\n
<\/p>\n
During his first term in 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump took bold action that many had considered unthinkable at the time: He approved<\/a> the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, which was fighting a low-intensity war against Russian invaders and Russia-backed separatists, and Georgia<\/a>, which was also under partial Russian occupation. Less than a year into his term, Trump thus did something that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had refused to do over the course of eight years. In the case of Ukraine, U.S. support shifted from non-lethal aid under Obama to actual weapons under Trump. The Javelins, sniper rifles, and rocket launchers delivered by Trump played an important role in repelling the Russian attack on Kyiv during the early days of the 2022 invasion.<\/p>\n At the time, many foreign-policy commentators struggled to reconcile these moves with Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d worldview. But the decision to arm Georgia and Ukraine in the shadow of Obama\u2019s \u201creset<\/a>\u201d with Russian President Vladimir Putin\u2014just like the killing<\/a> of Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani in the shadow of Obama\u2019s Iran deal\u2014were arguably America First actions. They placed support for the United States\u2019 own allies and partners before hopelessly naive engagement with the country\u2019s adversaries.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n During his first term in 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump took bold action that many had considered unthinkable at the time: He approved<\/a> the delivery of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, which was fighting a low-intensity war against Russian invaders and Russia-backed separatists, and Georgia<\/a>, which was also under partial Russian occupation. Less than a year into his term, Trump thus did something that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had refused to do over the course of eight years. In the case of Ukraine, U.S. support shifted from non-lethal aid under Obama to actual weapons under Trump. The Javelins, sniper rifles, and rocket launchers delivered by Trump played an important role in repelling the Russian attack on Kyiv during the early days of the 2022 invasion.<\/p>\n At the time, many foreign-policy commentators struggled to reconcile these moves with Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d worldview. But the decision to arm Georgia and Ukraine in the shadow of Obama\u2019s \u201creset<\/a>\u201d with Russian President Vladimir Putin\u2014just like the killing<\/a> of Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani in the shadow of Obama\u2019s Iran deal\u2014were arguably America First actions. They placed support for the United States\u2019 own allies and partners before hopelessly naive engagement with the country\u2019s adversaries.<\/p>\n In his second term, however, Trump has struggled to define what his America First foreign policy means in the context of Ukraine, to the extent that his critics have accused him of taking Russia\u2019s side. That may have started to change this week during a joint appearance<\/a> in the Oval Office with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. It was announced<\/a> that several billion dollars\u2019 worth of U.S.-made weapons will be delivered in the coming weeks. While most details of the plan remain undisclosed, officials confirmed that it will include several Patriot anti-missile batteries. Additional weapons systems, including long-range strike capabilities, are also reported<\/a> to be under consideration. Furthermore, these new weapons will be entirely paid for by European countries and delivered to them to give to Ukraine. This allows Trump to walk a political tightrope with his base, many of whom are skeptical about more aid to Ukraine.<\/p>\n At the same time, Trump gave Putin 50 days to come to the negotiating table in good faith. If he fails to do so, Trump says he will consider dramatically escalating sanctions and tariffs against Russia and the countries buying its oil. Already, Russian officials are mocking<\/a> Trump\u2019s deadline because he has made similar ultimatums in the past, only for nothing to happen when the target date passed. Also, 50 days is a long time in Ukraine. Assuming that Russia maintains it current firing rate of several hundred drones and missiles per night, 50 more days could easily mean 15,000-20,000 more drone attacks over the period.<\/p>\n There is no question about Trump\u2019s sincerity in wanting to bring the war to an end. The problem is not his intention, but the lack of a coherent, realistic policy path to achieve that goal. Some of the blame lies with his team\u2014particularly at the Department of Defense.<\/p>\n The most troubling example came earlier this month, when the Pentagon abruptly halted<\/a> weapons deliveries to Ukraine, including shipments that were already staged in Poland. The decision blindsided not just Ukraine and the Europeans, but many people in Washington\u2014including, perhaps, Trump himself<\/a>. When questioned about it, he appeared unaware of the decision.<\/p>\n The Pentagon\u2019s poorly guided decision to halt arms transfers came at a terrible time for both Ukraine and Trump. For Ukraine, many of the delayed weapons were desperately needed air defense equipment\u2014at a time when Russia was launching nighttime barrages of hundreds of missiles and drones at Ukrainian cities. For Trump, the sudden weapons freeze undermined a rare moment of geopolitical momentum after a successful NATO summit, a decisive U.S. strike on Iran\u2019s nuclear facilities, and a U.S.-brokered cease-fire in the Iran-Israel war.<\/p>\n Together, these moves could have created an opening for Trump to force the Kremlin to the negotiating table. Instead, the Pentagon\u2019s sudden pause of arms shipments sent the opposite signal\u2014of U.S. flip-flopping and internal disagreement\u2014thereby weakening Trump\u2019s hand at a critical moment. This is why Trump\u2019s announcement in the Oval Office this week was so crucial. Not only did it send the right signals to Kyiv, Brussels, and Moscow, but senior officials in the Defense Department are now on notice to get behind the new policy of pressuring the Kremlin.<\/p>\n On the campaign trail, Trump made ending Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine the cornerstone of his foreign policy. And without question, it has proved to be the most complex and demanding task set before him. There is a feeling that Trump has lost control of the diplomatic process he sought to implement and that Putin is now setting the terms. This week\u2019s White House announcement is a good first step in regaining control.<\/p>\n In addition to this week\u2019s military aid announcement, there are other concrete steps he can take right now to put things back on track.<\/p>\n The first\u2014and most important\u2014step is recognizing that a just and fair peace is in Trump\u2019s own best interest. Any outcome that suggests Russia \u201cwon\u201d in Ukraine would severely damage his credibility as a statesman abroad and his popularity at home; the vast majority<\/a> of Americans, including Republicans, do not trust Putin. If Moscow is seen as emerging with gains, Trump\u2019s critics at home and abroad will rightly question the strength and strategy behind his foreign policy.<\/p>\n He also needs to drop the line that this is \u201cBiden\u2019s war<\/a>\u201d and recognize that the current state of the conflict is his responsibility. Blaming former President Joe Biden may have resonated on the campaign trail, but Trump has now been in the Oval Office for six months. Disowning the war is no longer politically tenable, and it certainly doesn\u2019t help shape a solution.<\/p>\n After all, if one considers the full timeline of Russia\u2019s aggression against Ukraine\u2014from the unprovoked invasion of Crimea in February 2014 to the present day\u2014Trump has now been in office for nearly 40 percent of that period. Key events in the earlier phase of the conflict occurred during his first term, such as the 2017 Battle of Avdiivka\u2014widely considered one of the largest clashes in the war up until that point\u2014and the Kerch Strait incident, when Russia seized three Ukrainian naval vessels and detained their crews. Neither of these incidents resulted in meaningful consequences for the Kremlin. Trump cannot be seen as a mere outsider in this war.<\/p>\n Second, Trump should ensure that all existing Ukraine aid already authorized and appropriated by Congress is used. At this point there is no excuse for allowing this aid to be left off the table. He should also call on Congress to pass a new Ukraine aid supplemental when current aid runs out\u2014one that could be financed using proceeds from the recently signed minerals deal between Washington and Kyiv. It is great that European allies will purchase U.S.-made weapons for Ukraine. But if Putin does not satisfy Trump\u2019s calls for negotiating in 50 days, the White House needs a more robust plan in place to aid Ukraine, and this will require additional resources from Congress.<\/p>\n Third, the Trump administration should also develop a strategy to boost Ukraine\u2019s defense sector and integrate it more closely with U.S. defense contractors and military technology start-ups. Before Russia\u2019s 2014 invasion, Ukraine ranked among the top 10 global defense exporters, not least due to its highly skilled, innovative, and educated defense workforce. Since the start of the war, the Ukrainians have introduced<\/a> groundbreaking weapons systems, pioneering many new types of semi-autonomous weapons and drones. Strengthening Ukraine\u2019s defense industry is not just about getting weapons to the front; it\u2019s one of the most effective long-term guarantees of Ukraine\u2019s security, with many benefits to the U.S. defense sector as well.<\/p>\n Fourth, the administration should pursue an America First energy policy. Congress and the executive branch should lift all remaining restrictions on liquefied natural gas exports. Trump\u2019s efforts to unshackle U.S. oil and gas production, combined with his strong relationships with the Gulf states, could give him powerful leverage to influence global energy prices. By flooding the market and undercutting Russia\u2019s energy revenues, the United States would be striking at one of the last remaining pillars of the Russian economy.<\/p>\n Fifth, Trump must take concrete steps to close sanctions loopholes. Although the Biden administration rolled out aggressive sanctions, enforcement always fell short. Russia has adapted<\/a> by redirecting trade through a web of third-party countries and intermediaries, effectively skirting Western pressure. The White House needs to have a plan in place so that it is ready on day 51 if Putin does not come to the table.<\/p>\n