The Trump White House briefly halted and then quietly resumed arms shipments to Ukraine amid internal disagreement over U.S. assistance for Kyiv. The administration landed on the right move, but it has remained ambiguous about whether aid will continue. If President Donald Trump wants to get a peace deal that preserves American interests, he should focus on gaining leverage over Russia. This will require not only tougher economic sanctions but also continued military support for Ukraine.
Cutting arms supplies, perhaps as part of some ill-conceived effort to strong-arm Kyiv, would make little sense. Ukraine isn’t the obstacle to peace. As Trump said, the Ukrainian government has clearly demonstrated it’s “ready to negotiate a deal.”
The problem, rather, is Vladimir Putin. As much as the Russian leader might try to sweet-talk Trump about his readiness to negotiate, he really means he’s ready to accept Ukraine’s capitulation. For Putin, this war isn’t just about grabbing more territory in eastern Ukraine. It’s about his longstanding goal of making Ukraine a vassal state, a core issue in his broader confrontation with the West. Fortunately, Russia has been unable to realize this goal through military efforts. But Putin will strive to exploit potential peace talks to achieve his ambitions.
The Kremlin’s demands are brazen. It insists that Kyiv cede territory, abandon hope of joining NATO, and swallow other constraints on its sovereignty, including limits on Ukraine’s military. Moscow even seems to hold out hope of replacing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a more pliable alternative. Hence its contention that his electoral mandate has expired and Ukraine requires new elections to legitimize any final peace deal—a ruse that U.S. officials shouldn’t fall for. Russia also insists a peace deal must be part of a broader framework that redresses the conflict’s supposed “root causes,” including by limiting NATO’s military presence in Eastern Europe.
Russia’s terms wouldn’t just hurt Ukraine; they’d also jeopardize important U.S. interests. Leaving Ukraine vulnerable to further Russian aggression would raise the likelihood of a follow-on war, already a strong possibility. If Putin believes he’s prevailed in a contest of wills over Ukraine despite everything the West has thrown at him, that would hardly strengthen NATO deterrence. Observing this American weakness, China might similarly grow more inclined toward aggression against Taiwan.
To maximize chances for a good deal, Trump needs leverage. He’s smartly threatened economic punishment if Russia remains obstinate. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s Russia-Ukraine envoy, has suggested lowering the G7 price cap on Russian oil exports, while Trump says he wants to work with Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices. These good ideas should be paired with, inter alia, tougher sanctions on vessels and entities helping Russia circumvent the G7 mechanism. Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” should be forced to stay at anchor.
Trump should consider tightening sanctions on Russian oil revenue now rather than waiting for Putin to play hardball. Russia’s economic woes are growing, but at the current pace the war may not become economically unsustainable until 2026 or later. Tougher sanctions enforced immediately could shorten that timeline and promote a quicker deal.
Still, economic tools alone won’t be enough. Current battlefield trends, along with uncertainty over future U.S. aid, bolster Moscow’s bargaining power and incentivize Putin to keep pressing his advantage.
Ukrainian forces remain on the back foot as Russia continues to make slow but steady gains, primarily because Ukrainian units are short on infantry. While Russia’s creeping advance comes with heavy losses of men and materiel, which Moscow eventually won’t be able to sustain, the risk is that Ukraine’s defensive capabilities could deteriorate faster. This risk would grow if Washington halted military aid.
Europe must do its fair share, but it cannot carry the burden alone, especially in munitions production. Without consistent infusions of U.S. artillery ammunition, for example, Russia could regain firepower superiority and Ukraine’s overstretched infantry would suffer higher casualty rates. This is precisely what happened during the previous aid cutoff in early 2024. Likewise, absent American support, Ukraine would struggle to protect its critical infrastructure from Russian missiles.
To help Ukraine stabilize its lines and to show Russia it can’t outlast U.S. resolve, Trump should publicly commit to continue providing Kyiv with military assistance. Much of this, especially in the near term, simply comes down to delivering materiel promised under Biden. Trump should also ask Congress to pass a “Ukraine leverage” bill that ensures his aid authority and funding won’t run out. This assistance could be funded in creative ways that shift the burden off the American taxpayer, such as loans or utilizing frozen Russian assets.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials should continue pushing Kyiv to mobilize younger men to address its manpower shortage. And Washington and its allies also need to work out plans for credible security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent a follow-on war.
As Trump has correctly observed, the “only way” to get a good deal “is not to abandon” Ukraine. He’s made clear he wants the killing to stop. So does Ukraine. Now the trick is to convince Putin that fighting on won’t get him anywhere.
