Placating Putin

Trump is also weakening America’s negotiating position by repeatedly and prematurely signalling the concessions the US is willing to make.

Historically, Russia has responded to strength, not appeasement. As US diplomat and historian George Kennan famously stated in his 1946 Long Telegram, the Soviet Union understood only the language of power. He was proven right — throughout and since the Cold War, Western concessions have often invigorated rather than calmed Russian aggression.

Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy is reinforcing this established pattern, emboldening Moscow, and diminishing any prospect of a just resolution to the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Since February, President Trump has taken several actions that align with Russian strategic interests. These have included: 

• Cutting military aid to Ukraine, despite bipartisan warnings that reducing support could shift battlefield momentum in Russia’s favour
• Blocking NATO membership and refusing security guarantees for Ukraine, signalling that territorial expansion can be rewarded rather than deterred
• Blaming Kyiv for the war while downplaying Russia’s responsibility and ignoring the indisputable reality that Russia invaded Ukraine, a stance that echoes Kremlin propaganda narratives
• Criticising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for postponing elections under martial law, despite Ukraine’s constitutional justification
• Siding with Russia, North Korea and Belarus to vote against a UN resolution condemning Moscow’s actions and supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

This approach mirrors historical examples of Western appeasement, from Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 Munich Agreement to the weak enforcement of President Obama’s “red line” in Syria in 2013. By preemptively offering concessions, Trump has weakened US leverage, removing any incentive for Putin to negotiate in good faith.

Unlike Western democracies, Putin’s Russia operates on power dynamics rather than diplomatic courtesies. Trump’s early giveaways — such as suggesting the recognition of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories — will therefore be seen in Moscow as a show of weakness, not goodwill. This weakens US leverage in negotiations, and by extension that of its allies too.

Twentieth century history confirms that Russia only responds to forceful deterrence. The Reagan administration’s Cold War military buildup undeniably contributed to the Soviet Union’s economic collapse, and NATO expansion in the 1990s and early 2000s deterred Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe. More recently, the weak US response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea paved the way for Russia to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Trump’s diplomatic overtures, unaccompanied by credible enforcement mechanisms, project weakness rather than pragmatism. This only encourages Moscow to escalate rather than compromise.

While Trump attempts to broker a deal with Putin, European allies are growing increasingly wary of US commitment to transatlantic security.

His administration downplayed Russia’s threat at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, shocking European leaders. US disengagement has now pushed the continent toward urgently building an independent defence strategy, potentially weakening NATO cohesion.

The aforementioned voting alongside Russia at the UN on a Ukraine-related resolution will have further fractured America’s alliances. Trump’s policies risk creating a strategic vacuum, forcing Europe to act alone while simultaneously emboldening Russia and China to expand their geopolitical ambitions.

Recent peace talks in Saudi Arabia illustrate Russia’s strategic approach to negotiations. It was reported that Moscow had actively blocked the participation of US special envoy Keith Kellogg, showcasing its attempt to manipulate the diplomatic process, a claim the Kremlin denied.

This follows a classic Russian negotiating tactic of prolonging talks while making unrealistic demands. In Saudi Arabia, these included keeping occupied Ukrainian territories, limiting Ukraine’s military capabilities, and forbidding foreign peacekeepers.

As analysts have pointed out, Putin does not intend to stop the war, only to reshape the battlefield on his terms. Trump’s miscalculations therefore leave Russia free to continue its offensive in the knowledge that US pressure on Ukraine will weaken any resistance.

A fragile ceasefire, as is currently under negotiation, will allow Russia to regroup and launch new attacks, and could be broken at any time.

China will also be watching closely. If Trump hands Putin a win, Beijing may feel emboldened to escalate its military efforts in Taiwan and the South China Sea.

A recent poll found that over half of Americans believe Trump is too close to Russia. His willingness to publicly signal diplomatic compromises, such as preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, reveals a weak negotiating style that undermines US credibility on the global stage.

Trump’s approach echoes his past diplomatic missteps, which some have described as “cowboy diplomacy” — a strategy that prioritises personal deal-making over structured policy, ultimately leading to strategic blunders. Far from strengthening US leverage, his premature openness about concessions gives Putin room to dictate the terms of engagement.

Trump’s misreading of Putin’s playbook is leading to a weaker US position, a more vulnerable Ukraine, and a divided NATO. History clearly shows that Russia only respects power, not appeasement, yet Trump’s diplomacy appears to offer unilateral concessions with little strategic gain.

Unless the US reverses course and reasserts its leadership in defending Ukraine and deterring Russia, Trump’s policies will not end the war but ensure that it drags on, only with Moscow instead of Europe or the US dictating its terms.