Analysis: Trump's 50-day shift on Ukraine is a big deal — but probably not for Putin
But his short time horizons and lack of specificity on what exactly he will do for Ukraine, which are hallmarks of his leadership, mean the most critical factor preventing an end to the conflict will remain unchanged. There is little reason to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin will change his own calculations on a war he sees as a historic imperative and that may be existential for him politically.
Still, some things have undeniably changed.
Worst-case scenarios for what the first six months of Trump's second term could mean for Ukraine didn't come to pass.
This assessment excludes the Ukrainian civilians killed in Russia's recent deadly escalation of drones and missile strikes, including on apartment blocks.
But Trump hasn't folded to his erstwhile friend Putin. He's not left Europe in the lurch under the shadow of an increasingly expansionist Russia amid the continent's worst land war since World War II. Trump seems more warmly disposed toward NATO than he has been for years.
Ukraine faces the possibility of losing territory to a Russian summer offensive and more horror that civilians must bear. But diplomatically, it's in a more favorable position with the Trump administration than anyone could have dared hope when President Volodymyr Zelensky got an Oval Office dressing-down in February. That means its hopes of surviving as an independent, sovereign state have improved.
Trump's hostility toward Kyiv and misgivings about pumping US aid into a World War I-style quagmire might mostly be motivated by his dismay that Putin snubbed his peace plans, which were slanted toward the Kremlin.
But he at least has now shed some misconceptions that by force of personality alone he can bend Putin to his will. And by promising Patriot missiles to Kyiv — which Trump said on Tuesday are 'already being shipped' — and being open to a new Russia sanctions push in Congress, he's added steel to American peacemaking.
Trying to coerce Putin to the table may not work either. But at least Trump isn't giving Ukraine away.
Trump's shift will allow all sides to recalibrate to new realities. Although, as CNN's Matthew Chance pointed out, Trump's 50-day deadline for Moscow to talk peace offers a seven-week window for the cynics in Moscow to lock in as many gains as possible by raining fire and death on Ukraine.
Still, Trump has given himself some time to decide where he wants to go on Ukraine. And NATO states can enhance their own utility to Trump following a successful alliance summit.
Zelensky can try to build more goodwill with Trump to shape his approach to any future peace deals — though his experience in the Oval Office is a warning not to try to push the president too far.
And while the caveats about Putin being willing to wage indefinite war still apply, there's a small chance a few more weeks will persuade Putin to contemplate a US off-ramp to a deal likely to hand him territory he's seized in the three-year war and that he could spin as a win for Russian pride and security as well as a rebuke to the West.
Trump appeared optimistic Tuesday as he defended the ultimatum's timeline. 'A lot of opinions change very rapidly — might not be 50 days, might be much sooner than 50 days,' the president said.
It would be unwise to assume Trump's estrangement with Putin is permanent.
His anger seems mostly born of disappointment that Putin has not delivered him a win with a peace deal that might yield a Nobel Prize rather than any deep sentimental or geopolitical concern for the implications of abandoning Ukraine.
And, as usual, the president has tempered previous vehement criticism of the Russian leader. After slamming Putin's 'bullsh*t' last week, Trump on Monday told the BBC: 'I'm not done with him.'
Trump is transactional, operates in short windows of time and constantly seeks to land minor wins he can highlight. So, if he turned around and said he was meeting Putin in a summit next month or got mad at a new perceived slight from Zelensky, no one would be surprised.
'My concern here is that Donald Trump has the ability to be swayed very quickly,' said Sabrina Singh, a former Pentagon deputy press secretary who is now a CNN global affairs commentator.
'I fear that it's only a matter of time until there's another call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin where Putin gives some sort of concessions and says we'll give a temporary five-day ceasefire and then turns around and says well, 'Ukraine violated this ceasefire so we're going to continue on with our war,'' Singh said on CNN News Central.
Still, Trump's change of position is significant.
By following through on his vow to send 'top of the line weapons' to Ukraine quickly, he is taking a big step. Patriot anti-missile defense systems could save many civilian lives, but Trump is embracing a political risk in ditching campaign-trail skepticism toward Ukraine shared by many MAGA supporters.
Trump has also shown more openness to sanctions. Trade between the US and Russia is minuscule at this point, so bilateral punishments won't mean much. But if Trump does make good on a threat to impose secondary sanctions on nations that buy Russian products, especially energy exports, he could choke Moscow's economy and war machine.
Still, would he really target India and China — two leading purchasers of Russian goods, in a move that could severely disrupt US relations with those giant powers and throw the global economy into turmoil? His erratic history of imposing and then suspending tariffs as part of his global trade war suggests not. Moscow may be banking on it.
It also matters what, if any, additional weapons Trump may send to Ukraine. Its most optimistic supporters were delighted on Tuesday when the Financial Times first reported that the president had asked Zelensky in a phone call about Kyiv's capacity to target both Moscow and St. Petersburg. But Trump toned down the speculation on Tuesday, although aides told CNN that he has not ruled out shipping certain categories of offensive weapons to Ukraine that he's so far been unwilling to provide.
'No, he shouldn't target Moscow,' Trump told reporters, referring to Zelensky. 'I'm on nobody's side. You know whose side I'm on? Humanity's side.'
Though he'd likely not admit it, the president is in a similar spot to one long occupied by his predecessor President Joe Biden. He's considering how far he can push Putin while avoiding inflammatory steps that might cross his invisible red lines and widen the war.
Trump's new tolerance and even appreciation for NATO follows genuine fears that his new term might trigger the political earthquake of a US withdrawal.
Credit goes to quiet diplomacy by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, who've worked on Trump and counseled Zelensky on how to approach the US in recent months.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, meanwhile, choreographed an alliance summit in the Netherlands last month that delivered a political triumph for the president. An agreement that NATO states would spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035 allowed Trump to argue he'd forced Europe to get serious about protecting itself and alleviating the burden on the US.
Alongside Rutte in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump praised Europe's spirit for the war in Ukraine, adding, 'Ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing — it's a very good thing.'
Now, NATO has solved another political problem for the president. It's effectively being used as a front for him to send Patriot missiles to Kyiv. European nations are sending the batteries to Kyiv, after which US NATO allies will buy replacements from the US.
Rutte portrayed this diplomatic ballet as another win for Trump.
'Mr. President, dear Donald, this is really big, this is really big,' Rutte said, using characteristic praise that comes across as sycophancy to many but that Trump takes at face value. 'You called me on Thursday, that you had taken a decision, and a decision is that you want Ukraine (to have) what it needs to have to maintain — to be able to defend itself against Russia — but you do want the Europeans to pay for it, which is totally logical,' Rutte said.
The NATO conduit offers at least symbolic distance for Trump as he sends weapons to Ukraine for use in a war against Russia. It allows some level of plausible deniability if MAGA activists disapprove. And it satisfies Trump's obsession with driving a good financial deal. Expect to hear him argue he's secured new sales and even jobs for US defense workers.
The promise that other offensive weapons could also get to Ukraine using the same route is unspecific, however. It's not clear whether Ukraine will get weapons that will enable it to make battlefield advances against Russia. And it's unlikely that any US assistance will mirror the vast packages of military assistance and aid that were approved by Congress in the Biden administration.
The atmosphere on Capitol Hill is also changing. A drive to sanction Russia more severely already had strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and Trump has shown he can muster majorities in the House for his priorities.
Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham and his Democratic co-sponsor Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Monday that their bill could be a 'real executive hammer' to isolate Russia. But the measure could still stir dissent in the GOP base at a time when Trump is already upsetting some supporters over the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who opposes more aid to Ukraine, said Tuesday he doesn't see an urgent need for a bill now that Trump has threatened to impose sanctions on Russia and even secondary punishments on India and China.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul blasted the initiative as 'one of the most dangerous bills ever to come before the Senate.' He predicted a total cut-off of trade with China, India and Turkey if they were to be hit by US punishments.
So the domestic politics of Trump's Ukraine shift are not yet fully settled.
And neither, really, is the geopolitical situation.
Trump has adopted a tougher policy toward Putin, but it's not definitive or guaranteed to last. The extent of future US military support for Ukraine remains unclear, even if Kyiv's government is in better standing with the president than ever before. And European NATO states can breathe a sigh of relief about Trump, but his trade war threats have caused a deep transatlantic rift.
All of this means that Putin's key calculation all along — that he can outlast the West on the war in Ukraine — seems unlikely to significantly shift.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 minutes ago
- New York Post
Good riddance to UNESCO — a hate-America shouting gallery
President Donald Trump is pulling America out of UNESCO for the third time. Maybe this time it'll be for good. Once lauded for its work in preserving important cultural sites, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations became a platform for miseducation by every tinpot tyrant trying to score points by defaming America and its allies. It also adopted a full-on woke agenda, backing divisive DEI and social-justice causes that, as a Team Trump aide explained, conflicted with American values. Advertisement 'Continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States,' the State Department declared. The agency's focus on the UN's 'Sustainable Development Goals,' for example, follows the Paris Climate Accords program of deindustrializing the developed world, while paying the Third World to help it catch up. It admitted the 'State of Palestine' as a full member, though the United States does not recognize such a state, believing the Palestinian issue should be decided by Israel and Palestinian Arabs, not the striped-pants brigade from third-party nations. Advertisement UNESCO has also politicized Jewish holy sites, calling Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem a 'mosque,' which it never was. And it's been China's running dog, promoting Beijing's domination of Tibetan and Uyghur culture — arguably genocidal — as perfectly fine. UNESCO's odious record goes back decades. Washington first withdrew from the group in 1984, under Ronald Reagan, when it sought to have US media companies submit to the control of a 'New World Information Order.' Advertisement Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO follows his exit from the UN's equally vile Human Rights Council, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's sanctioning of its 'special rapporteur' on Palestinian issues, Francesca Albanese, who was obsessed with falsely depicting Israel as a perpetrator of genocide. Those moves were well deserved. Call it a Turtle Bay trifecta.
Washington Post
3 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump fumes as Epstein scandal dominates headlines, overshadows agenda
President Donald Trump is increasingly frustrated with how his administration's handling of the furor around the Jeffrey Epstein files has dominated the news and overshadowed his agenda, said two people familiar with his thinking. His exasperation follows weeks of missteps and no clear strategy among top officials who underestimated the outrage, especially from the president's base, and hoped the country would forget about the unreleased Epstein files and move on, according to nearly a dozen people close to the situation, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal deliberations.
Associated Press
3 minutes ago
- Associated Press
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations' and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. 'Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry,' said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, 'the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet,' said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy,' Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank.
