Known for tough talk, Trump's relative softness towards Putin has long perplexed analysts

NZ Herald

2 days ago

Trump and Putin have spoken at least five times since Trump was sworn in for a second term in January, and Russian forces have pushed forward all the while.
'I've had a lot of good conversations with him,' Trump told a reporter during an appearance at the John F. Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts in Washington — one that was originally about announcing this year's class of Kennedy Centre honourees.
'Then I go home, and I see that a rocket hit a nursing home or a rocket hit an apartment building, and people are laying dead in the street. So I guess the answer to that is no, because I've had this conversation.'
Trump struck a similar tone when asked if he had seen reporting in the New York Times on Wednesday that Russia was behind a widespread breach of federal court systems.
The system that was exposed holds highly sensitive records with information that could reveal sources and people charged with national security crimes.
'Are you surprised? You know?' Trump said. 'That's what they do. They're good at it. We're good at it. We're actually better at it.'
He was also asked if he planned to bring up the reporting with Putin but did not answer.
Trump has long bragged about his ability to make deals and use tough talk to get his way, but his relative softness towards Putin has long perplexed analysts.
Some view the latest meeting as a haphazardly planned get-together that risks damaging American interests and blunting the power of the presidency, if Trump returns to Washington empty-handed.
'His rhetorical posture is completely acquiescent,' said Michael McFaul, a former ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama.
'The risk is that it makes the leader of the United States of America, the most powerful person in the world, look weak.'
When he has spoken of helping end the war, Trump has so far repeated proposals floated by the Russians, such as a swap of territory that could include the entire eastern region known as the Donbas, an idea already flatly rejected by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The President said yesterday that he had held a call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, and that the Ukrainian President would be included in a quick follow-up meeting if everything went well. But even on that point, Trump doubled back.
'Now there may be no second meeting,' Trump said. 'Because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it, because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting.'
Fiona Hill, who served as senior director for European and Russian affairs in the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said that Trump was not the only leader taking a risk by taking the meeting.
Putin's campaign against Ukraine has extended far longer than he anticipated, a miscalculation that has chipped away at the idea that he is a grand strategist, Hill said.
There is the risk, she added, that Trump again loses patience with the peace-making process, as he has in recent weeks.
'Maybe we're getting there where that view of Putin is going to shift,' Hill said of Trump. 'And that is dangerous for Putin.'
Still, without Zelenskyy present, the conditions of the coming meeting favour Putin, who had issued the invitation to Trump to meet.
Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, viewed Putin as a 'war criminal' and issued sanctions meant to cripple the finances of the Russian leader and those around him. But Trump will fly across the country to welcome Putin to an American military base to see what he has in mind.
That laid-back approach — Trump this week described it as a 'feel-out meeting' — seemed to conflict with his threat that Putin may actually face consequences if he does not agree to end the war.
Since Trump took office, many of the US sanctions levied against Russia have weakened, and Trump did not say yesterday if he would strengthen them or come up with something else.
Asked if there would be consequences if Putin did not take steps to end the war, Trump answered: 'There will be consequences. I don't have to say. There will be very severe consequences.'
Much of the leverage Trump could have used with Putin might have come in the weeks leading up to the meeting, said Steven Pifer, a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton.
Trump had expressed public frustration over Putin ignoring his calls to halt his offensive against the Ukrainians.
So far, none of the threats have materialised into the kind of punishments that could force Putin to change course.
Trump could have chosen to divert some US$300 billion ($500b) of frozen Russian central bank assets to Ukraine, Pifer said.
Or could have prioritised the production and shipment of American weapons purchased by the Europeans to maximise quick assistance to Ukraine.
Trump has done none of those things, instead wondering aloud if 'tariffs and stuff' might be the solution.
'You're not going to get Putin to change course until he concludes he cannot achieve his goals on the battlefield,' Pifer said.
'Had Trump wisely used that leverage and persuaded Putin that this would start happening, he would have dealt himself some cards.'
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Katie Rogers
Photograph by: Oksana Parafeniuk
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES