, there is a rational kernel visible in Trump’s approach. This is not just emotion — it is a genuine failure to understand the logic of Putin. The war has already lasted more than three and a half years, and Putin has not achieved the goals he set for himself and which, according to his plans, were to be reached within a few weeks. Russia faces serious economic problems and loses servicemen every day. At the same time, Putin refuses to make sufficiently serious economic or political concessions that Trump offered, and prefers to continue the war. From the outside, this seems irrational — the destruction not only of a neighboring country, but of his own as well. This is exactly what Trump speaks of when commenting on Putin’s actions on social media, during meetings with Zelensky or Macron, or in a speech at the UN General Assembly.
However, one should not forget: despite a certain external similarity of styles, Trump and Putin live in different political worlds. Trump is the president of a country where it is customary to think about the life and well-being of fellow citizens; in the Kremlin, the interests of citizens do not play such a role, especially in conditions where servicemen are paid for participating in the war and thus make their choice — life or death. This seems to relieve Putin and Russian society of a sense of remorse for numerous casualties. For Trump, on the contrary, the question of voters’ economic well-being comes first: his chances of reelection and his political legacy depend on this. In Russia, elections in the classical sense do not exist; Putin is not concerned either with elections or with successors — he seems to expect to rule forever.
How can these men understand each other’s motives? For Putin, Trump, who does not want confrontation, is a weakling who can be ignored. For Trump, Putin is an irrational ruler who neglects the interests of his own country and its development. They can call and meet as much as they like, but on fundamental issues they are unlikely to reach agreement. And then the main question arises: how can Trump actually force Putin to stop the war and sit down at the negotiating table?
First of all, it must be admitted: the West no longer has quick, effective economic instruments — the Global South is ready to help Russia bypass sanctions. Yes, additional sanctions against refineries working with Russian oil can deliver a blow, but their effect will be gradual, given the domestic demand of China and India. Nevertheless, even existing sanctions, reinforced by new mechanisms, can weaken the Russian economy. Here it is important not to fear the possibility of its deep collapse: on the ruins of a totalitarian and imperial construct, something more rational and adequate may eventually arise than that scarecrow which has existed for centuries.
The second instrument of influence is military assistance to Ukraine. Ukraine must be given the means to strike at strategic facilities of the Russian Federation, to destroy oil refining and military-industrial capacities, so as to pose a real threat to centers of power. This will increase the cost of continuing the war for the Kremlin. Could this provoke nuclear escalation? The possibility exists: nuclear weapons are increasingly being used as an instrument of blackmail. But here the key role of the United States is in deterring Moscow. If a clear signal regarding the inadmissibility of nuclear use and its consequences is sounded from Washington and Beijing, Putin will hold back. Thus: the sooner Putin is deprived of his strategic capabilities, the less likely it is that escalation will reach a critical level.
One cannot neglect the technological turn in the war. The mass use of drones gives Moscow an instrument not only to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure but also to undermine European economic potential — to force Europeans to stop helping Kyiv. And much here will depend on the position of the United States: if America remains on the sidelines, the hybrid war against Europe will seem inevitable and could grow into open conflict. In such a case, this will only accelerate and intensify instability in Asia, where Beijing could seize the moment by increasing pressure on Taiwan or in disputes with the Philippines. And then the U.S. will no longer be able to limit itself to the role of observer — the conflict will acquire dimensions that threaten global security.
The conclusion is simple: the sooner the United States restores its role as world leader and takes responsibility for containing aggression, the more likely it is that a large conflict will be avoided. The longer Donald Trump refrains from assuming such a role, the more obvious will become the risk of the world sliding into a full-scale war. In such a scenario, given current realities and technological changes, the United States risks becoming not only an arbiter but a full-fledged battlefield.
About Author:
