Trump’s Early Concessions to Russia Raise Concerns Amid Ukraine Peace Talks
WASHINGTON/PARIS — U.S. President Donald Trump, who took office on January 20, has vowed to bring a swift end to the nearly three-year-long Ukraine war. However, his administration’s early concessions to Russia have sparked concerns among allies and experts, who fear that Trump may be undermining Ukraine’s position even before formal negotiations begin.
In a series of phone calls on Wednesday, Trump spoke separately with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, directing U.S. officials to initiate talks aimed at ending the conflict. But the president’s approach has drawn sharp criticism, particularly after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled a significant shift in U.S. policy during a meeting with Ukraine’s military allies in Brussels.
Hegseth stated that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders—before Russia’s annexation of Crimea—was “unrealistic” and ruled out NATO membership for Kyiv as part of any solution. He also emphasized that U.S. troops would not participate in any security presence in Ukraine. These remarks have raised alarm among European allies and former U.S. officials, who argue that the administration is conceding too much to Russia without securing meaningful guarantees in return.
A Question of Leverage
Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, criticized the administration’s strategy, questioning why Trump was “giving Putin gifts—Ukrainian land and no NATO membership for Ukraine—before negotiations even begin.” McFaul, who has extensive experience negotiating with Russia, warned that such concessions weaken the U.S. position. “You never give up anything to them for free,” he said.
Russia currently occupies roughly 20% of Ukraine’s territory and has demanded that Kyiv cede land and adopt permanent neutrality as part of any peace deal. Ukraine, on the other hand, insists on the withdrawal of Russian forces and seeks NATO membership or equivalent security guarantees to deter future aggression.
While the Trump administration has long hinted that it would not fully support Ukraine’s goals, Hegseth’s blunt remarks and Trump’s apparent willingness to accommodate Moscow have left European allies uneasy. Gabrielius Landsbergis, Lithuania’s former foreign minister, described the U.S. stance as tantamount to “abandoning Ukraine.”
A Concession to Reality?
Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, characterized Hegseth’s comments as a “concession to reality.” He argued that ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine could signal to Russia that a realistic settlement is possible. However, Wertheim cautioned that this approach risks legitimizing Russia’s territorial gains and undermining international norms.
Since the war began in February 2022, the U.S. and its European allies have maintained a united front, demanding Russia’s withdrawal and holding out the possibility of Ukraine’s eventual NATO membership. The U.S. and Europe have provided tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, while Russia has faced widespread diplomatic isolation, including repeated condemnations at the United Nations.
A Risky Precedent
Critics warn that Trump’s approach could set a dangerous precedent. James Cleverly, a British lawmaker and former foreign secretary, argued that starting negotiations by outlining concessions sends the wrong message. “Giving the impression that invasion pays off is not a strong move,” he said. “Regimes are watching closely. Let’s send the message that violence and aggression don’t win out.”
The Kremlin announced on Wednesday that Putin and Trump had agreed to meet, with Putin inviting Trump to visit Moscow. Such a trip would be a significant diplomatic win for Putin, who faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over his actions in Ukraine. Brett Bruen, a former foreign policy adviser in the Obama administration, likened Trump’s eagerness to meet Putin to his high-profile summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during his first term. Those meetings failed to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions, and Bruen warned that Trump risks repeating the same mistakes.
Minerals for Security
Amid the diplomatic maneuvering, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent visited Kyiv to discuss a potential minerals deal between Ukraine and the U.S., which he described as a post-war “security shield.” Zelenskiy expressed openness to the deal, which would open Ukraine’s mineral resources to U.S. investment. Trump framed the agreement as a way to secure U.S. funding for Ukraine, suggesting that Kyiv should offer oil, gas, or other resources in exchange for American support.
John Herbst, who served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, viewed Bessent’s visit as a positive signal. However, he acknowledged that the U.S. had already surrendered some leverage with Russia. “Trump is talking about exchanging American weapons for Ukrainian minerals,” Herbst said. “That’s a big deal and very positive.”
A Fragile Path Forward
While Trump’s supporters argue that his pragmatic approach could lead to a swift resolution, critics fear that a rushed deal on uneven terms could embolden aggressors and weaken the international order. As delegates prepare for the Munich Security Conference later this week, the mood among Ukraine’s allies is one of apprehension.
Trump’s strategy may reflect his trademark deal-making style, but in the high-stakes arena of international diplomacy, the risks of premature concessions could far outweigh the rewards. The world will be watching closely to see whether Trump’s art of the deal can deliver peace—or simply pave the way for further conflict.
Reference
Trump’s Early Concessions to Russia Raise Concerns Amid Ukraine Peace Talks