President Donald J. Trump has frequently highlighted “major” pronouncements. This time, however, he followed through. His declaration on Monday that he would dispatch “top-tier” weaponry to Ukraine and if it fails to agree to a ceasefire within 50 days signals a significant policy shift, especially for a leader who only a few months earlier Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office.
Notably, the initiative was jointly announced with , who was present with Trump in the Oval Office. As is typical, Trump did most of the talking, but Rutte clearly endorsed the plan and confirmed vital details. This means it was neither a solitary Trump action nor an impulse, but a concerted transatlantic endeavor that aligns with the in June, which Rutte expertly facilitated. This represents progress.
The aid package, at least in its initial presentation, is substantial: it includes and possibly Patriot missile batteries, to be sent immediately, with Europeans covering the costs; a of additional U.S. armaments for Ukraine, coordinated with European governments and NATO, also financed by Europeans; and new economic pressure on Russia if no ceasefire is achieved, encompassing up to 100% on nations that purchase Russian oil.
Many, including myself, would have preferred the United States to share the expenses of new armaments for Ukraine with European allies. Ukraine’s survival is also in America’s interest. Yet, only two weeks ago, the Pentagon to Ukraine. A complete U.S. abandonment of Ukraine appeared to be unfolding, and Trump’s prior decision until Monday to withhold approval for any new weapons for Kyiv strongly incentivized Vladimir Putin to pursue his maximalist objectives. Trump now states he is “very, very unhappy” with Putin and has privately encouraged Zelensky to escalate deep strikes inside Russia, according to the .
Critics of the package have contended that the 50-day deadline allows Russia ample time to continue its bombardment of Ukraine. This is an understandable concern. However, providing weapons to Ukraine now and threatening a new series of economic sanctions against Russia to secure a ceasefire and ultimately an agreement to end the war—a Trump priority that and Putin previously dismissed—could act as a powerful dual strategy, provided the sanctions prove truly effective.
Unfortunately, the new wave of economic pressure does not appear fully prepared. The threat of 100% secondary tariffs, alongside the that targets Russian oil sales, are appropriate targets. Nevertheless, tariffs of 100% or 500% against countries heavily importing Russian oil, including China and India, might not be practical given the intricate web of trade and tariff agreements with these nations. The Graham-Blumenthal bill, still moving through Congress, could be made more viable by offering a waiver if countries maintained “significant” reductions in oil purchases. This was an approach that with Iran during the Obama Administration.
Despite these challenges, this marks Trump’s most forceful endorsement of Ukraine to date, and Zelensky is now with a view toward robust cooperation with Washington.
Trump’s policy reversal seems partly attributable to European leaders, particularly Rutte, who diligently sought common ground with the U.S. President. It also appears to stem from growing frustration with Putin. Trump commented on Monday that Putin speaks “so eloquently” regarding a ceasefire but “then he bombs people at night. We dislike that.”
Recent U.S. Presidents, like Trump, have attempted to cultivate better relations with Putin. However, all such attempts proved unsuccessful because the Russian President’s terms consistently involved the U.S. granting him a free hand for domestic repression and aggression against his neighbors—specifically Georgia and Ukraine—which Putin treated as mere territories of a reconstituted Russian Empire. Neither George W. Bush nor Obama, both of whom I worked for during my government service, would accept those terms.
Six months into Trump’s second term, the United States and Europe finally seem to be achieving alignment on Ukraine. Russia’s economy is vulnerable. Its , all with minimal gains on the ground. Putin’s arrogance in demanding total Ukrainian surrender could lead to his downfall, if only Trump adheres to his current stance.