Vladimir Putin has long played the patient strategist. For decades, the Russian leader has pursued the subjugation of neighboring Ukraine while simultaneously cultivating ties with Donald Trump. Today, success at the latter endeavor is allowing Moscow to recover from significant failures at the former. After nearly five years of thwarted Russian objectives in the grueling war on Ukraine, the U.S. president is effectively helping Putin win. By easing sanctions on Russia, cutting off military and economic assistance to Kyiv, disrupting intelligence cooperation, and pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to capitulate to Moscow’s war aims, Trump is making the successful annexation of substantial Ukrainian territory and de facto control over Ukraine’s future far more likely than at almost any point since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022.
Since Putin launched his full-scale military campaign, battlefield momentum has swung back and forth between the two warring sides. Russian forces initially held the strategic advantage at the start of the conflict. However, by the fall of 2022, Ukraine had successfully seized the offensive, liberating vast swathes of territory once held by Russian troops to such a degree that Washington briefly worried Putin might resort to tactical nuclear weapons to halt Ukrainian advances. The conflict subsequently settled into a tragic grind along a static frontline—until the spring of the following year. Momentum temporarily returned to Kyiv after Ukrainian forces deployed newly acquired long-range missiles capable of striking targets deep inside Russian territory, alongside midrange drones designed to attack Russian supply routes in occupied eastern Ukraine, and improved interceptor drones that bolstered defense against relentless aerial assaults on Ukrainian cities. At that stage, Putin’s army proved entirely unable to advance along the frontline, and Ukrainian troops even managed incremental progress in liberating occupied land.
Yet the shift in U.S. leadership under Trump has decisively returned the strategic momentum to Russia. Stymied on the frontline, Putin has pivoted his primary focus toward terrorizing Ukrainian society through sustained rocket and drone strikes targeting both civilians and the civilian infrastructure essential for daily survival, particularly energy and water grids. This campaign is driven by the calculation that a suffering, freezing population will ultimately pressure Zelensky to capitulate. New weaponry has made this bombing campaign exceptionally brutal, fueled by the mass production of ballistic missiles and a new generation of unmanned aerial vehicles, specifically the Geran 5 drone, which is equipped with a powerful Chinese rocket engine that current Ukrainian air defenses struggle to intercept. Possessing a larger troop pool, greater military production capacity, and newly upgraded weapons systems, Putin calculates that Russia can afford to persist despite the apparent military stalemate.
Trump’s active support has deeply bolstered Putin’s conviction that time is firmly on Russia’s side. In just the past few weeks, Trump and his political allies have expanded assistance to Moscow by suspending sanctions, purchasing Russian diesel, disrupting Ukraine’s critical access to Starlink and Starshield communications networks, and even publicly insisting that Zelensky must be removed from power. Zelensky recently remarked on this dynamic, noting that when international partners ease the pressure on Russia, it only reinforces Putin’s belief that his ultimate geopolitical goals are finally within reach. The lethal combination of reduced U.S. support—particularly regarding scarce air defense interceptors—alongside faster Russian drones and heavier missile barrages threatens to make the upcoming winter the most brutal yet for the Ukrainian populace.
OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON
Putin’s long game with Trump began years ago, driven not by any singular immediate objective, but by the calculated hope that cultivating Kremlin influence over the American figure might eventually prove useful—a classic intelligence tactic rooted in the methods of the KGB. Now, that investment has yielded concrete returns.
Years before Trump first launched his campaign for the White House, Russian actors closely aligned with Putin actively pursued business ties with the American real estate mogul. Most famously, this included Trump collaborating with Emin and Aras Agalarov to host the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013. Putin subsequently orchestrated unprecedented foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election designed to assist Trump and damage his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. While proving the exact numerical impact of the Russian theft and publication of Clinton campaign emails—combined with a comprehensive social media disinformation effort—remains impossible, the fact that Moscow actively attempted to influence the electoral outcome is beyond question.
By 2017, Putin’s cultivation of Trump began to yield atmospheric and political benefits. Trump repeatedly signaled his personal admiration for the Russian autocrat. In a more shocking display during their 2018 summit in Helsinki, Trump publicly expressed doubt regarding the unanimous findings of his own intelligence community concerning Russian electoral interference, choosing instead to endorse Putin’s denials. Nevertheless, during his initial presidential term, Trump’s rhetorical praise of Putin only marginally altered actual U.S. policy toward Moscow. This limitation was largely driven by senior national security officials within his administration—including National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—who actively constrained Trump from executing a complete pro-Russia policy pivot.
Following Trump’s reelection in 2024, however, the Kremlin’s long courtship began to produce tangible, far-reaching results. Most consequentially, Trump terminated direct U.S. military and economic assistance to Ukraine, abruptly halting the flow of aid from what had previously been Kyiv’s single largest international backer. While Trump has permitted American defense contractors to sell limited weaponry to European governments for subsequent transfer to Ukraine, even that secondary channel has experienced periodic disruptions. The resulting trickle of weapons and ammunition pales in comparison to the robust packages previously supplied by Washington. Crucially, the items Ukraine needs most—interceptors for its Patriot missile defense systems—remain in critically short supply, exacerbated in part by the heavy expenditure of interceptors during concurrent U.S. military operations involving Iran.
Other policy decisions have further undermined Ukraine’s defensive posture while directly aiding Moscow. Trump has repeatedly insisted that Ukraine will never be permitted to join NATO. Last year, he hosted Putin for a red-carpet summit in Alaska, where the two leaders reportedly discussed pressuring Kyiv into ceding the remainder of the eastern Donbas region, which Russian forces have attempted to conquer since 2014. Furthermore, Trump has periodically berated Zelensky, most dramatically during a tense Oval Office meeting in February 2025, when he interrupted the Ukrainian leader and shouted that he had done enough talking, was not winning the war, and lacked leverage. Although Trump has occasionally reverted to more cordial diplomatic language, he has since returned to open hostility, publicly echoing Putin by proclaiming that it is time for Ukraine to find a new president.
Over the past two weeks, Trump has further escalated support for Russia’s war effort. He lifted sanctions to permit the commercial sale of Russian diesel exports, supplying Moscow with billions of dollars in revenue to help finance ongoing military operations. He also issued an executive order suspending new sanctions mandated by the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which he had signed into law only weeks prior. Simultaneously, intelligence-sharing arrangements have experienced new lapses regarding critical data that only the United States can provide.
Most consequentially, Ukraine has suffered acute disruptions in its access to Starlink and Starshield satellite communications networks operated by SpaceX—a company led by Elon Musk, a prominent political ally of Trump and a former administration official. Kyiv relies heavily on these networks to navigate its own attack drones and to track and defend against incoming Russian aerial weapons. While whether the disruptions were ordered directly by the U.S. government or independently by Musk remains unclear, the practical consequences were immediate: more Russian drones and rockets successfully struck civilian and military targets, Russian ground forces advanced closer to the frontline, and Ukrainian defense drones experienced mid-air operational failures.
Through their respective negotiating teams, Putin and Trump have also advanced discussions on new commercial transactions. These reportedly include the acquisition of assets belonging to major Russian oil company Lukoil by American investors, the potential sale of the currently dormant Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline connecting Germany and Russia, and secret Russian investments in a liquefied natural gas project in Alaska. If finalized, these commercial ventures would provide Putin with substantial new revenue streams to underwrite his military campaign in Ukraine.
CAN THE PENDULUM SWING BACK?
Despite these formidable setbacks, the Ukrainian population remains resolute. Public opinion polls indicate that a solid majority of citizens still believe their country must continue fighting. Furthermore, European allies have not abandoned Kyiv. Although Putin anticipated that the sudden withdrawal of American military and economic aid early in Trump’s second term would trigger a rapid Ukrainian collapse or political capitulation, he miscalculated the willingness and capability of European nations to help fill the resulting void. Additionally, Ukrainian defense technology firms are working urgently to develop innovative domestic weaponry capable of intercepting the rising volume of Russian ballistic missiles and high-speed Geran 5 drones. While the strategic pendulum has currently swung in Russia’s favor, Ukraine has repeatedly defied pessimistic expectations and regained momentum in the past, suggesting it could do so again.
U.S. policy may also be subject to future shifts, particularly following upcoming midterm elections. Domestic American public opinion does not broadly support the administration’s embrace of Putin or the abandonment of Ukraine, creating significant political friction for the White House’s current stance. If Democratic lawmakers secure control of one or both houses of Congress in the midterm elections, they could leverage their legislative mandate to launch congressional investigations into U.S.-Russian business deals, introduce legislation to restore military and economic assistance to Kyiv, outlaw satellite communication disruptions, or enforce existing statutory sanctions. Even Trump himself has previously expressed moments of skepticism regarding Putin’s intentions, famously wondering aloud whether the Russian leader was merely flattering him. A return to such suspicion remains within the realm of possibility.
At the same time, Putin should recognize that his cultivation of Trump represents a wasting asset. No future American president—whether Democrat or Republican—is likely to sustain Trump’s current Russia policy. Moreover, with the approach of the midterm elections, Trump is positioned to become a lame-duck executive whose domestic and foreign policy leverage will inevitably decline over the remainder of his term. Putin would therefore be wise to pursue serious, substantive negotiations for a cease-fire immediately, as his long-term prospects for securing a favorable diplomatic settlement are likely to diminish with time.
