4/17 – Diplomacy & Geopolitical Analysis

As the war in Ukraine grinds on into its third anniversary, President Donald Trump faces a growing dilemma: how to deliver on his repeated promise to end the conflict swiftly while navigating a geopolitical reality that refuses to conform to slogans. Initially claiming he could stop the war “within 24 hours,” insiders now report that Trump is aiming for a ceasefire within his first 100 days in office. With that self-imposed deadline looming by the end of the month, a complex mix of diplomatic theater, military disengagement, and ambiguous signaling is defining America’s posture on Ukraine under Trump 2.0.

From “Biden’s War” to Trump’s Headache

Trump has increasingly framed the war in Ukraine as the result of President Joe Biden’s foreign policy failures. However, with each passing day that fighting continues, the narrative that this is “Biden’s war” becomes harder to maintain. Recent Russian escalations—such as the April 13 missile strike on Sumy that killed 34 civilians during Palm Sunday services—have spotlighted the grim costs of inaction, drawing global condemnation. Trump’s reaction, however, was markedly restrained. Even as his own aides condemned the strike, Trump suggested it was a tragic mistake and provided excuses for Putin’s actions.

Despite attempts by Trump allies to paint him as firm on Moscow, the administration’s actual approach has been short of forceful. While sanctions originally implemented by the Biden administration remain in place, Trump has offered few new penalties against Russia, and even proposed “secondary tariffs” on countries buying Russian oil—a move that has yet to materialize.

Instead of pressuring Russia directly, the Trump administration has pursued limited, symbolic gestures. On April 10, U.S. and Russian officials met in Istanbul to discuss embassy upgrades and later conducted a prisoner swap. This thaw in bilateral relations has moved forward even as the war shows no signs of stopping. Critics, including Poland’s foreign minister, have warned that Moscow is exploiting these overtures, viewing them as signs of weakness rather than diplomacy.

Perhaps most tellingly, when Trump announced his global “reciprocal tariff” regime earlier this month, Ukraine was slapped with a 10% universal tariff rate, while Russia was excluded under the pretext that it was already sanctioned. While this spared Moscow from further economic pressure, Ukraine was left to navigate worsening financial strain.

Fading U.S. Military Support and Strategic Withdrawal

One of the most dramatic shifts under Trump’s return has been the steady erosion of American military support for Ukraine. In March, Trump temporarily halted weapons and intelligence sharing with Kyiv—a move that some advisers likened to hitting a mule with a stick to get its attention. Ukraine, eager to maintain the lifeline of Western support, quickly agreed to a U.S.-proposed 30-day ceasefire. Russia, however, refused and instead intensified its campaign.

Since then, the U.S. has made no new commitments to replenish Ukraine’s defense stocks. The final tranche of weapons authorized under Biden is expected to run out soon, and no further budget allocation has been greenlit under Trump. American troops and hardware are also being withdrawn from Rzeszów, the vital Polish logistics hub that served as a funnel for arms shipments into Ukraine. European forces are expected to take over these duties.

In another sign of disengagement, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth skipped a major Ukraine Defence Contact Group summit in Brussels on April 11, opting to join via video link—a symbolic shift from the style of his predecessor, Lloyd Austin.

Behind closed doors, diplomats report that some Trump aides have voiced frustration with European military aid to Ukraine, suggesting that the U.S. is no longer enthusiastic about supporting what it now views as Europe’s war to manage.

Europe Steps Into the Void

Faced with waning U.S. commitment, European leaders are scrambling to formulate a new security strategy that can both support Ukraine and maintain NATO cohesion. Britain and France are leading discussions on the creation of a European “reassurance force” that would be stationed in western Ukraine—not to police the front lines but to train Ukrainian troops and perhaps conduct joint air patrols.

This emerging plan envisions a three-zone deterrence model: Ukrainian forces anchoring the east, European troops stationed in the west, and a minimal but symbolic American presence in NATO-aligned territories. The goal is to convince the Trump administration that Europe can carry more of its own security burden—thereby preserving U.S. involvement in NATO, even if Ukraine is effectively sidelined.

Still, this plan depends on the most elusive ingredient: a ceasefire. Trump’s envoy to Russia, Steve Witkoff, is rumored to have floated the idea of securing peace by allowing Russia to claim four Ukrainian provinces, including areas it hasn’t fully conquered. This proposal is a nonstarter for Ukraine and its European allies, who view any territorial concessions as a betrayal of international law and a reward for aggression.

Recognizing that U.S. support may not return to previous levels, European officials are preparing for a scenario in which they must sustain Ukraine alone. This “second track” strategy includes stepping up military aid, using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s defense, and investing in Ukraine’s domestic weapons production.

Former Biden adviser David Shimer has urged European countries to act swiftly, warning that Ukraine cannot wait for Washington’s clarity. He advocates for Europeans to increase their weapons donations—even at the risk of depleting their own stocks—finance Ukrainian military industries, and negotiate with Trump for continued access to U.S.-made air defense systems.

The urgency stems from a brutal calculation: Russia is still committed to its invasion, and Ukraine, facing growing isolation, must resist or risk being carved up. European unity, both in terms of arms and strategic vision, is essential.

Analysis:

Donald Trump’s insistence that he can deliver a ceasefire by sheer force of personality and transactional diplomacy may appeal to his political base, but it severely underestimates the complexity of the Ukraine conflict. By scolding Ukraine for provoking their larger neighbor, minimizing Russian aggression, and signaling a lack of interest in further military aid, Trump is not ending a war—he is redefining the terms of Western involvement in it.

His administration’s retreat from Ukraine could fracture long-standing alliances, weaken NATO’s eastern flank, and embolden Vladimir Putin’s aims to re-bolster Russia’s former sphere of influence.

In attempting to avoid ownership of the war, Trump may inadvertently make it his. If the conflict continues past his 100-day deadline and peace remains elusive, Trump’s handling of Ukraine will no longer be a commentary on Biden’s failures—it will be a reflection of his own inability to deliver on what he prides himself most: brokering a deal.

The search for a ceasefire in Ukraine is no longer just about stopping the bloodshed; it’s about defining the postwar order in Europe. Trump’s pivot away from Ukraine has shifted the burden to European powers, forcing them to fill both strategic and military gaps. But unless a coherent, coordinated Western approach emerges—one that pressures Russia while equipping Ukraine for credible defense—the cost of peace will likely be territorial surrender.

Europe is preparing for that challenge. Whether Trump is ready to support it—or is content to step back entirely—will determine whether the West emerges from this crisis united, or fundamentally reshaped.