Would a ceasefire leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian aggression?
KYIV — For anyone following the war in Ukraine, a photo taken this week in the Saudi capital offers a striking illustration of the dramatic shift in the U.S. stance on the conflict. In it, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is seated across from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, discussing a possible deal to end the fighting. However, the notable absence in the room is any Ukrainian official.
Just three years ago, then-President Biden condemned Russia’s invasion as “a premeditated attack” orchestrated by President Vladimir Putin. “Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the United States, along with its allies and partners, will respond in a united and decisive way,” Biden said. Yet this week, President Trump referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “a dictator” and falsely claimed he was responsible for starting the war — the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II.
Finding a quick end to the war was a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign. But many now fear the president’s eagerness could strong-arm Ukraine into a dangerous, temporary halt to the aggression that would allow Russia time to reconstitute its battered forces for a sequel in the fighting.
Russia needs time to regroup
“Putin is playing for time,” says Mikhail Alexseev, a professor of political science at San Diego State University, whose research is currently focused on the war in Ukraine. “Obviously, Russia has been suffering significant losses of manpower and equipment … they need time to regroup.”
Mikhail Metzel/AFP via Getty Images
Military aid from NATO countries, especially the U.S., has been a bulwark of Ukraine’s defense, he says, but acknowledges that it was a big mistake for his country not to ramp up its defense production after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. “We wasted a lot of time in internal discussion and fights,” he says.
Meanwhile, both sides have been reluctant to provide specific casualty figures. Zelenskyy told NBC News on Feb. 16 that 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed, while claiming the Russians have lost 350,000 troops.
The figure for Russian casualties is unverified, but most experts in the West agree that the Kremlin’s losses are massive. Despite that, Russians are advancing, albeit slowly, on the battlefield. Zelenskyy has said Ukraine can’t hold them back without U.S. aid or strong security guarantees.
Trump signals a dramatic policy shift
Although Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, the Trump administration’s envoy on Ukraine, has said that he understands Kyiv’s need for security guarantees. However, Trump has echoed Moscow’s rationale for the 2022 invasion, claiming that it was provoked by the prospect of Ukrainian membership in NATO.
Trump’s latest rhetoric on Ukraine represents a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, according to Kristine Berzina, managing director at the German Marshall Fund, a non-partisan policy organization. “The lack of understanding or willful reframing of the war to Russia’s favor is deeply shocking to Ukrainians and to Europeans more broadly.”
In the talks in Riyadh this week, Russia insisted the U.S. abandon its 2008 pledge to eventually bring Ukraine into NATO, and also dismissed the idea that member forces from the alliance could be deployed as peacekeepers in any deal to halt the fighting.
The Kremlin wants to get back Kursk, the Russian tervid2Fgettyimages-2192471458.jpg" data-format="webp" class="img lazyOnLoad" type="image/webp"/>