In recent weeks, the Trump administration’s approach to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has fluctuated dramatically, swinging between a near-abandonment of support and a renewed engagement.
Yet, one unified belief remains consistent: the necessity of a negotiated settlement to end Russia’s invasion, which has persisted since February 2022.
This notion aligns closely with the Biden administration’s perspective on concluding Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, echoing early efforts by the Trump administration to initiate direct dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian officials.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May that a military solution to the ongoing war is unattainable.
The prospect of a negotiated settlement emerges as the most favorable route for Ukraine in contrast to dire alternatives, which pose significant risks for Ukraine in both the short and long term.
The current battlefield situation presents a challenge for both sides; absent a pivotal change, neither can feasibly claim outright victory through military maneuvers that yield substantial territorial advancements.
Conversely, Russia retains the capability to persistently target Ukrainian military infrastructure and civilian targets, while Ukraine endeavors to respond effectively to these assaults in limited but impactful ways.
While it is crucial to acknowledge the sustained costs to Russia, both currently and in the future, those impacts are not insurmountable.
The Russian economy has faced considerable strain and international isolation, prompting President Vladimir Putin to withdraw from other malign activities in regions like the Middle East, the Sahel, and the Caucasus, directing resources toward the war in Ukraine.
Despite the extensive losses in troops, military equipment, and global influence, Putin seems poised to endure these challenges.
He aims to achieve this through prioritizing defense production, circumventing sanctions, and strengthening alliances with countries such as North Korea, Iran, and China.
Putin’s wartime strategy bolsters his access to a critical resource: time.
Historically, he has banked on the United States and the broader international community losing interest and patience with the situation in Ukraine.
This strategy of attrition relies on outlasting Ukraine’s military resistance and diminishing international support over time.
Moves made by President Trump that reduced U.S. support for Ukraine and ruled out NATO membership have likely reinforced Putin’s belief that he has the advantage of time on his side.
The immediate priority now is to dispel this belief in Putin’s mind that he can ultimately succeed by simply outwaiting Ukraine and its allies.
Several steps can be initiated to undermine Putin’s confidence in this strategy:
Firstly, the United States must collaborate with its allies and partners to announce concrete military capabilities that will be supplied to Ukraine, including critical air defense systems and long-range weaponry.
This assistance should be expedited to minimize the interval between the announcement and actual delivery.
Secondly, the White House should confirm that munitions and equipment purchased through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative will continue along their production timelines, ensuring a sustained baseline of support for Ukrainian self-defense.
This support should be augmented by additional donations from foreign nations and bolstered by Ukraine’s domestic capabilities.
Thirdly, NATO allies should reopen discussions on security guarantees for Ukraine, exploring interim measures and the conditions necessary for each stage.
Deciding on realistic prerequisites for the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ future defensive strategies and considering how these experienced troops could contribute to NATO missions and exercises will also be essential.
Fourthly, the U.S. government should foster enhanced industry-to-industry ties with Ukrainian companies for co-production and co-development of military capabilities.
Particular emphasis should be placed on leveraging Ukraine’s advancements in unmanned systems; as they lead the development of aerial and maritime drones that are capable of reconnaissance and attacks, their collaboration with U.S. industry can help scale production.
Fifth and finally, amid Trump’s past threats of imposing severe economic consequences on Russia if a cease-fire isn’t reached in fifty days, the U.S. should prepare a robust tariff package ready for action on day fifty-one.
Such tariffs would only be deferred if Russia agrees to and complies with a cease-fire.
The proposed tariff package should build on the framework of the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, aimed at targeting Russia’s energy sector and implementing substantial secondary sanctions on nations purchasing Russian energy supplies.
Vigilant enforcement of these sanctions, along with international cooperation, will be critical to prevent exceptions and loopholes that could undermine their effectiveness.
Preparations should begin now to engage allies and partners in advance of the likelihood of imposing these sanctions.
While reforming Putin’s perception that waiting is in his best interest is a complex and lengthy endeavor, every measure should be taken to sow doubts in his strategic calculations and invest in a sovereign Ukraine that possesses the capability to defend itself now and in the future.
Caroline Zier serves as a nonresident senior fellow in the GeoStrategy Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and has over fifteen years of experience in the national security and defense sector.
image source from：atlanticcouncil
