When President Trump began his term 100 days prior, he correctly identified an opportunity to alter the course of Russia’s war in Ukraine. At that time, Russian casualties were high, reaching 1,500 per day. Simultaneously, Ukraine was gradually losing territory and encountering greater difficulties in mobilizing its troops. Although his promises of immediate results were exaggerated, there was potential for effective diplomacy using incentives and disincentives. Many war observers were receptive to any indication that Trump might utilize America’s significant economic, military, and diplomatic power to push for a ceasefire or even a lasting peace. Even Ukrainians who were initially skeptical of Trump’s perceived pro-Russian stance were hopeful that his unpredictable nature and deal-making abilities could bring an end to their nation’s suffering.
Regrettably, Trump’s actions over the past three months have wasted the opportunities the United States had to de-escalate the conflict and conclude the war in a manner that benefits American interests. It was crucial for the Russians to understand that the military and economic pressure on them would intensify. Additionally, the Ukrainians needed assurance that, upon signing an agreement, they would possess the necessary capabilities and security guarantees to prevent future invasions. Instead of prioritizing these essential elements for diplomatic success, Trump has failed to capitalize on America’s strengths while actually surrendering valuable leverage.
First, alliance leverage. A key advantage for Ukraine in the war is the support it receives from democratic partners in Europe, Asia, and North America. With these forces united, Ukraine had a greater chance of negotiating an outcome that safeguarded its interests, as well as those of Europe and democracies worldwide. However, instead of leading a coalition to counter Russia and secure a fair deal for Ukraine, the U.S. is frequently in conflict with its European allies. The exclusion of Europe from the majority of Ukraine negotiations and the threat of imposing crippling tariffs on our closest European allies have only exacerbated the sense of uncertainty. Consequently, the term “de-risking,” which was initially used to describe how countries could reduce their dependence on China, is now being used as Western allies attempt to shield themselves from unpredictable U.S. policy.
Second, sanctions leverage. The new administration has emphasized bilateral relations with Moscow, implying that the U.S. could gain economic and geopolitical advantages by establishing “trusting, friendly” ties with Russia. The Trump team appears to believe that Russia, with a GNP comparable to Italy’s and a notoriously unstable investment environment, can offer business opportunities. They also seem to think that warm relations will persuade Russia to assist us in addressing issues with Iran or even shift Moscow away from its “no limits” partnership with China. In reality, the prospect of normalized ties has benefitted Putin. While Russia’s access to technology, trade, and diplomatic respectability were previously valuable sources of leverage for the U.S., the Trump team is now in a position where it is trading concessions on Ukraine for alleged benefits elsewhere in the relationship.
Third, time leverage. Secretary of State Rubio and others have openly expressed the administration’s eagerness to finalize a deal. Privately, officials acknowledge the importance of the 100-day milestone in the White House’s thinking. Setting deadlines can be a useful tactic in diplomatic negotiations. However, parties involved in a war that both sides consider existential are unlikely to view a date on the American political calendar as sufficient motivation unless there are tangible consequences for non-compliance. Because Ukraine fears the repercussions of reduced U.S. support, Kyiv has been flexible in readily agreeing to Trump’s ceasefire proposals. Moscow, however, views Trump’s self-imposed deadline as a risk-free opportunity to escalate its demands. And, given that Trump has not indicated any intention to seek funding for additional military assistance, they see time as an advantage. Either the Americans remain involved and advocate for Putin’s objectives, or Trump withdraws, allowing Russia to continue the war while simultaneously normalizing relations with Washington. When historians assess Trump’s policy on the Ukraine war, the ultimate outcome will be the determining factor, regardless of whether it was achieved in 100 or 1000 days.
Finally, moral leverage. Since WWII, the U.S. has consistently championed peace and stability in Europe based on the principle of territorial integrity. Administration officials engage in verbal maneuvering to avoid acknowledging that Russia attacked Ukraine. Trump himself has suggested a moral equivalence between the two sides, alleging that Ukraine provoked the war, that President Zelensky was illegitimate, and that the U.S. should recognize Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory. To further complicate matters, Trump has openly questioned the territorial integrity of our own neighbors, pointedly refusing to rule out the use of force to “obtain” Greenland. The Russians perceive Trump’s ambitions for territorial expansion in the Western Hemisphere as similar to their own actions in the former Soviet space. When questioned about the controversy, Putin unsurprisingly expressed openness to the idea of America altering the borders of a European country, citing America’s long-standing interest in Greenland and asserting that the matter has no connection to Russia. The Soviets respected Ronald Reagan for his directness, including his description of their country as an evil empire. Putin views an America lacking a moral compass as an opportunity to guide us—and the world—toward a system where power dictates what is right.
Having surrendered so much leverage unilaterally, it is not surprising that the negotiations have failed to reduce the violence, let alone bridge the fundamental differences between the parties. Nor is it surprising that the stronger party, Russia, has been the primary beneficiary: when the U.S. weakened itself, it also weakened Ukraine. From Moscow’s perspective, the past three months have been remarkably favorable. Putin can now see a potential path to victory in the Ukraine war, a possibility that did not exist three months ago because the United States was obstructing it. As an added benefit for Moscow, the resulting tensions in the trans-Atlantic relationship could escalate into an irreparable rift between the United States and Europe.
Our allies are famously patient in waiting for America to do the right thing after, as Churchill once observed, “exhausting all the alternatives.” In this case, there is no doubt that the United States will sooner or later rediscover the importance of containing rather than indulging the disruptive ambitions of Putin’s Russia. Until then, Ukraine and Europe will largely need to fight this struggle on their own.
