7 Concessions Trump Has Made to Putin Regarding Ukraine
The U.S., previously a strong supporter of Ukraine, has been working to negotiate a resolution to the conflict initiated by the Kremlin's invasion.
TroibNews 
In his pursuit of a historic peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, President Donald Trump has positioned himself as a neutral mediator primarily interested in concluding the three-year conflict.
However, his varied tactics toward the two parties — showing prompt pressure toward the more vulnerable ally, Ukraine, while exercising patience and gentle nudging toward the aggressor, Moscow — reveals his view of a significant power imbalance. As he notably told President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office last month, Ukraine doesn’t “have the cards.”
Indeed, Ukraine relies on defense support from Washington and Europe, making it vulnerable if this drawn-out war continues for years. Yet, Trump has taken several actions that diminish Zelenskyy’s negotiating position.
This week, the U.S. is leading discussions with officials from both Russia and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia, hoping to make strides toward a broader ceasefire. Let’s explore some of the bargaining power Trump has relinquished that could have been utilized to pressure Russia.
Trump has made multiple phone calls to Putin since President Biden cut off communication, indicating his eagerness for improved relations with Russia. His 90-minute conversation with Putin shortly after taking office ended three years of isolation under Biden, who severed dialogue following Putin's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. After Putin declined a 30-day ceasefire agreed upon by the U.S. and Ukraine, Trump had another call on Tuesday, which appeared to exceed the length of the first.
Had Trump delayed his engagement with Putin, he would have held more leverage over the Kremlin to demand additional concessions related to the war.
The conversations between Trump and Putin were merely the beginning. Senior U.S. and Russian officials convened face-to-face in Saudi Arabia in mid-February, outlining a plan to restore bilateral cooperation on several issues, including embassy staffing in Washington and Moscow, potential economic collaboration, and even easing sanctions imposed due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
These initiatives could have been reserved as leverage contingent on a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Their implementation, without Ukraine or European allies at the table, demonstrated a departure from the traditional alignment and coordination with longtime allies.
While Trump has downplayed questions about what concessions Russia should make as part of a peace arrangement, he and his senior aides have firmly stated that Ukraine may need to cede some of its territory currently occupied by Russia. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz described this as “realistic” given the battlefield dynamics after three years of conflict.
In recent comments, Trump has noted discussions concerning which nation would control various regions of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. He even suggested that Ukraine might consider allowing U.S. interests to manage the facility post-war if it aims to retain control over it.
Trump's insistence on exacting a price from Ukraine is framed as a strategy to ensure the U.S. recoups the $120 billion in defense aid provided since the war began. Despite concerns regarding the implications of his stance, Zelenskyy has indicated a willingness to sign a minerals deal to demonstrate commitment to the peace process and Trump’s diplomatic efforts. In contrast, Russia has not made similar concessions.
Trump's approach demonstrates a consistent pattern of exerting maximum pressure on Ukraine while being relatively lenient toward Russia. Following an explosive exchange with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, where he publicly questioned Russia’s commitment to ending the war, Trump temporarily halted all U.S. defense aid and intelligence sharing. These actions were reversed after Ukraine accepted the 30-day ceasefire proposal.
Trump has also echoed Putin’s calls for new elections in Ukraine, a nation unable to conduct elections while under martial law, and at one point referred to the democratically elected Zelenskyy as a “dictator.”
Furthermore, Trump has dismissed the prospect of offering American military support to guarantee Ukraine’s security post-truce, leaving Europe scrambling to bolster its defense budget and production capabilities. The furthest he has gone is proposing an economic agreement that would give the U.S. a stake in Ukraine’s future profits from rare earth minerals — a notion suggested as a means to deter Putin from renewed aggression through the presence of American interests.
“Trump is not demanding from Putin the same level of instant and total agreement he demanded from Zelenskyy,” remarked Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland and now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
Although Trump has threatened Putin with increased economic sanctions through social media, he quickly shifted his stance, implying that Ukraine is more of a hindrance to peace talks. Last week, when Putin refused to fully endorse the 30-day ceasefire agreed upon by the U.S. and Ukraine, Trump refrained from any criticism, instead highlighting Putin's willingness to pause attacks on energy infrastructure as a positive step.
After Trump's call with Putin last Tuesday, the U.S. also withdrew from a multinational group tasked with holding leaders accountable for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including Putin. Additionally, the administration cut funding for Yale University's Humanitarian Research Lab, which had documented the mass deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.
As questions arose from lawmakers, including some from within his party, the administration indicated it was reviewing these decisions. However, they align with the choice of several national security agencies to cease coordinated efforts to counter Russian cyberattacks and disinformation.
Trump's dismissive attitude toward the moral red lines that unified the U.S. and its democratic allies against Russia's invasion for three years has raised concerns. To be an effective impartial mediator, he must not overtly favor one side.
By accepting Putin’s perspective on the war’s "root causes" — asserting that Russia invaded due to Ukraine’s desire to join NATO — the administration has legitimized the Kremlin’s stance that the sovereignty of various former Soviet republics remains contested.
“In my 68 years on this Earth, I’ve never ever seen a situation where there isn’t two sides to a story,” said Trump’s chief negotiator with Russia, Steve Witkoff, in a recent interview. “It’s just never as black and white as people want to portray. So there are grievances on both sides.”
Trump and his team appear to be sidestepping the fundamental impasse at the core of the conflict — Putin’s insistence that Ukraine should not be an independent state, according to Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and current president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
“You’re not going to get a deal without Ukraine agreeing,” Daalder asserted. “The big weakness Trump has is thinking he and Putin can dictate a deal. If he’s not going to provide Ukraine with arms or security guarantees, he’s relinquishing leverage with Zelenskyy, who may choose to reject a one-sided peace agreement and continue fighting with support from Europe.”
Mark B Thomas for TROIB News
However, his varied tactics toward the two parties — showing prompt pressure toward the more vulnerable ally, Ukraine, while exercising patience and gentle nudging toward the aggressor, Moscow — reveals his view of a significant power imbalance. As he notably told President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office last month, Ukraine doesn’t “have the cards.”
Indeed, Ukraine relies on defense support from Washington and Europe, making it vulnerable if this drawn-out war continues for years. Yet, Trump has taken several actions that diminish Zelenskyy’s negotiating position.
This week, the U.S. is leading discussions with officials from both Russia and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia, hoping to make strides toward a broader ceasefire. Let’s explore some of the bargaining power Trump has relinquished that could have been utilized to pressure Russia.
Trump has made multiple phone calls to Putin since President Biden cut off communication, indicating his eagerness for improved relations with Russia. His 90-minute conversation with Putin shortly after taking office ended three years of isolation under Biden, who severed dialogue following Putin's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. After Putin declined a 30-day ceasefire agreed upon by the U.S. and Ukraine, Trump had another call on Tuesday, which appeared to exceed the length of the first.
Had Trump delayed his engagement with Putin, he would have held more leverage over the Kremlin to demand additional concessions related to the war.
The conversations between Trump and Putin were merely the beginning. Senior U.S. and Russian officials convened face-to-face in Saudi Arabia in mid-February, outlining a plan to restore bilateral cooperation on several issues, including embassy staffing in Washington and Moscow, potential economic collaboration, and even easing sanctions imposed due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
These initiatives could have been reserved as leverage contingent on a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Their implementation, without Ukraine or European allies at the table, demonstrated a departure from the traditional alignment and coordination with longtime allies.
While Trump has downplayed questions about what concessions Russia should make as part of a peace arrangement, he and his senior aides have firmly stated that Ukraine may need to cede some of its territory currently occupied by Russia. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz described this as “realistic” given the battlefield dynamics after three years of conflict.
In recent comments, Trump has noted discussions concerning which nation would control various regions of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. He even suggested that Ukraine might consider allowing U.S. interests to manage the facility post-war if it aims to retain control over it.
Trump's insistence on exacting a price from Ukraine is framed as a strategy to ensure the U.S. recoups the $120 billion in defense aid provided since the war began. Despite concerns regarding the implications of his stance, Zelenskyy has indicated a willingness to sign a minerals deal to demonstrate commitment to the peace process and Trump’s diplomatic efforts. In contrast, Russia has not made similar concessions.
Trump's approach demonstrates a consistent pattern of exerting maximum pressure on Ukraine while being relatively lenient toward Russia. Following an explosive exchange with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, where he publicly questioned Russia’s commitment to ending the war, Trump temporarily halted all U.S. defense aid and intelligence sharing. These actions were reversed after Ukraine accepted the 30-day ceasefire proposal.
Trump has also echoed Putin’s calls for new elections in Ukraine, a nation unable to conduct elections while under martial law, and at one point referred to the democratically elected Zelenskyy as a “dictator.”
Furthermore, Trump has dismissed the prospect of offering American military support to guarantee Ukraine’s security post-truce, leaving Europe scrambling to bolster its defense budget and production capabilities. The furthest he has gone is proposing an economic agreement that would give the U.S. a stake in Ukraine’s future profits from rare earth minerals — a notion suggested as a means to deter Putin from renewed aggression through the presence of American interests.
“Trump is not demanding from Putin the same level of instant and total agreement he demanded from Zelenskyy,” remarked Daniel Fried, a former U.S. ambassador to Poland and now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
Although Trump has threatened Putin with increased economic sanctions through social media, he quickly shifted his stance, implying that Ukraine is more of a hindrance to peace talks. Last week, when Putin refused to fully endorse the 30-day ceasefire agreed upon by the U.S. and Ukraine, Trump refrained from any criticism, instead highlighting Putin's willingness to pause attacks on energy infrastructure as a positive step.
After Trump's call with Putin last Tuesday, the U.S. also withdrew from a multinational group tasked with holding leaders accountable for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including Putin. Additionally, the administration cut funding for Yale University's Humanitarian Research Lab, which had documented the mass deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.
As questions arose from lawmakers, including some from within his party, the administration indicated it was reviewing these decisions. However, they align with the choice of several national security agencies to cease coordinated efforts to counter Russian cyberattacks and disinformation.
Trump's dismissive attitude toward the moral red lines that unified the U.S. and its democratic allies against Russia's invasion for three years has raised concerns. To be an effective impartial mediator, he must not overtly favor one side.
By accepting Putin’s perspective on the war’s "root causes" — asserting that Russia invaded due to Ukraine’s desire to join NATO — the administration has legitimized the Kremlin’s stance that the sovereignty of various former Soviet republics remains contested.
“In my 68 years on this Earth, I’ve never ever seen a situation where there isn’t two sides to a story,” said Trump’s chief negotiator with Russia, Steve Witkoff, in a recent interview. “It’s just never as black and white as people want to portray. So there are grievances on both sides.”
Trump and his team appear to be sidestepping the fundamental impasse at the core of the conflict — Putin’s insistence that Ukraine should not be an independent state, according to Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and current president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
“You’re not going to get a deal without Ukraine agreeing,” Daalder asserted. “The big weakness Trump has is thinking he and Putin can dictate a deal. If he’s not going to provide Ukraine with arms or security guarantees, he’s relinquishing leverage with Zelenskyy, who may choose to reject a one-sided peace agreement and continue fighting with support from Europe.”
Mark B Thomas for TROIB News
