The American Interest Is Not in Committing to Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin returned to the U.S. for the first time in nearly ten years to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump for a bilateral summit centered on pursuing peace in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Initially, President Trump insisted that he would “not be happy” if the meeting didn’t result in some form of ceasefire and that “severe consequences” could follow for Russia. However, President Trump tempered expectations by stating that this meeting was just “setting the table” for follow on talks. President Trump is vacillating between a dovish deportment and maximalist coercion, but the underlying primary causes driving the war have not been resolved, and neither Russia nor Ukraine seem willing to relent. While working to facilitate peace negotiations is undoubtedly admirable, President Trump must avoid a long-term obligation to Ukraine, even one couched in a commercial commitment, and be willing to back away from this conflict.
This past July, in an adversarial shift against Moscow, President Trump issued a fifty-day deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal or face secondary sanctions targeting trading partners capitalizing on cheap Russian fuel. With the support of neoconservative voices such as Senator Lindsey Graham, President Trump also announced that the U.S. would arm Ukraine with long-range Patriot missiles, reportedly asking President Zelenskyy if he would be able to strike Moscow. Throughout the summer, the U.S. realigned its security posture toward the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, U.S. nuclear submarines were repositioned following provocative statements from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and President Trump shortened his fifty day deadline to ten days.
President Putin likely weighed the U.S.’s ability to impose expansive economic sanctions and determined the threats were unserious bluster from Washington. Secondary sanctions on Russia would have a detrimental effect on U.S. trade negotiations with China and India. It is unlikely that President Trump would willingly scuttle trade negotiations as the U.S. technology supply chain remains vulnerable to Chinese restrictions on rare earth minerals. Conversely, Russia is advancing quickly while Ukraine remains reliant on U.S. aid and is tragically running out of manpower. Any temporary ceasefire would benefit Ukraine as it allows them to reconsolidate and be rearmed by American benefactors. In the wake of the U.S. deceiving Iran amidst negotiations prior to joining Israel’s war, Russia would be foolish to accept American assurances during any ceasefire.
Despite President Trump’s tough talk, no ceasefire resulted from the Alaska summit that ostensibly went extremely well. President Trump reconvened with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and there are now machinations for a trilateral meeting centered on achieving a lasting peace deal rather than a transient ceasefire. These meetings seem like encouraging steps in the slow crawl towards peace, but President Putin’s statements following the Alaska summit betray the reality that the conflict’s “root causes” have not been conciliated.
Throughout the multiyear conflict, Russia has remained consistent on its non-negotiable demands. Namely, that a neutral Ukraine will never join NATO, along with recognition of the Russian annexed territories of Crimea and the adjacent corridor of occupied oblasts. Ukraine has remained steadfast that one of its key objectives is to reclaim all its lost territory.
In an effort to secure a U.S. security guarantee, Ukraine has pledged to purchase $100 billion worth of U.S. weapons in a deal primarily financed by European partners. The U.S. is reportedly open to providing a non-NATO Article 5-type security guarantee for Ukraine. President Putin has allegedly agreed on Ukrainian security guarantees wherein the bulk of responsibility would be shouldered by European nations, although it is unclear to what degree the U.S. would be involved.
President Trump is correct in his assessment that President Zelenskyy “can end the war with Russia almost immediately” by negotiating the secession of occupied territories. At the Alaska summit, President Putin offered a territory contingent peace deal to President Trump that was presented to President Zelenskyy. Though President Zelenskyy was urged to “make a deal,” he is reported to have rejected. If peace is conditioned on Ukraine being unable to join NATO and ceding Russian-occupied territory, then it seems the war will drag on until either side achieves total victory or is willing to compromise on territorial concessions.
President Putin and President Zelenskyy may work to solve the territorial issue at a future meeting, but it is clear that if President Trump fails to secure a peace deal, he will have to make a choice. Either withdraw from the Ukrainian theater completely or recommit to Ukraine and ensure the war rages on with no conceivable end in sight. The American interest is not in indefinitely supporting Ukraine. This war has demonstrated its potential for dangerous escalation and could easily result in nuclear responses to conventional attacks. In this multipolar world, the U.S. should focus on resetting the broader Russian relationship to allow for cooperation on arms control and Arctic security. President Trump should be prepared to make good on his “peacemaker” promises and simply walk away.
