President Trump issued a stern ultimatum to Russian President Vladimir Putin, threatening to impose significant taxes, tariffs and sanctions if a peace agreement is not reached promptly in Ukraine. Trump emphasized that Russia’s economy is under strain and urged Putin to negotiate, stating that failure to do so would compel the U.S. to enact severe economic penalties.
“I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR,” Trump posted to Truth Social, liberally using capital letters. “Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. If we don’t make a ‘deal,’ and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States.”
The Kremlin quickly downplayed these threats as nothing new, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov noting that Trump employed similar tactics during his first term. Despite facing even harsher sanctions since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s economy has demonstrated surprising resilience. Former President Joe Biden’s boast that international sanctions had reduced the ruble to “rubble” turned out to be bluster. Russia simply fled into the arms of China and appears perfectly capable of sustaining its own war machine for the foreseeable future.
In this case, Trump is brandishing the wrong big stick. At the very least, more than tariffs and sanctions will be needed. An effective policy must bring to bear all relevant elements of national power.
During his campaign, Trump bragged that he could end the war in 24 hours. Unfortunately, it won’t be that simple. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (and the Ukrainian people) are more willing than ever to accept a negotiated settlement. But although they no longer entertain delusions of reclaiming every inch of Russian-occupied soil, Ukrainian negotiators might still bristle at Russian demands.
Putin has repeatedly stated that any peace deal must give his country full control of the provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, large swaths of which remain under Ukrainian control. He also insists that Ukraine reject the possibility of NATO membership. The two nations might come to loggerheads over either point.
From an American perspective, the best solution would be to establish a ceasefire along current battlelines (with Ukraine perhaps pulling its forces out of Kursk in exchange for a similar-sized chunk of the Russian-occupied Donbass). This would allow energy and food (two important commodities) to stabilize across European and world markets.
But what happens if either party objects to that solution? Russia, after all, has been gradually gaining ground for months, giving Putin every incentive to stonewall negotiations until his winning streak runs out.
Bullying Ukraine into a deal by threatening to cut off all aid might also be harder than it seems. Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelensky on the campaign trail for siphoning off hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that could be better spent at home. The current total amount of aid authorized for Ukraine is about $175 billion. Much of that money is spent in U.S. factories producing the weapons that are either shipped to Ukraine or used to backfill U.S. defense stocks.
It is estimated that approximately 70 U.S. cities are benefiting from these contracts. Termination of that aid would require cooperation from congressional Republicans, many of whom are more pro-Ukraine than Trump and have constituents who benefit from the aid.
Further complicating the situation is the prominence of Elon Musk, who has his own government department, contracts for most U.S. government launches, and Trump’s ear. When it comes to Ukraine, Musk is difficult to pin down. He allowed Ukraine free use of his Starlink satellite constellation in the early stages of the war, but he refused to allow its use for a proposed strike against Crimea.
He also drew condemnation from Ukraine and its allies for proposing his own “peace plan” in October 2022, which included UN-supervised referenda in Russian-occupied regions and a neutrality pledge from Ukraine. And if that weren’t enough, he’s also been in close contact with Putin, which worried Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, instigated ongoing federal reviews, and even caused some senators to suggest that he should have his security clearance revoked. From a Ukrainian perspective, even the perception that Musk is influencing negotiations could poison the well.
In light of all these challenges, America’s best weapon in the struggle for peace remains what it always was: support for Ukraine in the form of money and matériel.
Trump can use this support to exert pressure on both parties to reach a compromise. If Ukraine objects to proposed territorial concessions, he can offer generous reconstruction aid and help in rebuilding the country’s war-ravaged military. Such assistance would also help prepare Ukraine for eventual inclusion into NATO and the EU.
If Russia gets too greedy, Trump can remind them that he’s perfectly willing to continue (or even ramp up) support for Ukrainian forces, leaving all options on the table. At this point in the war, it would be unwise to back another large-scale counteroffensive or authorize further strikes on Russian soil, but strategic ambiguity is valuable.
We can make Russian forces pay even more dearly for every inch they gain or (better yet) stop them in their tracks. This credible threat is the best way to convince Putin that it’s better to “declare victory and take what’s on offer” than to “keep slogging away until the Russian flag flies over Kyiv.”
Sanctions have only hardened Putin’s resolve. If we want to break it, we’ll need to speak the only language he understands: force.
Martin Perryman, a retired Army colonel, is a defense analyst and 30-year military veteran.
