Current indications from within the Trump administration show an intent to end a decade-long failure to adequately confront Russian aggression in Ukraine to what by now can be considered an impending capitulation to Vladimir Putin’s intransigence. This as he heaps praise on the U.S. President for his reelection. Putin has gone on to regard Donald Trump as a “clever and pragmatic man” and to suggest that “if his victory had not been stolen in 2020,” then there may not have been a crisis. In return, the latter remarkably has blamed Volodymyr Zelensky for the war when he chose not to surrender Ukraine in the face of the February, 2022 Russian invasion, suggesting a serious lack of understanding of the situation by an ill-informed president. The current state of ignorance follows several years of U.S. leadership that has not confronted the depth of Putin’s intentions in Eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular.
Russia’s criminal conduct in the course of the war recalls some of the worst acts of barbarism in human history. Putin’s own indictment by the International Criminal Court for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children into Russia and their adoption by Russian families only adds to his guilt. Yet the Trump administration has only suggested the thought of further sanctions in the absence of Putin’s agreement to end the war. It has not escaped anyone’s attention that Russia is already one of the most sanctioned nations in the world so that a proclamation of the same appears to be something more for U.S. domestic consumption and not some form of real threat to Russia. Is this the actual grand scheme for ending the war when it has become evident that military engagement is the factor that has driven economic hardship upon Russia?
To enhance the charade, Russian officials have responded with faux outrage that such a move is an insulting start to negotiations while Putin’s office indicated there was nothing new here in this exchange. On the other hand, he seems eager to engage in “negotiations” with his friend, Trump, preferably without Zelensky at the table. In fact, the anticipated meeting may simply be an occasion for Putin to outline the requirements that must be stipulated in U.S. demands with which it will pressure Ukraine to accept.
Ukraine has actually continued to do more to hurt Russia’s economy by well-orchestrated aerial assaults on its fossil fuel industry adding to the cumulative effects of prior U.S. and European sanctions upon Russian oil export. Thus far, there is little to indicate that the current U.S. administration has any inkling of the aggressive nature of Russia’s intentions on the world stage as manifest in its dealings with Ukraine and its behavior in attempting to undermine those nations that oppose its imperialist designs. The current plan of seeking appeasement with Russia, the aggressor, by giving away territory belonging to Ukraine after a three-yearlong defense of its sovereign land is, in fact, a betrayal of the principals by which the U.S. has stood for centuries.
The new U.S. administration marks the beginning of a fourth presidential term since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine during Barack Obama’s second term in office. Putin’s occupation of Crimea in 2014 resulted in a military coup and was followed rather hastily by a plebiscite conducted by the invading regime. To no one’s surprise, it declared the public to be ostensibly clamoring for Russian governance. The process, according to plan, led to the illegitimate annexation of Crimea widely condemned as a clear violation of international law. Sanctions by the West targeting Russia centered upon access to Western financial markets, a ban on technology for oil and gas exploration and the provision of credits for its oil industry and travel restrictions placed upon those connected with the annexation. The sanctions did little to hinder Russia’s continued involvement in Ukraine, specifically its illicit paramilitary intervention and promotion of separatist activity in eastern Ukraine, fueling what amounted to a civil war. Rather than giving pause for Putin to reconsider, it did nothing to abort his planned subjugation of all Ukraine.
In late 2014, the Obama administration issued an executive order further imposing sanctions upon defense companies and individuals close to Putin, banks and energy companies. During that same year, it did provide a $53 million aid package that included defense-oriented technology to Ukraine. A congressional bipartisan Ukraine Freedom Support Act, passed in 2014, appropriated $350 million in security assistance that included anti-tank and anti-armor weaponry but Obama would not authorize the shipment. Rather, from 2014 to 2016, the U.S. government did come to authorize more than $600 million in security assistance and launched the Ukraine Security Assistance initiative (USAI).
Nearly $400 million in Ukraine aid was initially withheld early in the subsequent 2017-2020 Trump administration leading to the discovery of the President’s attempt to extort Zelensky by having him announce an investigation of his political rival for presumed personal involvement in the fiscal affairs of a foreign agency. Trump did finally reverse the Obama policy and approved the sale of Javelin anti-armor missiles to Ukraine in 2019.
By early 2022, the eight-yearlong Russian-instigated civil war in Ukraine involving Russian paramilitary forces alongside Russophile separatist elements had not abated in the absence of adequate or consistent military aid to confront Russia’s substantial weapons inventory. In the face of the imminent threat of invasion following a massive yearlong buildup of Russian forces along the border of Ukraine in 2021, the Biden administration provided its first shipment of military consignment consisting of 1,000 tons of lethal aid on the eve of the invasion in January 2022,. There was needless quibbling over Russian intentions, whether the anticipated event might be an incursion or an invasion, or whether the attack would be a minor one or perhaps a paramilitary intervention, with or without a cyber-attack. The inescapable reality confronting everyone was the presence of a formidable military force awaiting direction for invasion of a sovereign nation.
With a full invasion declared in late February, 2022, U.S. security assistance was accelerated under the USAI with a total of $6.3 billion provided in FY2022. This along with support from other European nations predominantly provided for Ukraine’s effective counteroffensive which began in August, 2022 resulting in the recapture of significant portions of the territory initially overtaken by the Russians. Ongoing offensive planning by Ukraine was hampered by a fear of escalation by the Biden administration in reaction to Putin’s implied threats of nuclear retaliation which were echoed by his regime with familiar Russian bravado. The resulting U.S. paralysis afforded Russia, with the support of North Korea, Iran and China, an upper hand in conducting its war.
What resulted was an asymmetric war in which Russia used North Korean and Iranian armament on Ukrainian territory targeting civilian infrastructure and military sites while Ukraine was forced until very recently to conduct its response with Western armament only within its own borders. This sort of timidity was exemplified initially with the use of high-mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) introduced in Ukraine during the summer of 2022. These were medium-range (i.e., 50 miles) weapon systems which could be reclassified as long-range (i.e., 186 miles) systems by the munitions chosen for use. The latter was similar to the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) which had a range of 190 miles and was used first in Ukraine to target a Russian airfield in Crimea in April 2024. The range restriction was finally lifted in November, 2024, 2.5 years after the start of the war in response to the arrival of North Korean troops in the Kursk region of Russia. Even then, lists of possible targets were required for approval by the U.S. before engaging.
Similar delays in procurement of vital armament in support of battlefield strategy hampered delivery of Abrams tanks until late September, 2023 after 1.5 years of war. A further nine months elapsed before F-16 multirole fighters arrived in the summer of 2024 and this came after protracted pressure upon the U.S. from NATO allies. Lack of sufficient air support during the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the spring of 2023 played a role in its failure to break through the substantial Russian defensive lines established in the southeast of Ukraine. At the time, Ukraine may have had only 69 fighter aircraft, consisting largely of MiG-29 and Su-27 aircraft. The U.S. military has long argued that initial air superiority is a key element in mounting a successful offensive operation yet such wisdom did not prevail over the thinking of the U.S. administration at the time.
Then came the unnecessary six-month delay of Congressional funding for Ukraine brought on by the Republican-led House of Representatives indicating to the world that the U.S. was flagging in its commitment to the war effort. The bill which finally passed provided $61 billion of which $26 billion was allocated for new military equipment and $17 billion for weapons and training for Ukraine but only after territorial gains were made in the interim by advancing Russian troops. Moreover, the time taken for Ukraine to realistically take advantage of the new funding only added to the damage inflicted.
After all this, retired lieutenant general Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy on Ukraine and Russia, entrusted with conducting a negotiated end to the war, believes that NATO expansionist activity in Eastern Europe and Ukraine’s desire to join with the West caused Putin to invade it. This magical thinking is not new and has been repeated previously by others, notably John Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago and Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University. It has been a convenient yet flawed excuse for Russia’s apologists despite Putin’s pronouncements about denazifying Ukraine and promoting the belief that it is a fictional state.
Kellogg believes that the U.S. should be a “strong leader” seeking a negotiated settlement by actually surrendering Ukrainian territory to Russia in exchange for reparations paid for by Russian energy sales. Strong leaders typically don’t surrender land to a guilty party. As for the notion of Ukraine being a fictional entity, in reality, it precedes Russia historically by 500 years and remains distinct from it, having suffered centuries of conflict throughout its evolution because of its unique place geographically. It was declared a republic even within the Soviet Union during the 20th century after redeveloping its ideological and cultural framework well beforehand during the 16th and 17th centuries and its sense of modern nationhood in the 19th century. And, the idea of Russia paying reparations is nonsense while Putin remains in power as his own country has become impoverished by the war he started. Furthermore, why would he repair a nation for which he has no regard? Frankly, what sort of guaranteed security will you offer Ukraine when it borders a recidivist Russia intent on reclaiming a past, dysfunctional empire? The only secure solution to be argued is one which requires entry into NATO, that is if one, like Mearsheimer, is married to the school of realist international relations.
The argument, promoted by Kellogg and Trump as a solution to this unnecessary war, is weak for submitting to someone of the likes of Putin with his adolescent delusions of heroic nationalism and aspirations of imperial greatness. It is time for mature leaders to take hold of the situation. The war should have ended some time ago with the sort of determination that would have awakened Putin to the reality of his own ineptness as a leader.
Copyright @Kost Elisevich, MD, PhD 2025. All rights reserved. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.
