Following a recent phone conversation with President Vladimir Putin, some analysts have argued that U.S. President Donald Trump is letting the Russian leader “off the hook,” arguing that his decision to omit the topic of sanctions and military aid to Ukraine constituted a significant diplomatic concession that weakens Western leverage.
By failing to confront Putin on these issues, some say, Trump is risking emboldening further Russian aggression and even undermining the United States’ commitment to its NATO allies.
But is that really the case?
What Analysts Are Saying on Trump and Putin
Writing for The Hill, Col. (Ret) Jonathan Sweet and national security writer Mark Toth argue that Trump’s call with Putin gave him breathing room, allowing him to prolong the war, stall diplomacy, and widen the gap between NATO and the U.S. The authors cited comments made by a senior European diplomat to the Financial Times, arguing that “Putin is doing just enough to convince Trump that he is engaged in this effort to find peace in Ukraine, while also doing as much as possible to make sure it goes nowhere,” adding that “Trump is falling for it.”
Writing in The Times, Roger Boyes makes a similar argument, suggesting that the call was diplomatically hollow and offered no meaningful pressure to stop Russian attacks on Ukraine. Boyes also said that Putin views Trump’s outreach as an opportunity to secure a reset between Russia and the United States, which might include the lifting of sanctions and weakening NATO unity by driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe.
It has also been said that Trump’s focus on providing economic incentives for Russia downplays the seriousness of the threat Russia poses in the event a deal is eventually struck. In a May 20 social media post, the president outlined exactly how he views a deal being made with Russia.
“Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic ‘bloodbath’ is over, and I agree. There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED,” Trump wrote.
Referencing the president’s comments, CNN’s Kevin Liptak and Jeff Zeleny reported that Putin remained “unmoved.”
Interestingly, analysts who argue that Trump is mishandling the Ukraine-Russia conflict don’t seem to agree on whether the issue is ignorance or ideology. Some suggest he lacks the historical grounding to negotiate a durable resolution.
Others, like Boyes, imply the opposite; that Trump’s actions stem precisely from his understanding of the conflict and the conclusions he has drawn, particularly the belief shared in Trump World that NATO’s eastward expansion helped provoke the war in the first place.
Trump Knows What He’s Doing
In their piece, Sweet and Toth acknowledge that the U.S. president remains focused on “transactional economic outcomes rather than security for his NATO allies and Ukraine,” which cuts to the core of the divide between Trump and most other Western leaders.
While in many ways it’s fair to argue that Trump could do more to put pressure on Russia, it’s also worth considering that the president’s focus on economic outcomes does not necessarily mean that he is blinded by profit or narrowly fixated on money – or that he simply doesn’t know what he’s doing. When paired with his repeated insistence that he intends to prevent Ukraine being totally obliterated and bring an end to the senseless killing, it suggests that the American strategy for ending this conflict is now one squarely aimed at achieving peace through economic strength and incentive.
On the question of whether Trump is driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, as Boyes suggests, it’s worth noting that some degree of distance already exists – not one that threatens the severing of diplomatic ties, but one that resembles a family dispute. Full agreement on every issue has never been a prerequisite of allyship, especially when national prosperity or long-term security is at stake. Trump takes those concerns seriously, but he disagrees with Europe on how to best address them.
Trump is no enemy to Europe. That’s obvious from his own words, and from his lifelong appreciation of the United Kingdom, its customs, its monarchy, and its friendship with the United States. His frustrations with NATO, too, appear driven more by financial concerns than ideology.
In his view, the problem isn’t Europe as a partner, but what he sees as an unfair burden on a country he’s trying to make more self-reliant. For Trump, strong alliances can persist even as the U.S. reassesses its commitments and strengthens diplomatic ties with formerly hostile states – not only Russia, but also countries in the Middle East, as evidenced by his recent Gulf trip and outreach to Syria’s new leadership.
Rather than being “played” by Putin or endorsing the worldview of adversarial regimes he now appears to be engaging with, Trump seems to be applying his business mind to the challenge of solving complex diplomatic crises.
That’s not to say there aren’t valid criticisms of his strategy. There are. But is it really fair to claim he’s letting Putin off the hook or being manipulated, when Trump has made it abundantly clear that he believes there is a more pragmatic way to end the conflict than simply prolonging the war?
About the Author:
Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments’ approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society. His latest book is The Truth Teller: RFK Jr. and the Case for a Post-Partisan Presidency.
What Are Europe’s Best Weapons of War?
Pingback: Russia's War Machine in Ukraine Is 'Bleeding Money' Fast - National Security Journal