Until Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin was singing the equivalent of the Frank Sinatra song “My Way” in Ukraine. That remains to be seen, as President Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, heads to Moscow this week.
Putin had made it clear on Mar. 6 that Russia does not intend to “give in to anyone” or make any compromises in future peace negotiations.
That was until Secretary of State Marco Rubio reached an agreement in Saudi Arabia with Ukrainian representatives to accept a 30-day cease-fire proposal by the U.S., in exchange for resumption of U.S. intelligence sharing and security assistance.
Russian propagandists and pro-war bloggers reacted negatively to the ceasefire announcement on social media and on the airwaves. As former NATO Commander, retired U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, cautioned on X, “Fingers crossed but low confidence given Russian intransigence.” Western media reported that Putin would rather keep fighting than compromise.
Earlier last week, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Maria Zakharova declared that Russia “rejected the possibility of a negotiated ceasefire.”
So Putin is intent on having it be his way or the highway.
Trump appeared to take all of that to heart. He seemingly gave in to every Russian demand in order to get Putin to the negotiating table, while at the same time turning the screws on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
To date, this has included the U.S. joining Russia to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine. Washington rejected a Canadian proposal ahead of a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Quebec to establish a task force to monitor sanctions breaches by Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers.
Team Trump was also inexplicably echoing Russian demands for Ukrainian elections. Arbitrarily ceasing offensive U.S. cyber activities against turning off intelligence-sharing with Kyiv. Blocking Ukrainian access to satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies – and is considering revoking temporary protections for thousands of Ukrainian refugees in the U.S.
As Rubio jested on Monday, short of “providing military aid to the Russians,” what else could the U.S. do to get Putin to the table?
Unfortunately, Trump’s actions are creating damage, affording Russia a window of opportunity to defeat Ukrainian forces fighting in the Russian Kursk Oblast — potentially giving Putin’s military a much-needed battlefield win, potentially removing a negotiation point from whatever leverage Ukraine has left.
The White House had even attempted to flip the script, blaming Ukraine for the stalled negotiations. Trump said Zelensky “is not ready for peace if America is involved.” A sentiment echoed by many in his administration and on Capitol Hill.
In Team Trump’s mind, Zelensky had been blocking the way to Trump’s desired end state in Ukraine. But what is it? Apparently only a select few in Washington know the Trump administration’s plan.
But where the pressure had been squarely on Ukraine, the onus is now on Putin. As Rubio pointed out prior to his meeting in Jeddah, “the Russians are going to have to do difficult things to end this.” Zelensky’s reward? An invitation back to the White House.
The only plan mentioned to date to bring an uncooperative Russia to the negotiating table is from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He plans to introduce sanctions on the Russian “banking … and energy sector[s],” declaring, “We should sanction the hell out of them. And I’ll have legislation to do that next week.”
That is unlikely to work in the short run. Russia is three years into sanctions, which have not diminished its ability to fund and fight a war. Military losses are what will motivate him — something Zelensky and his generals know how to inflict upon Russians.
Putin, absent a punch to the mouth, shows no inclination to embrace peace in Ukraine. The Kremlin launched three ballistic missiles and 130 drones just hours after the ceasefire announcement, striking six different areas of Ukraine and killing at least five people.
Peace is in the eye of the beholder, and the two parties could not be further apart. For Ukraine, it means Russia stops attacking and others provide security guarantees. For Russia, it means the complete destruction of all things Ukraine — which is to say, genocide.
Getting there, however, is getting harder for Putin. Europe is determined to back up Zelensky and his generals. New multilateral alliances are forming in European capitals to provide support to Ukraine.
Brussels is also taking action to protect itself from future Russian aggression. The European Union heads of state unanimously approved an €800 billion “ReArm Europe Plan.”
France’s offer to provide the EU with a nuclear umbrella is gaining momentum, alongside a proposal called “Sky Shield” to enforce a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine.
Plus, according to a French military official on Monday, military envoys from more than 30 nations will take part in Paris talks to discuss the creation of an international security force for Ukraine “to dissuade Russia from launching another offensive after any ceasefire in Ukraine comes into effect.”
Trump’s resolution of his differences with Ukraine — at least for now — came at a crucial junction. Jolted by the temporary suspension of military aid and intel sharing, many European countries began considering nuclear weapons as their best bet for long-term national security, rather than the expectation that the U.S. would intervene in Europe militarily under NATO’s Article Five.
Hollywood’s version of World War III is not here yet. But it was getting perilously closer as Europe felt increasingly abandoned by the Trump administration.
Until Tuesday, Putin had been counting on Team Trump destroying the current world order, as Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, now Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain, had suggested. But that all changed in a New York minute.
This isn’t over yet. Putin is stubborn, and he will not easily cave. He still believes he owns the highway — and in his mind, that highway leads to Kyiv.
Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer. Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy.
