Trump's Dance with Putin: A Tale of Uncertainty and Confusion
"Trump is intensely under attack and harshly criticizing himself"
The US President, Donald Trump, is stepping into some serious diplomatic chess with both Moscow and Beijing, according to Thomas Jäger, an expert in international relations. But is Trump's approach more of a fumble than a finesse move?
ntv.de: What's the deal with Trump and Putin?
For Trump, securing a ceasefire in Ukraine is key. By doing so, he can then sidestep supporting Ukraine, as he had promised during his campaign. Plus, he'd have the possibility of engaging in business with Russia, a declared intent of his. Additionally, a Nobel Peace Prize might be on the cards, though that's unlikely, says Jäger.
Does Putin play along with Trump's game?
Not really. Russia's interests haven't changed, and Putin sees Trump as an opportunity to re-establish Russia as a global power, in collaboration with China. Both nations are interested in establishing an authoritarian international order, free from the fear of popular dissent. Achieving this goal includes political dominance over Europe, and Trump, with his estrangement of the US from its European allies, could potentially hand over part, if not all, of Europe to Russia. Why should Putin give up any advantage?
Is Trump willingly helping Putin divide Europe?
We can't be certain. Trump presents two images of himself: the business-savvy dealmaker and the chaotic disruptor. The problem lies in the fact that Trump seems to be chasing an unrealistic dream, with all he's creating being chaos, benefiting Russia and China. His government lacks a clear strategy, and its members are always contradicting each other.
Is this chaotic communication just part of Trump's propaganda strategy?
Communication chaos is indeed a part of Trump's propaganda strategy. Whether he intends to create chaos deliberately or to distract from his policies is questionable. His trade policy, for instance, is far from clear. By using tariffs as a sledgehammer, Trump is deterring investments instead of attracting them, as his predecessor Joe Biden would have done with subsidies.
What about security policy?
Regarding the war in Ukraine, Trump's strategy is flawed. His administration suggests a sequence where pressure is put on Ukraine first, followed by negotiations. But this approach is rushed and lacks thoughtfulness, as Russia can easily counter any US pressure with Chinese support. Trump still gives the impression of being on the offensive, but in reality, he's struggling to keep up.
Trump recently threatened Putin with new sanctions, yet the US economy is already suffering from trade policies. Will the sanctions materialize?
The newly proposed sanctions are more likely to come from the Senate rather than the government. If passed, these sanctions could be devastating for companies dealing with Russia. Trump has only offered the carrot so far, like exempting Russia from US tariffs. Whether Trump will now use the stick remains to be seen.
Could Ukraine use Trump's frustration over the conflict to keep the US at the negotiating table until Biden's military aid runs out?
Trump's Ukraine policy depends entirely on his Russia policy. Trump wants to cooperate with Putin, even if it means sacrificing Ukraine. If Trump changes his stance toward Russia, it will be a challenge for him to explain this shift to his voters, who have been convinced that Ukraine is taking advantage of the US. It seems unlikely that Trump will provide additional military aid to Ukraine, and Kyiv might have to explore other avenues for support if that happens.
Lea Verstl spoke with Thomas Hunter
Sources: ntv.de
Enrichment Data:
Overall:
The Trump administration's approach to US-Russia relations involves a strategic shift towards cooperation, particularly in resolving the conflict in Ukraine and easing sanctions in return for Russian cooperation[2]. This shift, however, has been met with criticism due to concerns about eroding collective security and empowering Russian revanchism in Ukraine [1][2].
Impact on Ukraine Conflict
A Moscow-Washington peace framework disclosed in April 2025 negotiations included a ceasefire along current battle lines, US recognition of Russia’s 2014 Crimea annexation, and Ukrainian neutrality regarding NATO membership[1]. Critical Russian demands (e.g., Ukrainian demilitarization, territorial adjustments) remain unresolved[1][2]. The deal, however, collapsed due to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy's rejection of Crimea concessions, leading Trump to blame Kyiv for derailing talks[1].
Broader Foreign Policy Shifts
The Trump administration's emphasis on transactional diplomacy has strained transatlantic alliances, with European partners perceiving US-Russia détente as undermining collective security[2]. This shift aligns with a retrenchment from Europe to counter China, though critics argue it empowers Russian revisionism in Ukraine and beyond[2]. Russia's long-term goals—dominance over Ukraine and weakening US influence in Europe—are indirectly advanced by this strategy[2].
Trade and Sanctions
The proposed peace deal includes easing sanctions imposed since 2014, contingent on ceasefire adherence[1]. This suggests a linkage between conflict resolution and US-Russia economic relations, though the specifics of trade remain unclear. The administration's coercive stance towards Kyiv—threatening reduced military support—further signals a prioritization of US-Russia negotiations over traditional alliances[2].
This realignment risks fragmenting NATO cohesion while offering Moscow geopolitical leverage it has sought since 2014[1][2].
- The EC countries, as part of the transatlantic alliance, are closely watching the developments in US-Russia relations, particularly concerning the Ukraine conflict and its potential impact on employment policies in European nations.
- Some political analysts suggest that Putin may exploit Trump's chaotic communication strategy to further strengthen Russia's position in global politics, potentially leading to a shift in migration patterns within Europe.
- The uncertainty surrounding Trump's approach to employment policy, both domestically and internationally, has raised concerns about the potential weakening of collective employment policies within the EC, particularly in relationship to Russia's interests.
- The possibility of a re-established authoritarian international order, as proposed by Russia and China, could have significant implications for employment policies within the EC, potentially leading to a rise in political dissent and instability.
