Trump Is Frustrated With Putin. Doubling Down in Ukraine Would Be a Mistake | Opinion

 

Putin-Trump Call Underscores Growing Divide Over Ukraine

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump held a phone conversation in which Putin indicated Russia’s willingness to engage with Ukraine on a framework for future peace talks. However, he emphasized that any agreement must address what he described as the “root causes” of the conflict. In contrast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has reiterated that Russia must agree to an unconditional ceasefire or face heightened sanctions from Ukraine’s Western allies. President Trump, increasingly frustrated with Russia’s military escalation, warned that Putin is “playing with fire” and that further punitive measures may follow. Despite a recent U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal, lasting peace appears elusive—and Trump may need to follow through on his warning to disengage from the conflict.

From NATO Expansion to War

The roots of today’s conflict stretch back to the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, which ushered in a U.S.-led unipolar world order. During this time, NATO expanded eastward, incorporating former Warsaw Pact countries. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined. By 2004, NATO welcomed the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The alliance signaled further expansion at its 2008 Bucharest Summit, stating that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members. That declaration crossed what Putin has called Russia’s “brightest red line,” prompting stern warnings that NATO’s advance to Russia’s borders posed a direct threat to its national security.

Ukraine’s gradual pivot away from Russian influence was halted in late 2013 when then-President Viktor Yanukovych declined to sign an association agreement with the European Union. The decision sparked mass protests—dubbed “Euromaidan”—and by February 2014, Yanukovych was ousted. In response, Russia annexed Crimea, and pro-Russian separatists declared independence in parts of the Donbas region, marking the beginning of the broader Russo-Ukrainian war.

U.S. Involvement Intensifies

By 2015, the United States was deepening its involvement by training and equipping Ukrainian paramilitary forces. In early 2017, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham visited Ukraine, telling its soldiers that “your fight is our fight” and predicting that 2017 would be a “year of offense” against Russia. They pushed for the U.S. to increase pressure on Moscow.

Under President Trump, U.S.-Russia relations soured further, particularly following the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty—a departure from Trump’s earlier, more conciliatory campaign tone. Tensions escalated again under President Biden, whose administration refused to accommodate Russia’s demand that NATO membership be permanently off the table for Ukraine. In February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion.

Some analysts argue that U.S. actions helped fuel the war by reinforcing Russian fears of encirclement. Rather than dismissing Moscow’s concerns and withdrawing from arms control treaties, they contend the U.S. should have pursued diplomatic alternatives. Now, many believe Washington must recalibrate and begin scaling back its involvement.

Conditions for Peace and the Minerals Deal

Russia has insisted that any peace deal must guarantee Ukraine will never join NATO. It also wants international recognition of the territories it currently occupies—Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—as Russian land, along with comprehensive sanctions relief. Ukraine, however, continues to demand an unconditional ceasefire, which Moscow views as a tactical pause that would allow Ukraine to regroup.

Complicating the picture is the recent U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal. The agreement establishes a joint reconstruction investment fund focused on extracting mineral, oil, and gas resources. While Trump initially demanded that the U.S. secure a $500 billion share of Ukraine’s rare-earth resources as repayment for military aid, the final deal heavily favors Ukraine: the U.S. gains access to resources, but all profits for the first ten years go to Ukraine, which also retains full control over how the capital is used. There is no repayment requirement for U.S. aid.

While the agreement is not a formal security guarantee, it effectively ties U.S. interests to Ukraine’s stability—potentially pulling Washington deeper into the conflict. This contradicts Trump's earlier position that Europe should bear the brunt of Ukraine’s defense and raises strategic concerns, especially since Russia currently occupies about 20% of Ukraine’s territory, including regions believed to contain 40% of the country’s $350 billion worth of mineral wealth.

Time to Reassess

Though the minerals agreement doesn't formally commit the U.S. to Ukraine's defense, it creates long-term entanglements that may limit America’s ability to walk away. Given these complexities, the Trump administration should focus on protecting U.S. national interests. The risk of being drawn into a prolonged and costly conflict is real. Rather than escalating involvement, the administration would be wise to reinforce its position that this is not America’s war.