Weekly Briefing: The Deep Logic Behind Trump's Ukraine Shift
The White House isn’t retreating. It’s wielding power at arm’s length.
The war on Ukraine’s eastern front is proving to be the toughest foreign policy test yet for President Trump. Since he’s been in office, there’s been a slight thaw in relations between Moscow and Washington, and for a while, the Russian side sensed an opportunity to restore a degree of ‘relative normality,’ with Ukraine’s eventual capitulation back on the cards. Trump’s threats to cancel military aid to Ukraine and throw doubt over US commitments to NATO’s Article 5 were music to Putin’s ears.
But nothing is so simple in international politics.
Because when it comes to US foreign policy objectives, we’re talking about a river, not a stream. Let me explain.
US foreign policy is not (as much as Trump would like it to be) driven by a single person, let alone a group of people. For better or worse, it’s much more complex than that.
It’s driven by layers upon layers of historical and geo-strategic principles and evolving priorities that remain fairly constant, from administration to administration. The geopolitical problem set faced by Bush, Obama, Trump 1.0, Biden and now Trump 2.0 hasn’t fundamentally changed all that much. Neither have the tools of power and international relations changed that much.
Most of this comes down to the fact that the US hasn’t moved.
I mean that in three ways:
1. The US hasn’t moved…physically. Sounds strange and obvious, I know, but think about it: The United States still exists on the North American continent, surrounded by the World’s largest ocean to the West, the Atlantic Ocean to the East (waving across at the Europeans), Mexico to the South, and friendly Canada to the North. The perfect geographical and political neighbourhood that isn’t changing anytime soon.
2. The US hasn’t moved economically. Despite some major global economic shocks, the US remains the global economic superpower and will likely remain so for decades to come. The closest potential economic rival – China – is facing medium-term demographic decline, and an economy that isn’t just beginning to slow, but actually reversing. Over the next decade, China will lose tens of millions of working-age adults while gaining over 130 million senior citizens, placing enormous strain on its economy. On top of this, trade wars and US containment strategies mean that China’s rise is actively being checked.
3. The US hasn’t moved militarily. Combine the only two potential rivals – China and Russia, and you don’t even make up close to half of US defence spending, and that’s not considering global force projection capabilities and access to advanced technologies, things that China and Russia lack.
The takeaway?
The US’s relative power has always been shifting – waxing and waning from the depths of the Cold War and bipolarity to the unipolar moment at the turn of the Century, to today with great power competition and multipolarity… through all of this, it’s always maintained a position of relative power across the board – and that counts when it comes to Ukraine.
The US likely sees Ukraine as the perfect test case for continued US power dominance through offshoring and delegating its regional defence to European and NATO allies: let Russia fight Ukraine, let China struggle for regional influence – but always maintain geo-strategic distance. That doesn’t necessarily mean sitting back and funding forever wars.
It means actively shaping outcomes and ensuring a strong hand for the United States, and the constant ‘winnability’ of these regional conflicts. That means winnability on American terms, not on Zelensky’s and certainly not on Putin’s.
Trump’s apparent U-turn on Ukraine military supplies this week may be a window into this calculus. The new formula puts more responsibility and burden-sharing on the European allies, who have a vested interest in keeping Ukraine… well, Ukrainian.
Trump is likely learning that the wheels of American power move slowly but deliberately, and while personal legacy-building and Nobel Peace Prize nominations may look compelling, US foreign policy and strategic imperatives rarely bend to individual ambition. Despite there being every moral and personal reason for a quick settlement, the war is not politically and strategically winnable on American terms…yet.
That’s where the Europeans come in.
By passing on weapons to NATO allies, who will then pass them onto Ukraine, the US is once again removing itself from the fray and delegating its security to the Europeans, who in turn are delegating it to the Ukrainians. Each step of this process removes the level of involvement and risk to the Americans.
In the end, what we’re witnessing isn’t just a shift in Trump’s stance; it’s a quiet reaffirmation of how American power actually works.
Strategy in Washington is less about the occupant of the Oval Office and more about institutional memory, geographic constants and opportunities, and the slow churn of relative power calibration. The Ukraine war has become a proving ground for a broader American logic: stay essential, stay distant, and make others carry the cost of your primacy. If Trump wants to shape history, he’ll have to do it on America’s terms, not his own.
Thanks for reading along this week. If you’re interested in receiving further deep dives during the week, consider becoming a paid subscriber. There, you’ll get access to all my paid content and more.
See you next time.