From talk to tactics: Trump pivots on Russia strategy to end war
The warning came in a clear message: Enter into a peace deal with Ukraine or face stiff international sanctions on its top commodity, oil sales.
While the move has been championed by some, it has been questioned by others who debate whether it will be enough to deter Putin's war ambitions in Ukraine. One security expert is arguing the plan will work, but it might take years to be effective.
"I think it will be effective, and he's going to stick to that strategy. He's going to continue to push Putin to return to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith, not come to the bargaining table, make promises that the Russians don't plan on keeping," Fred Fleitz, who served as a deputy assistant to Trump and chief of staff of the National Security Council during the president's first term, told Fox News Digital.
"That's something Trump's not going to tolerate," Fleitz added. "We will see this is just the first six months of the Trump presidency. This may take a couple of years to solve."
But Trump campaigned on ending the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which has proven to be more complicated than he suggested from the campaign trail. And not everyone in the Republican Party has backed his approach when it comes to Europe, including a staunch Trump supporter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
"We do not want to give or sell weapons to Ukraine or be involved in any foreign wars or continue the never-ending flow of foreign aid," Greene said on X. "We want to solve our own problems plaguing our own people."
Fleitz pointed to Trump's decision to directly strike Iran and argued it reflected Trump's ability to be nimble as a leader.
"He looked at the intelligence and realized it was getting too close, and he decided to adjust his policy, which was first diplomacy," Fleitz said.
"But Trump also specified something very important. He said to his supporters, 'I came up with a concept of the America-first approach to U.S. national security, and I decide what's in it," Fleitz added. "He has ownership of this approach, and he will adjust if necessary."
Though Trump had made clear from the campaign trail that he wanted to see Europe take a leading role in the war in Ukraine, last week he countered a major talking point from some within his party, including Vice President JD Vance.
Vance has argued against arming Ukraine and said in an op-ed last year, "[It] is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war."
Trump agreed to sell NATO nations top U.S. arms that will then be supplied to Ukraine.
"We want to defend our country. But, ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing," Trump said, sitting alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Security experts have largely argued that the future of Ukraine's negotiating ability and, ultimately, the end of the war, will play out on the battlefield.
On Thursday, John Hardie, deputy director of FDD's Russia Program, told U.S. lawmakers on the Helsinki Commission, also known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in a defense briefing that Ukraine needs to be supplied with long-range strike capabilities that can hit key Russian missile and drone plants.
"Ukraine shouldn't be restricted merely to shooting down 'arrows'," Hardie said. "An optimal approach will combine both offense and defense. Ukraine needs to be able to hit the 'archer' and the factories that make the 'arrows.'
"Putin will continue his unprovoked war so long as he believes it's sustainable and offers a pathway to achieving his goals," Hardie argued. "By shoring up Ukraine's defense of its skies and enabling Ukraine to inflict growing costs on Russia's war machine, as well as pressuring the Russian economy and exhausting Russia's offensive potential on the ground, we may be able to change that calculus."
But Fleitz, who serves as vice chair of the America First Policy Institute's Center for American Security, said he believes this war will only be brought to an end when an armistice agreement is secured.
"I think there's probably going to be an armistice where both sides will agree to suspend the fighting," Fleitz said. "Someday, we will find a line where both nations will agree to stop fighting."
Ultimately, he believes this will happen by Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO for a certain period of time, though with Moscow's understanding that Kyiv will be heavily armed by Western allies.
"I think there's a way to do this where Russia wouldn't be concerned about growing Western European influence in Ukraine, and Ukraine would not be worried that Russia will invade once a ceasefire or armistice is declared," he added. "Maybe this is a pipe dream, but I think that's the most realistic way to stop the fighting.
"We know from history conflicts like this take time; peacemaking takes time," Fleitz said. "I think that over time, Trump is going to have an effect on Putin."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
3 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Kremlin, sensing advantage, confirms Putin-Trump meeting in coming days
President Donald Trump's abrupt shift on Wednesday from frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin's intransigence to a potential one-on-one meeting soon — despite Putin's refusal to halt attacks on Ukraine or back away from Russia's core war aims — handed the Russian leader a diplomatic coup, which the Kremlin embraced Thursday.
Washington Post
3 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Thursday briefing: Trump's tariffs; Fort Stewart shooting; Alzheimer's study; making potatoes healthy; and more
President Donald Trump's new tariffs for dozens of countries took effect overnight. Tulsi Gabbard overrode CIA officials' concerns in a push to release a classified report. The U.S. plans to scale back its human rights criticisms of certain countries. Five soldiers were shot at Fort Stewart Army base in Georgia. Scientists found a potential key to reversing Alzheimer's disease.
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
Swiss Shock - Can Switzerland Reverse The 39% Tariff?
The imposition of a 39% tariff on Swiss exports to the US has been greeted with shock, despair and much ire in Switzerland – the main newspaper NZZ greeting the move as 'absurd'. Considerable offense was taken by the fact that the announcement came on the Swiss National holiday (August 1st). Equally, local business leaders and economists have been perplexed by the fact that the tariffs have been calculated on the back of a trade deficit that was skewed by the export of gold – the deficit is now a surplus. Equally, many of the goods that Switzerland exports to the US, do not have competitors there (Swiss chocolate, watches and more importantly specialized industrial goods which are used by the likes of Boeing). Neither is the Swiss franc a weak currency. There is also a feeling in Switzerland that its role on the international stage, and facilitator of American diplomacy (the Swiss embassy in Tehran has traditionally acted 'for' the US), has gone un-noticed. Swiss politics is normally a very staid affair but this episode has led to infighting across the spectrum, and considerable blame has been focused on the President of the government Council, Karin Keller-Sutter. As a result, the Swiss negotiating team that will return to Washington this week will have representation from the conservative SVP, and more officials from the trade and finance divisions. The Swiss case highlights the flaws in the methodology of the White House approach. While its economy is extremely resilient, the Swiss will not be able to suffer a 39% tariff lightly. Our sense is that the counterargument will centre around a re-framing of the trade relationship between the two countries, a re-evaluation of how Swiss industry in particular helps US firms, and an undertaking for Swiss industry to invest in the US. The hope here is that Switzerland ends up with an EU style deal, of tariffs of 15%, and a somewhat empty promise to invest 'billions' into the US. From a diplomatic point of view, given that the Swiss had traditionally been so helpful to US interests, this is an own-goal by the White House. At the time of writing, there is no indication at all as to whether this episode pushes Switzerland closer to the EU (in terms of trade – there is no question of Switzerland joining the EU). For its part, the EU is still trying to get the White House to agree the wording of deal reached in Scotland – there is ongoing lobbying from the spirits industry in Europe, not to mention the auto manufacturers. The deal is not yet watertight and needs to be implemented by individual members. There is still uncertainty over the threats to place specific tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals firms based in Europe next week (Ireland in particular) and the USD 600bn that is supposed to be invested by European firms in the US. If sector specific tariffs are severe the backlash to the deal could grow and there is rising chance that it could fall apart.
