When Donald Trump returned to the White House, he did not waste time stamping America’s strategy on the long war between Ukraine and Russia with his own. His style has been a familiar blend of brash words, economic threats, and willingness to dissolve long-standing alliances, all aimed at jolting a solution to a conflict that refused to be sped up.
Trump’s entire ideology centers around the belief that he alone, and not anybody else, can negotiate a settlement to end the war. He has consistently said that the war would never have started if he had been president the first time, and now, more than a decade into the war, he wants to do it his way. Trump has warned Moscow of new sanctions and tariffs if Vladimir Putin does not negotiate. In characteristically Trump fashion, he stated the alternative bluntly: end the war by a deal or suffer economic retaliation.
But Putin has shown little inclination to give in. Russian insiders think that Russia is in a stronger position on the battlefield and doesn’t need to negotiate. Instead of conceding, Putin’s ultimatums have hardened: indefinite occupation of occupied territory, restrictions on the Ukrainian army, and the acknowledgement of Russian cultural privileges. Short of those goals, accommodation for him would be victory regardless of threats from Washington.
On the battlefield, though, the war is mired in a grinding stalemate that is punctuated by sudden surprise attacks and raids—such as Ukraine’s bold push into Russia’s Kursk province. Kyiv remains stubbornly unwilling to give up, even with its battered infrastructure and mounting losses.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has vowed he would never surrender Ukrainian territory, but has acknowledged that temporary concessions could become unavoidable if the pressure becomes too great. Above all, Zelensky requires any peacekeeping agreement to be accompanied by U.S. forces, dismissing the idea that Europe might provide a credible deterrent to Moscow on its own.
Trump’s increasing irritation at the impasse has forced him to extend economic pressure beyond Russia. India, once seen as an important ally in Asia, was quickly in Trump’s crosshairs after continuing to buy Russian oil and arms. Taking a bold step, he slapped a 50 percent duty on Indian goods, the highest in the subcontinent, and a penalty for trade with Moscow. New Delhi was taken aback. Indian politicians called the tariffs unfair, but the economic punch is palpable, with exporters poised to be hit across the board.
In an effort to soften the shock, Prime Minister Narendra Modi unleashed vows of tax cuts and reforms, urging citizens to shop domestically. India’s manufacturing base, however, is still small, and access to the U.S. market has repercussions for millions of jobs. Policymakers are moving quickly to spur domestic demand, but uncertainty surrounds what had been one of Washington’s most rapidly expanding trade relationships.
Abroad, Trump’s foreign policy also showed its cracks with longtime allies. The most self-evident example is the break with Israel on Iran’s nuclear program. Trump has preferred diplomacy and economic pressure, arguing that pressure, and not war, will prompt Tehran back into negotiations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has little interest in negotiations and continues to advocate for military options. That gap has raised questions about how closely Washington and Jerusalem would stick together in case Israel went it alone.
There is not even consensus within Trump’s own government. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a staunch hawk on Russia, has himself grown more pragmatic. He now argues that neither side can win and that only a negotiated settlement is the realistic alternative. Rubio prefers that Ukraine possess leverage, yet he feels U.S. support for an infinite war is unsustainable. His view is a nascent perception within the Republican Party, with considerable skepticism against NATO and foreign entanglements.
For all the bombast and economic blackmail, Putin has not yet shown indications of backing down. The Kremlin seems to be convinced that as long as the U.S. won’t meaningfully raise the price, Russia can weather the pressure. Putin’s overarching goal remains unchanged: forcing Ukraine to yield to his demands. He has made token concessions in the direction of Washington, but on the core questions of territory and Ukraine’s future alignment, he has yielded not one whit.
The bigger picture is uncertain. Trump is hoping that sanctions, tariffs, and diplomacy will eventually get Moscow to the table. So far, though, the war goes on, each side unable to throw the other a knockout punch. The danger is evident: absent a breakthrough, the U.S. risks becoming increasingly bogged down in a war with no seeming end, as America’s alliances and power are tested further. For now, the world watches as Trump’s bet plays out on Ukraine’s battlefields and in capitals from Washington to Moscow, New Delhi, and Jerusalem.
