The vast and ruthless plains of Ukraine are now scarred by over two years of ruthless conflict, becoming President Donald Trump’s war through a series of cascading decisions and inevitable realities.
Indeed, the most powerful office in the world does not always afford its occupant the luxury of choice. President Trump is now mandated to confront the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, a direct consequence of the United States’ prior involvement, under his predecessor, as Ukraine’s essential ally and sponsor. This complex inheritance means that even a desire to disengage cannot simply erase the historical entanglement.
President Trump’s initial approach was shaped by his personal conviction that he could end the war in 24 hours, a bold statement later adjusted to 100 days.
1.During this period, he also vigorously pressed NATO allies, demanding that they increase their contributions to Europe’s defense. This pressure yielded results, as these nations did indeed pay more. Yet, the subsequent hard slog of diplomacy, despite considerable effort, ultimately produced very little tangible progress, setting the stage for the current pivotal moment.
It is, however, in the last fortnight that President Trump’s executive decisions and critical realizations have truly transformed this foreign conflict into a problem he now unequivocally owns. He has observed, firsthand, that Vladimir Putin harbors no genuine desire for peace. Simultaneously, he has acknowledged Ukraine’s urgent and critical need for military arms, and while his initial efforts to assist were described as lackluster, a significant shift in posture has emerged.
Perhaps the most remarkable of these choices involved a direct response to the typically dismissed nuclear saber-rattling from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. In a stark escalation, President Trump countered with harder nuclear threats, publicly discussing the strategic positioning of US nuclear submarines closer to Russia. This rapid escalation saw the United States transition from pausing military aid to Ukraine to threatening nuclear force against Russia in less than a month, marking a dramatic shift in policy.
2.To avoid what has been termed another “TACO” moment—an acronym for Trump Always Chickens Out—the President will likely need to cause some discomfort, and in turn, will probably experience some backlash himself. Alternatively, he might seek an off-ramp if one is extended to his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, during an anticipated visit to Moscow this week.
This potential off-ramp could manifest as President Trump accepting a bilateral meeting with President Putin, framing it as a sign of progress toward peace. However, even such a concession would leave his indelible imprint on the war, echoing the profound sentiment expressed by former US Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding Iraq: if the United States breaks it, they own it. This principle applies equally to the current quagmire.
President Trump, by his very nature, seeks to be the fulcrum of all major decisions and the lightning rod for attention on any given issue. Every significant turning point in this conflict so far has revolved around his personal choice and predilection. This brings into sharp focus a key lesson of the American presidency: the occupant of the White House does not get to choose which problems are theirs to solve and which they can simply ignore.
The “MAGA’s America First” platform, while advocating for a reduction in Washington’s global footprint, does not permit President Trump to claim sole ownership of his successes while disavowing his failures. Unless the footprint of American power globally is reduced to zero – a notion incompatible with a presidential personality compelled to “do” and agitate – there will always be certain international problems that are inherently America’s to address.
3.President Trump frequently states his desire for wars to cease. However, this aspiration alone is insufficient. The wars, particularly the one in Ukraine, have not simply complied with this wish. This reality is not unique to his presidency; former US President Barack Obama, for instance, inherited ongoing conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama swiftly withdrew from Iraq but doubled down with a troop surge in Afghanistan, a strategy that ultimately proved ineffective. Afghanistan, a quagmire he had inherited, unequivocally became Obama’s war. In turn, that very mess was passed to President Trump, who then tasked his quick fix solution to President Biden, culminating in the chaotic collapse of August 2021, an event widely paraded by Republicans as a Democrat failing.
Now, President Trump finds himself facing the very same problem of inheriting a profound crisis. He cannot simply wish or cajole the conflict to an end. The very battlefield deaths he mourns have sown deep damage and grief across vast distances, transforming this into an existential war of survival for the Kremlin and, profoundly, for the very soul of Ukrainian society.
4.President Trump articulated his reasoning for the accelerated timeline, stating, “There’s no reason in waiting. We just don’t see any progress being made.” He expressed his frustration, noting, “We thought we had [the peace agreement] settled numerous times, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city like Kyiv and kills a lot of people in a nursing home.” He concluded by stating that if a peace agreement is not reached, the U.S. would consider “sanctions and maybe tariffs.”
This tightened ultimatum followed a previous agreement made by President Trump on July 14, where he committed to sending defense aid to Ukraine. This new weapons package notably includes Patriot missiles. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of State announced an additional aid package, which would see the U.S. supplying HAWK Phase III surface-to-air missile systems to Ukraine. These advanced air defense technologies are deemed critical for Ukraine’s ability to counter Russia’s relentless aerial attacks.
In a strategic move to replenish American stockpiles, the Trump administration also unveiled a new defense cooperation initiative. Under this plan, NATO member states would purchase U.S. weapons. These weapons, once acquired by NATO members, would then be transferred through Europe directly to Ukraine, providing essential assistance to Ukrainian forces as they continue to defend their nation against Russia’s ongoing invasion.
Explaining this decision to reporters, President Trump stated, “We are going to send some more weapons [to Ukraine]. We have to. [The Ukrainians] have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard.” These latest developments signal a noticeable evolution in the Trump administration’s approach to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
5.During his 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, Trump had famously vowed to terminate the war in Ukraine within “24 hours” if elected president. He also promised to compel both Russian and Ukrainian officials to negotiate a ceasefire. Following his re-election, the U.S. president appointed key individuals, including retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg and lawyer Steven Witkoff, to serve as his envoys with the mission of ending the conflict. Additionally, Trump issued several ultimatums to Russia should a peace agreement not be achieved.
However, the negotiation process has proven exceedingly challenging. For nearly six months, senior officials from the Trump administration have diligently mediated peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. This initial process commenced in February in Saudi Arabia, where senior U.S. officials first engaged with their Russian counterparts before holding separate meetings with the Ukrainians.
Despite sustained diplomatic efforts, the peace process has seen few tangible results, with international monitors consistently documenting numerous Russian violations of ceasefire agreements, even during sacred holidays.
6.Adding to the frustration, while Ukrainian officials have maintained continuous engagement with their American counterparts, the Russian Federation has demonstrably intensified its strikes on civilian areas across Ukraine. These bombardments have tragically resulted in the deaths of dozens of Ukrainians, and the relentless Russian attacks show no signs of abating. This persistent aggression has reportedly caused significant frustration among several American officials, prompting President Trump’s decision to provide additional defense aid to Ukraine and to seriously consider new sanctions and tariffs on the Russian Federation.
The next 10 to 12 days are critical for determining Russia’s conduct and whether meaningful progress toward peace can truly be achieved.
Indeed, not long after he issued the 10-day ultimatum to Russia, President Donald Trump stated unequivocally on July 31 that the United States would “put sanctions” on Moscow due to its lack of movement toward a ceasefire or a comprehensive peace deal with Kyiv. Simultaneously, he expressed uncertainty about whether financial punishments would genuinely compel Russian President Vladimir Putin toward a truce.
He informed reporters that his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, would travel to Moscow after completing a trip to Israel, where he arrived on August 1. Should President Trump impose sanctions on Russia either before or after the 10-day deadline passes on August 8, it would mark the first time he has penalized the Kremlin in the more than six months since he assumed office in January, following campaign promises to swiftly broker an end to the largest war in Europe since 1945.
7.The threat of new sanctions looms as Russia continues its advance and pounds Ukrainian cities with devastating airstrikes, a situation Trump himself characterized as ‘disgusting’.
The potential visit of Witkoff remains speculative, possibly representing a last-ditch effort to persuade the Kremlin before the deadline, though a breakthrough appears unlikely.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently revealed that unannounced talks this week with “some of Putin’s top people” yielded no progress toward “arriving at some understanding on a path forward that would lead to peace.” Moreover, three previous rounds of direct talks held in Istanbul in May and June also failed, leaving Russia and Ukraine “miles apart on key hurdles to any cease-fire or comprehensive peace agreement.”
8.Even before his election, President Trump proposed a strategy combining sanctions on Russia with support for Kyiv, mainly through weapons supplies, to push both nations toward a peace deal, though the extent of his willingness for arms deliveries remains unclear.
Instead, he outlined an arrangement whereby NATO members would send existing weapons, such as Patriot missile systems, to Ukraine and then backfill their own arsenals by purchasing new ones from the United States. Alternatively, NATO members could simply buy US weapons directly and ship them to Kyiv. However, questions persist regarding the volume of weapons that will reach Ukraine through this mechanism in the near future, and critically, how quickly they will arrive.
Significantly, President Trump has not yet authorized new arms deliveries to Ukraine under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), a program frequently utilized by his predecessor, Joe Biden, which empowers the president to send weapons directly from existing US stockpiles. When Trump took office, approximately $4 billion was available under this crucial PDA.
On the battlefield, Ukrainian forces have achieved few significant gains since a major counteroffensive largely fizzled in 2023. Since then, Russia has incrementally seized additional territory, albeit slowly and at a staggering cost in terms of casualties. When President Trump initially announced the 50-day deadline on July 14, critics voiced concerns that it would grant Russia more time to advance further before facing sanctions or other countermeasures, thereby weakening Kyiv’s negotiating position.
9.The much shorter deadline announced this week partially mitigates those concerns. Analysts, however, generally agree that Russia currently lacks the capacity to seize the entirety of what it baselessly claims as its own—the mainland regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya, and Kherson, in addition to Crimea—anytime soon. Yet, Russia has shown no signs of slackening its ground offensive efforts, and there is no indication that the August 8 deadline, or the sanctions likely to follow, will alter this reality.
Indeed, AFP reported on August 1, citing its own research, that Russia launched more drones at Ukraine in July than in any preceding month since its 2022 invasion. On the same day, President Putin exuded confidence, asserting that Moscow’s war goals remain unchanged while claiming that Russian forces are advancing along the entire front line, despite what he described as the West’s concerted desire to impede their progress. “In the coming months, Russia will increase pressure on Ukraine and will, of course, attempt a new offensive before the cold sets in,” Preobrazhensky reiterated.
The human cost of this relentless conflict continues to mount. On Tuesday morning, President Zelenskyy announced that 22 people had been killed by Russian strikes across Ukraine over the preceding 24 hours. “Every killing of our people by the Russians, every Russian strike, when a ceasefire could have long been in place if Russia had not refused, all this indicates that Moscow deserves very harsh, truly painful and therefore fair and effective sanctions pressure,” the president passionately stated in a Telegram post.
10.President Zelenskyy and his chief of staff welcomed President Trump’s announcement with cautious optimism, while the Kremlin merely ‘took note’ of the statement.
Contrastingly, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a hawkish voice within Putin’s security establishment, framed Trump’s challenge as a perilous escalation. “Trump’s playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10,” Medvedev wrote on X. He issued a sharp warning: “He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!” This stark retort underscores the high-stakes, direct confrontation now unfolding.
The conflict in Ukraine is now closely intertwined with President Trump’s term and is a critical moment. This is a decisive test of American strength, diplomatic influence, and presidential will. The road ahead is full of complexity, requiring shrewd navigation through the rigorous calculations of international alliances, economic realities, and military conflicts. The international community holds its breath as President Trump fully masters this historical challenge, the outcome of which will affect several generations. It cannot be denied that his legacy as president and the future of European security depend on the balance of these upcoming critical days.
