How Will Putin React to Trump's Ukraine Pivot? Newsweek Contributors Debate
Will Vladimir Putin back down? What should Trump's next move be? And what does the future hold for Ukraine? Newsweek contributors Daniel R. DePetris and Dan Perry debate:
Daniel R. DePetris:
The Trump administration is betting that more U.S. military aid to Ukraine, coupled with additional sanctions in the form of secondary tariffs, will eventually compel Russian President Vladimir Putin to seriously negotiate a peace deal. This is precisely what the Biden administration believed too, and while U.S. support beefed up Kyiv's defenses, it did next to nothing to alter Putin's strategic calculations. Biden left office and passed the war over to Trump, who was highly reticent about continuing U.S. involvement. Trump believed Ukraine ultimately mattered more to Russia than it did to the United States. That was a correct assessment, and it's unlikely additional U.S. military assistance to Kyiv will change it in any way.
Dan Perry:
Trump's announcement signals that U.S. arms will keep flowing to Ukraine—just indirectly. By routing weapons through NATO and shifting to sales instead of free transfers (which accounted for most aid under Biden), Trump maintains deniability with his MAGA base while turning a profit and forcing the Europeans to spend money. He seems to have concluded that Russia must still be resisted, however much he likes the dictator Putin personally. He'd be right. Putin isn't settling for Eastern Ukraine, which Trump's willing to hand over; Putin wants it all. Some red lines are still red, even for Trump.
DePetris:
I agree that this latest aid scheme is a relatively ingenious attempt by Trump to kill two birds with one stone: increase the pressure on Putin and make some hefty profits for U.S. defense contractors in the process. I also acknowledge Putin would like to gobble up all of Ukraine if he could. But intent is only as relevant as capability. If Putin doesn't possess the military capability to actually fulfill his wildest dreams—and Russia's war performance to date provides little evidence that he does—then it amounts to empty rhetoric.
Perry:
Well, Putin's desire to eliminate Ukraine as an independent state could still prolong the war, which Trump hates. Trump has actually changed his tune on the war here, while maintaining some deniability. Putin is being told—with Trump's mafia-like rhetoric now directed at Moscow—that Ukraine will not run out of arms. It is quite a big deal, to use language Trump will understand. More should come.
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/AP
DePetris:
Sure, Trump is sending Putin a loud message. But how long will it last? Trump doesn't have a history of sticking to his policy decisions. Case in point: his latest policy decision on Ukraine, after months of putting more pressure on the Ukrainians than the Russians. While he seems to have flipped his position, there's a decent chance he could flip again. I suspect Putin understands this factor, and will account for it.
Perry:
You're right about Trump's flip-flops, but here's another way to look at it: Trump misjudged Putin's current position, but not his own. Imagine if Trump made this offer: Russia keeps the areas it captured thus far and wins amnesty and an end to sanctions, while Ukraine gets security guarantees without NATO membership and a fast track to the EU. Otherwise, 500 percent tariffs on whoever trades with Russia. Why not? He's said far crazier things, and coupled with the new weapons regime, it might just work.
DePetris:
Ultimately, this all comes down to Putin and Zelensky, not Trump. This conflict is a war of attrition, and the result will depend on the combatants' ability to sustain it. Putin's strategy is high-intensity, wasteful, and morally bankrupt, but he still has more lives to play with. I'm not sure there's anything, short of turning Ukraine's war into America's own—which nobody is advocating for—that will convince Putin to prioritize talking over fighting at this stage. That's the depressing reality.
Perry:
I have an alternate depressing reality: this war is already is America's—or more correctly, the Western world's, which the U.S. once sought to lead. You'll agree there are times in history when you cannot run away. Now, I fear, is such a time. If Putin really wants more than Eastern Ukraine, it is time to lower the boom on this international outlaw. Let's hope the prospect of an endless supply of weapons for Ukraine, combined with serious punishment on the trade front, will do the trick.
DePetris:
At the risk of pretending I have a crystal ball, here's what I envision over the next few months: more U.S. weapons to Ukraine will help solidify Kyiv's defenses as the Russians press on with their counteroffensive. The Russians, in turn, will experience even more casualties, leading some in the U.S. media to speculate (yet again) that the war has reached a turning point. But those assessments repeatedly prove far too optimistic as Putin continues with the status quo, because a defeat—or even the perception of defeat—is simply intolerable to his legacy and the country he represents. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Perry:
We agree on that! I'd also be happy to prove you wrong. And it may happen soon if Trump lays an ultimatum on the table, as I advised earlier. Let me just conclude with one lesson I have learned, both from history and from covering scores of countries, including Russia: no leadership is permanent. Dictatorships seem invulnerable, and then one day they're gone. People speak of the Russian "system" behind Putin and sure, there is one. But it can be shape-shifting and deceptive, and Putin is a singular leader. Russia has taken many forms in the past century alone. And Putin, too, shall pass.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.
Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
In new deal with Trump, Columbia will pay millions in fines
The Ivy League school in New York City struck another deal with the Trump administration in an attempt to restore its federal funding. WASHINGTON – Columbia University, in hopes of restoring hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen funding, has struck another deal with the Trump administration, the university announced. The Ivy League school in New York City will pay a massive $200 million fine to the government, as well as some students and faculty, to settle allegations it violated federal civil rights laws and failed to protect members of its Jewish community from discrimination. It will also jointly appoint an independent monitor to update the federal government on its compliance with new policies, and pay an additional $21 million fine to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agreement marks the second major concession from the prestigious university in its protracted negotiations with the government. Despite the drawn-out talks, and many compromises on Columbia's part, the Trump administration has yet to reroute hundreds of millions of dollars back to the school. Columbia's acting president, Claire Shipman, said in a statement that the agreement preserves the university's independence and will restore research funding on which the school depends. 'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' she said. 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track.' The announcement also comes after the Trump administration pushed the University of Pennsylvania, another Ivy League school, to agree to a series of demands related to preventing transgender athletes from competing. Similarly, that deal was reached to restore massive amounts of federal money. Read more: Lia Thomas, Title IX and $175M: Why Penn struck a deal with Trump Meanwhile, Columbia is facing a separate battle over its accreditation status, which the school needs in order to distribute federal financial aid dollars to students. The Education Department has pushed Columbia's accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, to reevaluate its standing. Though Middle States has placed the university on warning, such a step would be virtually unprecedented, and a long and complex process would have to be followed before its accreditation could be revoked. Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
Europe won't pay its NATO share, COVID tied to bioweapons work and other commentary
Defense beat: Europe Won't Pay Its NATO Share President Trump's call for Europe to pay 5% of GDP for its defense has been much 'ballyhooed,' notes Gerard Baker at The Wall Street Journal, but the 'math agreed to by all members except Spain is on closer inspection a little fuzzy.' While some Euro nations such as Poland and Finland are 'serious about their defense,' Germany, France and Britain 'face economic, demographic, political and cultural challenges' that will make real change unlikely because the 'fiscal positions of most European countries' are simply too ugly for them to pay more. 'Budget restraint' in Labour-run Britain is impossible to impose, and European 'climate policies are blowing even larger holes in budgets.' Only 'economic growth' can get these countries on the right footing to afford to pay more for their own defense. Foreign desk: COVID Tied to Bioweapons Work 'A bioweapons expert likely to head the Trump administration's top Pentagon post for countering weapons of mass destruction has charged in a new report that the Covid-19 pandemic was probably the result of a military-research-related accident in a Chinese laboratory, and that work at that lab may have been part of research China was conducting in possible violation of a treaty banning biological weapons,' reports City Journal's Judith Miller. The report, by Robert Kadlec, 'adds to the growing consensus' that COVID 'was the result of a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and not a naturally occurring outbreak of a deadly virus originating in animals.' But the report is strong grounds for Team Trump to start 'prioritizing U.S. intelligence efforts aimed at Chinese bioweapons research.' Mideast journal: Iran's Long Road Back to Nukes The '19 senior Iranian nuclear scientists' Israel assassinated during the 12-Day War had 'nuclear knowledge spanning decades' — much 'centered on explosives, nuclear coding, and ballistic missiles,' cheers Adam Kredo at The Washington Free Beacon, citing a new intelligence assessment by a leading nonproliferation organization. The scientists' 'average age was 60,' suggesting 'Israel targeted the most experienced crop of engineers.' Plus, the Jewish state 'successfully destroyed' Iran's nuclear 'technological blueprints.' Indeed, the attacks 'evaporated decades of nuclear know-how, striking at the heart of Tehran's weapons program in a way kinetic attacks could not.' The result: 'Recovering may be far more difficult and take far longer.' From the right: Poll Flags Border Ignorance A new CBS poll suggests 'significant numbers of Americans, even now, are not fully informed' about immigration under President Trump, marvels the Washington Examiner's Byron York. The poll found 56% of respondents disapprove of Trump's immigration approach, but it also asked a factual question: whether Trump's policies are making the number of migrants crossing the border 'go up, go down, or not change.' Only 64% 'gave the obviously correct response — Trump has made the number of migrants crossing' go down. 'And 8% said crossings have actually gone up, which was crazy wrong.' This reveals a 'lack of knowledge' of basic facts and 'could tell us something about the answers to all the other immigration questions in the CBS poll, and perhaps in other polls as well.' Education beat: Don't Use AI To 'Teach' The Computer Lab 'was that magical room' where students could experience 'the wonders of the Oregon Trail, Number Munchers, and Mavis Beacon,' reminisces Understanding America's Oren Cass. Back then, computers 'did not teach, they were a subject to be taught.' Yet 'the irresistible logic of technophilia determined that every child needed a computer' to 'compete in the global economy of tomorrow.' Today, the same is being said of AI: 'All students need to know how to use AI,' and 'AI should be integrated throughout the educational experience.' Trouble is, AI 'will offer counterproductive shortcuts for not only unengaged students, but also their teachers.' Kids need to understand that 'learning is not a technological function' but 'a habit of mind.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Second court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide after Supreme Court ruling
A second court ruled that President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship still cannot go into effect anywhere in the country following the Supreme Court's recent decision that claws back nationwide injunctions. The 9 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Wednesday that four Democratic-led states were entitled to a nationwide injunction, because any narrower block would fail to provide them complete relief. 'States' residents may give birth in a non-party state, and individuals subject to the Executive Order from non-party states will inevitably move to the States,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould. Gould's decision was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins, both appointed by former President Clinton. U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying the states had no legal right to bring the case. 'Courts must be vigilant in enforcing the limits of our jurisdiction and our power to order relief,' Bumatay wrote. 'Otherwise, we risk entangling ourselves in contentious issues not properly before us and overstepping our bounds,' he continued. 'No matter how significant the question or how high the stakes of the case—at all times, we must adhere to the confines of 'the judicial Power.'' The ruling comes after the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision late last month, curtailed the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that go beyond the parties suing to block the president's policies for anyone in the country. But the high court preserved pathways for plaintiffs to still receive nationwide relief in certain circumstances. Individuals can file class-action lawsuits, and states may still receive a universal injunction if it is needed to afford them complete relief, the justices noted. Plaintiffs have since pursued both pathways to block Trump's order, which would deny citizenship to anyone born in the country if they don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status. Every court to opine on the legality of it so far has found it to be unconstitutional. Wednesday's ruling is the second time Trump's order has been blocked nationwide following the Supreme Court's decision. A federal judge in New Hampshire agreed to the American Civil Liberties Union's request to certify a nationwide class of unborn babies and indefinitely block the administration from enforcing Trump's birthright citizenship order against them. The 9 th Circuit heard a case brought by Democratic attorneys general in Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. The panel majority said Wednesday that only blocking Trump's order in some parts of the country would continue to burden the four states. 'To account for this, the States would need to overhaul their eligibility-verification systems for Medicaid, CHIP, and Title IV-E. For that reason, the States would suffer the same irreparable harms under a geographically-limited injunction as they would without an injunction,' Gould wrote.
