During a recent telecommunication interaction, President Donald Trump engaged with Russian President, Vladimir Putin, for the third time, evidently yielding to the Russian authority in discussions on the cessation of Russia’s assault against Ukraine. In these exchanges, it became clear that the skilled negotiator allowed the Kremlin leader to dictate the conditions. This marked another instance where our national leader seemed to bow to the influence of Kremlin.
One notable reaction to this state of affairs was the decision by a previous U.S. ambassador to Ukraine to step down from her position. She cited her inability to effectively execute the existing White House policy on Ukraine as the main contributing factor to this decision. This policy has provided Russia with a loophole that inadvertently alleviates the pressure on them while the burden rests on Ukraine.
The resigning ambassador further impressed upon her observation regarding the U.S. administration’s attempt to placate Russia, in aim of sustainable peace, as being more of a catalyst to incite potential conflicts. She argues that this action, far from ending hostilities, could exacerbate the situation leading to more combat situations. She expressed grave reservations about the administration’s course.
She highlighted several defining incidents that cemented her viewpoint. These included a meeting in the Oval Office where the Ukrainian President was scolded, as well as a Russian missile attack that ended the lives of nine children, for which the U.S. declined to assign direct blame to Russia. According to her, there seems to be a persistent trend where the blame is apportioned to Ukraine while holding back against Russia.
Given Putin’s actions, the former ambassador did not discern any signals suggesting a vested interest in hastening the end of hostilities. She postulates that he might be seeking to elongate the confrontation. Despite this, she holds firmly in the doctrine of U.S. influence in shaping Russia’s behavior in relation to its European counterparts.
She proposed the implementation of additional sanctions, especially targeting Russian energy exports and other financial institutions, as a potentially effective measure given the leverage the U.S. and European allies collectively hold. People often undervalue Russia’s capacity, in her opinion, but Ukraine’s robust military force and determination for independence and a foreseen future can’t be overlooked.
Emphasizing on the righteousness of this approach, the ex-ambassador sees a possibility of persuading Putin to take authentic negotiations seriously. Such maneuvering would have to necessitate a robust show of unity in defense expenditures and cooperation in intelligence amongst the Western nations. In stark contrast, the current administration has fallen short of asserting this level of pressure on Putin.
The President of the United States kept making bidirectional agreements while expecting nothing in return, which fostered an image of feebleness. This was seen when Putin outright rejected a straightforward demand to enact an immediate, non-negotiable one-month ceasefire, or risk fresh sanctions. Such brazen refusal undermines the position of the U.S. President in the eyes of the world.
There is a disconnection in the President’s suggestion of establishing trade relationships with Russia, in spite of the ongoing conflict. This is a glaring contradiction to the view of establishing potential trade with Ukraine, a prospect that hinges on the cessation of the battlefield. To reach the stage of peace demands first a clear identification of the instigator and subsequently, exerting appropriate pressure.
Asserting that no pact would be accepted prematurely until Putin agrees to an absolute cessation of hostilities, the diplomat made it clear that securing peace wouldn’t be a haphazard arrangement. Along with this agreement, expectations would include firm European security assurances, spurred by Washington, along with stringent mechanisms for verification, due to Russia’s history of not honoring agreements.
As past events unravel, it’s evident that Putin’s territorial ambitions won’t be satiated with Ukraine alone. There is an observable pattern of Russia desiring a divided Europe for their geopolitical gains. Aligned with China and North Korea currently, Russia’s aggressive policies also appear to have a broader agenda to subvert global stability.
A prevailing apprehension is that the standing President may continue the policy of attempting to pacify Putin that could even go as far as proposing to retract U.S. military assistance and revoking Russian sanctions for potential agreement. Such actions could greatly impair global balance with serious ramifications.
A unified front from a cross-party group of senators has resulted in the sanctioning of Russia Act of 2025. They demanded the enforceability of sanctions on Russia, conditional to Russia’s refusal to sit at the negotiation table to discuss peace with Ukraine. This bipartisan effort signals a resilient stance against any nation that threatens global peace.