This month, President Trump took a very different tack toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. For the first time since reentering the White House, Trump did two things: he issued an ultimatum to Putin and reiterated his backing for Ukraine in a NATO weapons deal.
An unambiguous message conveyed the threat of severe international sanctions on the sale of its most valuable commodity, oil, unless it reached a peace agreement with Ukraine.
There are those who support the decision and many who doubt it will be sufficient to stop Putin from threatening a conflict with Ukraine. The strategy will work, according to one security expert, but it may take years before it takes impact.
He plans to continue using that tactic, and I believe it will work. Fred Fleitz, who was chief of staff of the National Security Council during Trump’s first term and served as deputy assistant to the president, told HeadlinesForever Digital that Trump will keep pressuring Putin to negotiate in good faith and return to the negotiating table, rather than making promises that the Russians don’t intend to keep.
“Trump will not abide that,” Fleitz further stated. “This is only the beginning of Trump’s presidency so far,” the author writes. Finding a solution to this could take a few years.
Trump promised throughout his campaign to stop the hostilities in Ukraine and Gaza, but this has been more difficult to implement than he had anticipated. Moreover, not all Republicans have supported his stance on Europe, even Trump ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
“We do not want to give or sell weapons to Ukraine or be involved in any foreign wars or continue the never-ending flow of foreign aid,” Greene stated on the program. “We want to solve our own problems plaguing our own people.”
Fleitz stated that Trump’s ability to strike Iran immediately demonstrated his agile leadership.
“He looked at the intelligence and realized it was getting too close, and he decided to adjust his policy, which was first diplomacy,” said Fleitz.
“However, Trump did mention something crucial. ‘I came up with a notion of the America-first approach to U.S. national security, and I pick what’s in it,’ he told his followers, Fleitz adding. “He has ownership of this approach, and he will adjust if necessary.”
Last week, Trump contradicted a significant point raised by several members of his party, including Vice President JD Vance, even though he had previously stated his desire for Europe to play a prominent role in the conflict in Ukraine during the campaign.
In an opinion piece published last year, Vance stated, “[It] is not just a matter of dollars,” arguing against the idea of arming Ukraine. At its core, our manufacturing capability is unable to meet Ukraine’s demands for the quantity of weapons it needs to prevail in the conflict.
Ukraine will get U.S.-supplied weapons after Trump approved the sale of top-tier U.S. armaments to NATO states.
“Defending our country is our first priority. Though having a powerful Europe is ultimately beneficial, Trump stated this while seated next to Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO.
The majority of security analysts believe that the battlefield will determine Ukraine’s future negotiating abilities and, in the end, the outcome of the war.
Ukraine requires long-range strike capabilities to target key Russian missile and drone plants, according to John Hardie, deputy director of FDD’s Russia Program, who briefed U.S. lawmakers on Thursday during a defense briefing at the Helsinki Commission (also known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe).
“Ukraine shouldn’t be restricted merely to shooting down ‘arrows’,” added Hardie. Offense and defense should be combined for the best results. The ability to strike both the “archer” and the “arrows” factories is crucial for Ukraine.
“Putin will continue his unprovoked war so long as he believes it’s sustainable and offers a pathway to achieving his goals,” he said. “By shoring up Ukraine’s defense of its skies and enabling Ukraine to inflict growing costs on Russia’s war machine, as well as pressuring the Russian economy and exhausting Russia’s offensive potential on the ground, we may be able to change that calculus.”
However, Fleitz, who is also the vice head of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute, has stated his belief that an armistice deal is necessary to end this conflict.
“I think there’s probably going to be an armistice where both sides will agree to suspend the fighting,” said Fleitz. “Someday, we will find a line where both nations will agree to stop fighting.”
In his view, this may be achieved if Ukraine commits to delaying NATO membership for a set duration, given that Moscow is cognizant of the fact that Western allies will arm Kyiv to a considerable degree.
“I think there’s a way to do this where Russia wouldn’t be concerned about growing Western European influence in Ukraine, and Ukraine would not be worried that Russia will invade once a ceasefire or armistice is declared,” according to him. Though it may be utopian in theory, I believe it to be the most practical means of ending hostilities.
“We know from history conflicts like this take time; peacemaking takes time,” added Fleitz. “I think that over time, Trump is going to have an effect on Putin.”