Trump's approach to Ukraine-Russia
Is Trump’s approach to the Ukraine-Russia conflict the right one? Viewpoints from multiple sides.
Enjoying Framechange? Forward to a friend to help spread the word!
New to Framechange? Sign up for free to see multiple sides in your inbox.
Learn more about our mission to reduce polarization and how we represent different viewpoints here.
What’s happening
Early last week, the Trump administration paused both military aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine in an apparent move to pressure Ukraine into more tightly cooperating with the US in pushing forward peace talks with Russia.
The pause came after the previous week’s contentious meeting in the White House’s Oval Office between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump, and Vice President JD Vance. That meeting ended abruptly with Zelensky being asked to leave the White House without signing a planned mineral rights agreement that had been the meeting’s primary objective. The White House has since signaled it would resume aid and intelligence sharing if Ukraine comes to the negotiating table with an intent to end the war quickly.
It was also reported later in the week that President Trump is “strongly considering” deeper sanctions on Russia – including tariffs and measures targeting the banking and oil industries – until a final ceasefire agreement is reached. Putin reportedly signaled he was willing to discuss a temporary ceasefire while a more permanent agreement is finalized.
Trump’s approach: The recent flurry of activity is the latest among a series of notable actions Trump has taken toward ending the war since taking office, which have included:
Holding preemptive talks with Russia, without Ukraine and Europe. Trump sent high-level officials to meet with Russian leaders in Saudi Arabia to discuss the future of the war and US-Russia relations.
Demonstrating a more open posture toward Putin including a direct phone conversation between the two leaders and public statements praising aspects of Putin’s approach.
Promoting the US-Ukraine mineral rights deal that would enable the US to share in future proceeds from Ukrainian government-owned natural resources.
Criticizing Zelensky publicly. Trump called Zelensky a “dictator” and suggested Ukraine “should never have started” the war.
Voting against a United Nations (UN) resolution that blamed Russia for the war and drafting an alternative resolution that called for an end to the war without criticizing Russia.
Europe’s response: Amid these moves by Trump and alongside his repeated threats to withdraw the US from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) if member states don’t increase their spending, European Union (EU) leaders have been evaluating their best course of action. EU leaders met last week and agreed to a plan that could increase total EU defense spending by up to $862B. Germany announced related plans to loosen national debt rules in a way that would allow for larger defense investments.
What’s next: US and Ukrainian officials will meet in Saudi Arabia this week to discuss a temporary ceasefire and potential framework for a long-term peace agreement. Ultimately, the discussions with Ukraine and Russia aim to end a war that has become the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II.
Trump’s approach to the conflict so far has, according to many observers, differed markedly from that of Former President Biden and taken on a different posture than most US presidents in modern history. This week, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides on the effectiveness of his approach and what it means for US and global security going forward. Let us know what you think.
Notable viewpoints
More opposed to Trump’s approach to Ukraine-Russia:
Trump’s apparent leniency on Russia undermines Ukrainian sovereignty and US national security.
Trump’s comments that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders would be an “unlikely” outcome of peace talks, along with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statement (later walked back) that there would be no spot for Ukraine in NATO, were poor negotiating tactics during a period where Russia is not in a particularly strong negotiating position given the attrition of its military and state of its sanction-riddled economy.
“The danger goes beyond Europe. Perhaps the greatest international relations nightmare in the coming years would be a war between the United States and China, beginning near Taiwan or in the South China Sea. President Joe Biden deterred Chinese aggression by working closely with allies in Asia and making it obvious that Russia was paying a steep price for its invasion of Ukraine. If Trump instead lets Russia win and also frays relations with our allies, then China is more likely to move on Taiwan.” (Nicholas Kristof, New York Times.)
Trump’s 90-minute direct call with Putin was a significant reversal of the US policy of isolating Putin since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and part of a series of moves seemingly aimed to tighten ties with Russia at the expense of security in Ukraine and stability in Europe.
While Trump’s public criticism of Zelensky may be a tactic to encourage Ukraine to make concessions for an accelerated peace deal, it risks signaling a weakness in Western resolve and unity, which may embolden Putin to act on ambitions greater than Ukraine (e.g., Moldova, the Baltics, or Central Europe).
“Since the end of the second world war, the US has been the primary architect and guarantor of an intricate network of global institutions anchored by NATO, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. Together, these partners crafted a security umbrella whose benefits far outweighed its expense… In [Trump’s] willingness to work with Vladimir Putin, he is ignoring the fact that the existing international system has overwhelmingly benefited the US.” (Olga Chyzh, The Guardian.)
The Ukraine-US mineral rights deal takes advantage of Ukraine.
Trump’s push for a mineral rights deal without overt security guarantees from the US – guarantees that Zelensky pushed for when first proposing the mineral rights deal as part of his 5-point “victory plan” – equates to a lopsided shakedown that does not ensure Ukraine’s future sovereignty.
Trump’s push for guaranteed financial returns from the mineral rights deal – including an initial ask for a $500B guaranteed that was later removed from the working draft agreement – and his framing of the deal as a way to get “money back” for the aid provided to Ukraine depart from decades of American practice in providing aid for the primary purpose of mutual security interests and geopolitical stability. Furthermore, the $500B would have far surpassed the ~$106B in aid provided to Ukraine to date.
Trump’s pressure tactics on Europe are weakening critical alliances and threatening global stability.
Trump’s approach thus far in the recent lead-up to peace negotiations may help accelerate the end to the war but at the cost of long-term global security by weakening alliances with Europe and diminishing American leadership on the global stage.
Trump’s apparent abandoning of US allies is likely to drive long-term geopolitical instability by compelling them to build up their own nuclear arsenals in the absence of assured protection from the US. In the face of nuclear threats from Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea, allies such as South Korea, Japan, and Poland – which have curbed their nuclear ambitions to date – are more likely to build up an arsenal, and a more nuclear-armed world is a more unstable world.
“While I do want our allies to spend more on their defense, it’s one thing to ask them to do so as our partners. It’s another thing entirely for them to rearm without American security guarantees and without reliable American support… I see the events of the past week, and I see weakness — weakness that makes a world war (including a potential nuclear exchange) more likely, not less.” (David French, New York Times.)
More supportive of Trump’s approach to Ukraine-Russia:
Trump’s posture toward Zelensky and Putin are tactics to accelerate a needed end to the fighting.
Trump’s warming up to and even flattery of Putin is a tactic to lure him to the table in order to negotiate a peace deal. Putin needs to feel like he is gaining something – inclusion on the international stage, Ukraine’s exclusion from NATO, and/or control of some territory Russia has taken since 2014. Without getting Putin to the negotiating table, there will be no peace and Trump’s approach has been the most effective so far.
“Many people around the world may dislike Trump, but for the majority of Ukrainians Trump is a hope for peace. Ukrainian elites must stop fantasizing and drawing lines in the sand while Ukrainians suffer and die every day.” (Vasyl Filipchuk, former Ukrainian diplomat, Foreign Policy.)
Trump’s public criticism of Zelensky is primarily a tactic intended to lower Ukrainian expectations on what the country will get from the US and accelerate an end to the fighting as quickly as possible.
The mineral rights deal is an effective way to secure Ukraine while promoting US interests.
While some critics frame the US-Ukraine mineral rights deal as a “shakedown” by Trump, the deal was Zelensky’s idea to begin with, touted by him as a means to secure “joint protection for the country’s critical resources.”
The mineral rights deal benefits both Ukraine and the US. For the US, Ukraine has, according to its own estimates, 5% of the world’s “critical raw materials” that are used in items from consumer electronics to weapons and can serve to counter China’s supply. For Ukraine, US financial interest in Ukraine’s raw materials supply would likely compel it to take military action in defense of the territory should Russia invade again.
The mineral rights deal would be in-line with a common US strategy of strengthening interdependence with other countries in ways that benefit the US. For instance, its relationship with Taiwan – including the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade – is designed to make trade easier between the US and Taiwan and improve Taiwan’s economic resilience in the face of pressures from China.
A mineral rights deal with Ukraine would have the added benefit of excluding Russia from accessing Ukraine’s resources, weakening Russia’s economic resilience.
Trump’s tactics are forcing Europe to take a more direct role in its own defense.
The Trump administration’s aggressive posture toward Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations, including demands that any form of security guarantee be enforced by European troops (not American), is part of much needed pressure on Europe to pay for a greater share of its own defense. The US represents 53% of the GDP of all NATO countries but 67% of alliance expenditures. Furthermore, only 11 of the 32 countries hit the alliance’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defense, including France and Germany.
“The U.S. has security concerns around the world, especially in the Pacific with China, while European worries are more regional. But the U.S. has another big concern: The federal government spends far too much… Countries that together almost equal U.S. GDP and are mostly clustered together should be making more serious arrangements for their own defense.” (JD Tuccille, Reason.)
Since the start of the war, the US has provided $67.1B in military aid to Ukraine compared to $65B provided by all of Europe. It is realistic to demand that Europe contributes a greater share to Ukraine in order to ensure stability in its own region.
Other viewpoints:
“The U.S. should be ready to push Zelensky toward painful concessions to end this brutal war… But while considerations of territory, future investment in Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, Ukraine’s diplomatic freedom of action, and other issues will be important in any negotiations, one concern must be paramount. Namely, a European-led peacekeeping force that ensures Russia cannot resurrect the grievous misery it has imposed on Ukraine.” (Washington Examiner Editorial Board.)
Many analyses of the Oval Office blowup meeting have failed to point out that until the conversation became tense, Trump had voiced some of his most significant support considerations for Ukraine to date – including an openness to putting US security forces on the ground.
“If President Donald Trump can achieve an outcome in the war that preserves Ukraine’s independence, provides security guarantees, and creates inviolable borders, he will have outdone every one of his post-Cold War predecessors.” (John B Roberts II, former international political consultant and member of the Reagan administration, Washington Examiner.)
Be heard
We want to hear from you! Comment below with your perspective on Trump’s approach to the Ukraine-Russia conflict so far and we may feature it in our socials or future newsletters. Below are topic ideas to consider.
Do you support or oppose Trump’s tactics? Why?
What are some arguments or supporting points you appreciate about a viewpoint you disagree with?
Snippets
President Trump granted tariff exemptions on all products from Mexico and Canada that are covered by the USMCA free trade treaty until Apr 2, partially reversing the sweeping 25% duties he imposed on the countries on Mar 5. Approximately 50% of Mexican imports and 38% of Canadian imports are covered by the agreement.
The Trump administration has been negotiating directly with Hamas around the release of US hostages and ceasefire in Gaza, breaking a longstanding policy against talking with groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations.
White House officials have reportedly prepared an executive order to begin the process of dissolving the Department of Education. The complete elimination of the department would require an act of Congress.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is reportedly planning to lay off as many as 83,000 employees this year to return to 2019 staffing levels.
An investor group led by BlackRock reached a $22.8B deal to acquire two key ports on either end of the Panama Canal from a Hong Kong-based conglomerate, increasing American presence at the critical shipping lane.
Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.
Music on the bottom
When’s the last time you heard “Cars” by Gary Numan? We’re sending you back to 1979 this week with a track that defined synth-pop and stunned listeners with a relentless instrumental hook that feels haunting, hip, dancy, and determined all at once.
Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.
It's helpful to know that Zelensky initiated the idea of exchanging rare minerals to gain US military support. However, if the US makes a deal without providing real military support, then it would not be a deal at all but simply thievery by the US. I don't believe that the Trump administration is purposefully demonstrating a strategic diplomatic resolution given Trump's history of criminal conduct, mythomania, abuse of power, and emotional instability. However, if the US is financially unable to afford the cost of helping Ukraine because it is spread too thin, then I can understand how limits to spending may need to be discussed and how European countries may need to shoulder more responsibility for the costs of war. However, I believe that Trump and his administration demonstrate a lack of respect, compassion, empathy, and integrity in their dealings with Ukraine, a victim of Russia's psychopathic need to control and dominate. It is embarrassing to see a representative of our country kicking Ukraine when it's down. Such behavior belongs to psychopaths and criminals, not to sane representatives of the US government.
Our efforts to isolate Russia from the West via sanctions have not only been fruitless, they have served to push Russia into China's arms, with Russia clearly in a subordinate, resource-supply role, which must rankle Putin. Is this what we want? We've been doing this, on and off, since 1945! I believe we can leverage Putin's desire to be taken seriously on the global stage by bringing him closer to Europe and the U.S., not farther away, which would create a larger counterweight in the new multipolar world. And it's hard to justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands over a strip of contested soil, however noble it's made to seem.
Yes, Putin's a nasty strongman, but we're not exactly saints either, and there's lots of workable gray space beyond the binary choice of Chamberlain-or-Churchill. Since the war started, we've basically shut down all embassy operations in Russia. This is counter-productive.
It's hard to know what Trump is thinking here, but reaching out to Russia to stop the bloodshed isn't traitorous or stupid.