Even while security analysts continue to warn that Vladimir Putin does not desire peace, President Trump expressed “very” optimism this week that Russia and Ukraine would reach an agreement soon.
Washington is reeling from the global jolt caused by last week’s announcement that the Trump administration will suspend peace talks in the absence of a ceasefire, followed by Trump’s statement that there is a “very good chance” that an agreement will be struck this week.
A key campaign promise of Trump’s—the cessation of the fighting in Ukraine—remains unanswered by the White House as HeadlinesForever Digital presses for an explanation.
Following Trump’s warning to retaliate against Putin last month, the administration has failed to clarify whether or not Washington will do so.
“Just because Trump hasn’t announced any consequences yet doesn’t mean he doesn’t plan on taking some anti-Russia measures,” said Rebekah Koffler, a Russia analyst and former DIA intelligence officer, in an interview with HeadlinesForever Digital. “Trump almost certainly intends for his economic warfare against China to serve as an example to Putin how far Trump is willing to go to compel his adversaries to his will.”
In contrast to the situation with China, however, the United States and Russia are not dependent on each other. It’s more difficult, riskier, and needs more deliberation than Trump’s judgment about Russia, she noted. Just as Putin might launch catastrophic, non-kinetic attacks on the United States, he could take harsh economic measures against Russia.
“It’s now a matter of Trump’s risk tolerance versus Putin’s,” stated Koffler. “And both like to win and both have risk tolerance way above average.”
When asked by HeadlinesForever Digital if the United States would continue to provide military assistance to Ukraine, the White House remained silent. This is especially concerning in light of Trump’s recent restrictions on military aid, such as the refusal to sell Patriot missiles—$1.5 billion weapons that were used to protect civilian populations from Russian strikes.
“If we want to be a global superpower, and we want to deter aggression, not with U.S. troops on the ground, but in general, to deter aggression – including potentially with China against Taiwan – because it is good for our national security, then we should think about good options to continue to support Ukraine,” Dan Hoffman, a former CIA station chief, told HeadlinesForever Web. “It’s a tiny percentage of the Department of Defense budget.”
He went on to say, “The return on investment is pretty high,” in reference to the $66.5 billion in military assistance that the United States has given to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. This is in contrast to the $841.4 billion defense budget that Congress has approved for 2024—a sum that Trump has advocated for an increase.
“Its Ukraine’s war of self-defense but its in our interest to deter Putin just as we did with his Soviet predecessors,” added Hoffman. “If our goal is to break Putin’s alliance with Iran, North Korea and China, then the best way to do it is to prove that Putin’s war on Ukraine is a loser for him.”
On Wednesday, a group of Ukrainian officials were scheduled to meet with officials from the Trump administration in London. Other European partners, including those from the UK, France, and Germany, would also be there.
Reports indicate that special envoy Steve Witkoff will be returning to Moscow this week to resume discussions with Russian authorities. However, so far, the Kremlin has not shown any signs of agreeing to terms for a ceasefire, much less a peace settlement.
The matter of Russia’s invasion is too “complex” to reach a speedy remedy, according to Putin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, who cautioned against rushing into an agreement on Tuesday.
“It is not worth setting any rigid time frames and trying to get a settlement, a viable settlement, in a short time frame,” said the attorney.
Experts in national security have long warned that Putin has little interest in reaching a peace agreement with Ukraine, and the Kremlin’s stance has only served to confirm their fears.
“There’s no indication that Putin wants to stop the war,” said Hoffman. “I don’t find that shocking. Because a conflict can only conclude when one side achieves victory or when both become too exhausted to continue fighting.
“Russia is the invader, so you have to stop them in order to have an end of the war,” said he. The fact that Putin is still fighting is the one constant here. The toppling of the Ukrainian government is his goal. If he doesn’t feel like he has reached his objective, he will keep battling until he does.
Koffler agreed with Hoffman: “Putin will be pursuing the same strategy regardless of Trump’s actions; that is continuing the war of attrition until Ukraine capitulates or is completely destroyed and the government collapses.”
“Putin would like to string Trump along and will continue to try doing so,” according to her.
Putin, according to sources close to him, is trying to rearrange global “spheres of influence” by negotiating U.S. leverage points with foes like North Korea and Iran, according to a Tuesday story by the Moscow Times.
The article asserted that Putin would reach out to Trump with personally appealing deals—such as granting Trump permission to construct a hotel in Moscow—and geopolitical victories—such as achieving a nuclear agreement with Iran and a “peace deal” in Ukraine—in an effort to persuade Trump to either impose an undesirable deal on Ukraine or perhaps prevent the United States from providing aid to Kyiv.
Breaking NewsKoffler acknowledged that Putin may be considering this tactic as the United States pursues deals in Europe and the Middle East, but Forever Digital was unable to confirm the report’s assertions.
“He could promise Trump not to share certain sensitive technologies to these two [nations],” added Koffler. And if Trump agrees not to launch a kinetic strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and to ease sanctions imposed by Russia, he may persuade Iran to delay the operationalization and weaponization of its nuclear program.
“The important aspect of all of this is to give these adversaries face-saving opportunities, which is not a strong point for the U.S. style of diplomacy,” said Koffler. “But Putin’s ability to convince Trump and Trump’s decision calculus are two different things.”