The President’s approach to Russian President Vladimir Putin shifted significantly this month. For the first time since his return to the White House, he not only affirmed his support for Ukraine through a NATO arms agreement but also issued an ultimatum to the Kremlin leader.
This warning delivered a clear message: Russia must either enter into a peace deal with Ukraine or face severe sanctions targeting its primary export, oil sales.
While the move has been praised by some, others have questioned whether it will be sufficient to deter Putin’s war ambitions in Ukraine. One security expert, however, maintains that the plan will be effective, though it may take years to yield results.
“I think it will be effective, and he’s going to stick to that strategy. He’s going to continue to push Putin to return to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith, not come to the bargaining table, make promises that the Russians don’t plan on keeping,” Fred Fleitz, who previously served as a deputy assistant to Trump and chief of staff of the National Security Council during the president’s first term, told Digital.
“That’s something Trump’s not going to tolerate,” Fleitz added. “We will see this is just the first six months of the Trump presidency. This may take a couple of years to solve.”
Despite Trump campaigning on the premise of ending the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, this has proven more complex than suggested on the campaign trail. Nonetheless, his approach to Europe has received backing, including from a staunch Trump supporter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
“We do not want to give or sell weapons to Ukraine or be involved in any foreign wars or continue the never-ending flow of foreign aid,” Greene stated on X. “We want to solve our own problems plaguing our own people.”
Fleitz highlighted Trump’s decision to execute a direct strike on Iran, arguing it demonstrated Trump’s agility as a leader.
“He looked at the intelligence and realized it was getting too close, and he decided to adjust his policy, which was first diplomacy,” Fleitz explained.
“But Trump also specified something very important. He said to his supporters, ‘I came up with a concept of the America-first approach to U.S. national security, and I decide what’s in it,” Fleitz further noted. “He has ownership of this approach, and he will adjust if necessary.”
Although Trump had consistently articulated on the campaign trail his desire for Europe to take a leading role in the war in Ukraine, last week he contradicted a significant talking point from some within his own party.
Senator J.D. Vance has opposed arming Ukraine, stating in an op-ed last year, “[It] is not just a matter of dollars. Fundamentally, we lack the capacity to manufacture the amount of weapons Ukraine needs us to supply to win the war.”
Trump agreed to sell top U.S. arms that will then be supplied to Ukraine.
“We want to defend our country. But, ultimately, having a strong Europe is a very good thing,” Trump remarked, seated alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Security experts have broadly asserted that the future of Ukraine’s negotiating leverage and, ultimately, the cessation of the war, will depend on military support.
On Thursday, John Hardie, deputy director of FDD’s Russia Program, informed U.S. lawmakers at the Helsinki Commission, also known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, during a defense briefing that Ukraine must be supplied with long-range strike capabilities capable of hitting key Russian missile and drone plants.
“Ukraine shouldn’t be restricted merely to shooting down ‘arrows’,” Hardie said. “An optimal approach will combine both offense and defense. Ukraine needs to be able to hit the ‘archer’ and the factories that make the ‘arrows.'”
“Putin will continue his unprovoked war so long as he believes it’s sustainable and offers a pathway to achieving his goals,” Hardie contended. “By shoring up Ukraine’s defense of its skies and enabling Ukraine to inflict growing costs on Russia’s war machine, as well as pressuring the Russian economy and exhausting its potential on the ground, we may be able to change that calculus.”
However, Fleitz, who serves as vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, believes this conflict will only conclude once an armistice agreement is secured.
“I think there’s probably going to be an armistice where both sides will agree to suspend the fighting,” Fleitz said. “Someday, we will find a line where both nations will agree to stop fighting.”
Ultimately, he envisions this occurring through Ukraine agreeing to a specific temporary arrangement, with Moscow understanding that Kyiv will be heavily armed by Western allies.
“I think there’s a way to do this where Russia wouldn’t be concerned about growing Western European influence in Ukraine, and Ukraine would not be worried that Russia will invade once a ceasefire or armistice is declared,” he added. “Maybe this is a pipe dream, but I think that’s the most realistic way to stop the fighting.
“We know from history conflicts like this take time; peacemaking takes time,” Fleitz concluded. “I think that over time, Trump is going to have an effect on Putin.”