Trump-Putin Gambit: Scenarios and Stakes for Ukraine
The clash of Trump’s transactional diplomacy and Putin’s attrition strategy at the upcoming summit places Ukraine at risk of an imposed peace or the possibility of unprecedented pressure on Russia.
The forthcoming summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin represents a collision of two incompatible approaches: Trump’s transactional diplomacy, aimed at securing a quick “deal,” and Putin’s attrition strategy, for whom negotiations are merely a tactic to achieve military objectives.
Donald Trump: How the Transactional Disruptor Operates
Donald Trump’s foreign policy is driven by the realist doctrine of “America First,” characterized by an isolationist approach toward Europe and a view of international cooperation as a zero-sum game unless it directly serves U.S. interests. He prioritizes personal, high-level meetings with “tough leaders,” believing that his personal negotiation skills can resolve complex conflicts that have resisted traditional diplomacy for years. This approach is rooted in the conviction that personal relationships with leaders can overcome deep structural differences between states.
A critical pattern in Trump’s diplomacy is what can be described as the “disappointment-coercion cycle.” This cycle begins with friendly gestures and attempts to establish personal rapport, expecting a swift “deal.” However, when his counterpart demonstrates intransigence, as Putin has done according to analytical reports, Trump perceives this not merely as a diplomatic failure but as a personal affront and public humiliation. His response involves a dramatic shift to coercive measures. He is inclined to wield economic weapons, such as tariffs and secondary sanctions, to compel the other party to comply with his demands. A vivid example is his decision to target India over its purchase of Russian oil, which was a way to express his frustration directly with Putin.
Despite significant control over his party, Trump is not entirely free from domestic constraints. There is strong bipartisan momentum in Congress for a hardline stance toward Russia, exemplified, for instance, by the proposed Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill. This bill could force Trump to act or limit his ability to offer concessions to Moscow, even if he desires to do so.
Patient Revisionist: Vladimir Putin Constantly Tests the Limits of the Permissible
Vladimir Putin’s primary goal is not merely territorial conquest but the complete destruction of Ukrainian statehood, which he views as an “existential threat” to Russia and a “geopolitical catastrophe.” His military objectives are maximalist: the complete capture of the four annexed regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson) is a minimum requirement, not the ultimate goal.
Putin views diplomacy not as a tool for compromise but as an extension of war by other means. His strategy involves acting slowly, feigning interest to keep Trump engaged in the negotiation process, and using this process to shift expectations and extract unilateral concessions. He aims to leverage negotiations to legitimize his conquests and impose a peace settlement on Ukraine according to Russia’s scenario, ideally with Trump as the enforcer.
The Kremlin is confident that it will win a war of attrition and is deeply skeptical of the impact of further sanctions, as the Russian economy has adapted, and Moscow has found alternative supply chains. Putin believes time is on his side and that he can outlast Western resolve. He views Trump’s threats as potentially empty, pointing to his history of unfulfilled promises.
The World Remembers a Historical Precedent: The Ghost of Helsinki (2018)
The 2018 Helsinki summit is a key precedent for analyzing the upcoming meeting. Its format, dynamics, and outcomes offer critical lessons. A defining feature was the two-hour face-to-face meeting with only interpreters present, without aides or note-takers. This raised serious concerns within the U.S. security establishment, as it created an information vacuum and heightened the risk of unverified agreements. This format demonstrated Trump’s preference for personal diplomacy that bypasses institutional processes.
In terms of dynamics, the summit was a “strategic victory for Russia.” Putin was disciplined and well-prepared, while Trump acted indulgently, notably siding with Putin against his own intelligence agencies on the issue of election interference. This behavior triggered a massive political backlash in the U.S. from both Democrats and Republicans.
Despite its spectacle, the summit produced no concrete agreements. Putin made no concessions, and Trump failed to press on key issues, such as the downing of MH-17 or the annexation of Crimea. This underscores a key risk: the summit could be a “victory” for Putin simply by virtue of taking place, as it elevates Russia to the status of an equal to the U.S. on the world stage, a long-standing Kremlin goal.
The fundamental dynamic of the upcoming summit will be shaped by a clash of time horizons and objectives. Trump seeks a quick, visible “win” to fulfill his campaign promise. In contrast, Putin adheres to a strategy of protracted war, using negotiations as a tactic to buy time.
Trump’s persona, built on the image of a master dealmaker who can solve problems “in 24 hours,” makes a prolonged, inconclusive process a political defeat for him. Putin’s strategy, as described by think tanks like Chatham House and the Atlantic Council, is based on the belief that he will win a war of attrition and that time favors Russia. He has no incentive to resolve the conflict quickly on any terms but his own.
Thus, the summit is structurally primed for a collision. Putin is likely to offer minor, symbolic concessions (e.g., an “energy truce”) to sustain Trump’s interest, while Trump will grow increasingly frustrated by the lack of a substantive breakthrough. This frustration is a direct trigger for a shift to coercion, as has been observed. Consequently, Ukrainian and Western policymakers must prepare for this predictable cycle. The initial stages of dialogue between Trump and Putin are likely to appear dangerously conciliatory toward Russia, but this could be a prelude to a significantly tougher U.S. stance if Putin overplays his hand and fails to deliver a “win” that saves Trump’s face.
The World Awaits the Summit’s Outcome: Agenda, Dynamics, and Potential Results
The summit’s agenda will be a battlefield in itself, as each side seeks to impose its vision of priorities and desired outcomes.
U.S. Objectives (Trump): The primary goal is to secure a “deal” to end the war. This includes a ceasefire, halting civilian deaths (which Trump called “disgusting”), and creating the appearance of a major foreign policy triumph. For Trump, the substance of the deal is secondary to the fact of achieving it. His motivation is deeply personal and political: to fulfill a promise made to his voters.
Russia’s Objectives (Putin): The agenda is a tool to achieve military goals. Putin will insist on U.S. recognition of Russian control over occupied territories, a permanent block on Ukraine’s NATO membership, and the lifting of sanctions. He will also demand the cessation of U.S. military aid to Ukraine as a precondition for talks, which is unacceptable for any serious negotiation process.
Discussions may touch on broader strategic cooperation, arms control, and energy markets. However, these topics will be secondary to the central issue of Ukraine. Putin is likely to use offers of cooperation in other areas (e.g., the Middle East) as a tactic to placate Trump without making concessions on Ukraine. The leaders’ behavior during the summit will be as critical as the substance of their talks. The meeting’s format and personal diplomatic styles will shape its trajectory.
Face-to-Face Format: A repeat of the Helsinki-style private meeting is highly likely, given Trump’s preferences and Putin’s strategic interest in excluding other parties. This format maximizes the risk of unverified concessions and misinterpretation, as the absence of official records precludes accountability.
Putin’s Tactics: Putin will be disciplined, well-informed, and likely outmaneuver an underprepared Trump. He will use flattery and feigned agreement to manage Trump’s ego while stalling for time and making maximalist demands. He may offer a temporary, partial ceasefire (e.g., halting missile strikes on cities while continuing ground offensives) as a symbolic concession to test Trump’s resolve.
Trump’s Response: Trump’s behavior will be volatile. Initially, he may praise Putin and claim “great progress,” as he did after his envoy Witkoff’s meeting with Putin. However, as Putin’s intransigence becomes apparent, this is likely to shift to public expressions of anger and frustration (“a lot of crap that Putin threw at us”), leading to the application of coercive threats. This volatility makes the summit’s outcomes highly unpredictable.
Ukraine at a Crossroads: Risks, Opportunities, and Agency
The greatest risk for Ukraine lies in a bilateral agreement concluded behind its back, where Trump and Putin agree on the contours of a settlement that sacrifices Ukrainian sovereignty and territory for the sake of a “great power peace.” Trump’s transactional approach, impatience, and desire for a quick win make him particularly vulnerable to a deal that appears successful on the surface but is catastrophic for Kyiv. Such an agreement, reminiscent of the Yalta Conference where the fates of smaller nations were decided without their participation, is a major concern for Ukraine’s leadership and society.
Specific risks include territorial concessions, as Trump may agree to recognize Russian control over Crimea and possibly other occupied territories as a “realistic” outcome to expedite the conclusion of a deal. There is a threat of enforced neutrality, as the agreement could formally enshrine Ukraine’s non-aligned status, permanently closing its path to NATO without providing the ironclad security guarantees demanded by Kyiv. Additionally, there is the likelihood of premature sanctions relief. Trump may propose lifting sanctions in exchange for a fragile, easily reversible ceasefire, which would deprive the West of a key leverage point against Moscow and allow Russia to rebuild its military capacity.
While Trump’s approach is dangerous, his frustration with Putin creates unique opportunities for Ukraine. An affronted Trump may be willing to apply forms of pressure that a more cautious administration would avoid due to fears of escalation. This paradoxical situation could turn the greatest threat into an unexpected advantage.
So, there are also predictable opportunities. Primarily, this includes advanced weaponry, as a shift in Trump’s policy involves the sale of advanced American weapons to European allies for onward transfer to Ukraine. Additionally, the U.S. may resort to crippling economic pressure. Trump’s threats of “harsh” secondary sanctions and tariffs against Russia’s trading partners (such as India and China), if fully implemented, could deal a severe blow to Russia’s war economy. Furthermore, an attack on the “shadow fleet” can be expected, as coordinated U.S.-EU efforts to crack down on Russia’s “shadow fleet” of oil tankers could significantly undermine Moscow’s primary revenue source funding the war.
Europe Balances Between War Fatigue and Renewed Resolve
Key European allies, including the UK, France, and Germany, find themselves in a complex position. On one hand, there is “war fatigue” and a desire for peace, even if imperfect. On the other hand, there is growing recognition that Europe must enhance its own role and fill the gap left by unpredictable U.S. policy.
This balance forces European leaders to resort to so-called “checkbook diplomacy.” They agree to unfavorable trade deals and increased defense spending to keep Trump engaged in European security and support for Ukraine. The EU-U.S. trade deal, which imposes 15% tariffs on many European goods, is a clear example. While economically disadvantageous for Europe, EU officials openly stated that this deal is “about security” and “about Ukraine.”
Despite their concerns, European leaders have also hardened their stance toward Russia. They have issued their own ultimatums and coordinated with the U.S. on potential sanctions and arms transfers. The EU’s willingness to impose sanctions on Russia’s “shadow fleet” and consider using frozen Russian assets reflects growing resolve.
Transatlantic relations during Trump’s second term will be defined by transactional and coercive dynamics. European contributions to security will be directly exchanged for U.S. engagement and favorable economic terms. This fundamentally alters the nature of the alliance, making it more fragile and less based on trust. European support for Ukraine ceases to be solely a matter of shared values; it becomes a “payment” for maintaining the U.S. security umbrella and avoiding punitive tariffs.
Domestic Front: Constraints on Trump and Putin
Trump faces pressure from Congress, which has demonstrated support for tough measures against Russia that could override a veto. His own base has grown more skeptical of NATO, but a deal with Putin perceived as “weak” could still be politically damaging for him. Trump must balance his “dealmaker” rhetoric with the need to avoid appearing to capitulate to a long-standing U.S. adversary.
Putin’s regime is consolidated but not immune to pressure points. The war economy creates winners but also risks inflation and strain on non-military sectors. The prospect of demobilizing hundreds of thousands of veterans poses significant social and security risks, as these individuals could become a source of instability. Most critically, Putin’s belief in victory rests on the assumption that Russian society can endure extraordinary human losses. If this resilience falters, his position could weaken.
The Future of European Security Is Being Shaped Today
The Trump-Putin summit, regardless of its outcome, will be a watershed for European security. A “successful” deal imposed on Ukraine would dismantle the post-Cold War order and legitimize revisionist aggression, encouraging other actors to follow suit. A “failed” summit leading to heightened U.S. pressure could escalate the conflict but also potentially create conditions for a more sustainable peace by degrading Russia’s war-making capacity. In either case, this episode will serve as a powerful catalyst for Europe to accelerate its move toward strategic autonomy.
The central dynamic of the upcoming meeting is defined by the conflict between Trump’s transactional, ego-driven diplomacy, aimed at a quick and visible “deal,” and Putin’s intransigent, maximalist military strategy, which views negotiations as a tool for stalling and achieving military goals.
The primary risk for Ukraine lies in an imposed “great power peace” negotiated behind Kyiv’s back, potentially leading to territorial concessions and loss of sovereignty in exchange for an illusion of stability. This outcome is entirely plausible given Trump’s penchant for bilateral deals without involving stakeholders and his impatience. However, Putin’s intransigence creates a paradoxical opportunity. If Putin fails to deliver a deal that Trump can present as a victory, Trump’s personal offense and political humiliation could trigger a sharp shift to unprecedented coercion.
For Ukraine and its Western partners, navigating this volatile diplomatic landscape will require a dual strategy. First, they must categorically insist on a trilateral negotiation format that includes President Zelenskyy. Second, they should prepare to leverage Trump’s predictable “disappointment-coercion cycle.” Ultimately, this summit, regardless of its outcome, will be a turning point that accelerates Europe’s move toward strategic autonomy, underscoring the unreliability of dependence on Washington’s transactional and unpredictable policy.
Ihor Petrenko, founder of the “United Ukraine” Think Tank, Doctor of Political Sciences