Let’s get the preliminaries out of the way. Ukraine has corruption problems and political dysfunction of its own. But in this war, Ukraine is unequivocally the good guy. Russia’s invasion was unprovoked, unjustified and indefensible. Vladimir Putin is the aggressor. Volodymyr Zelensky is defending his country. Period.
Now let’s talk about geopolitical reality. Donald Trump is attempting something far more ambitious than ending the war in Ukraine. He is trying to rearrange the strategic chessboard for the next several decades. Understanding that objective is essential to understanding his seemingly contradictory decisions.
The United States has one truly consequential long-term strategic competitor: China. Russia is dangerous, nuclear-armed and capable of wreaking havoc on its neighbors. But Russia is also a declining power with an economy dependent on natural resources, deteriorating demographics and ambitions that, while unacceptable, are largely regional. China is something else entirely. Beijing seeks to challenge American economic, technological and military leadership globally. It has the industrial capacity, financial resources and strategic patience to pursue that ambition for generations. China’s challenge is in a different category altogether.
CHINA’S LONG-TERM FINANCES ARE ALL WET AS BILL TO MAINTAIN HUGE NAVY COMES DUE IN 2031
Here is Trump’s dilemma: Europe is not yet strong enough to contain Russia without substantial American support. Despite years of promises, too many NATO allies remain dependent on American military capabilities, intelligence, logistics and leadership. Until Europe can handle Russia largely on its own, the United States must continue devoting enormous resources to European security. Every additional weapons system, dollar and hour of strategic attention consumed by Moscow is a resource unavailable for deterring Beijing or addressing other threats around the world.
Trump is trying to change that equation. His apparent objective is to create conditions under which Russia can eventually become a more normal, economically engaged country rather than a permanent adversary requiring America’s undivided attention. Think of it as strategic triage. In the long run, we want a fully economically engaged Russia that has something meaningful to lose, but still needs a good kick in the ass from time to time to remind Putin and his successors to stay the hell out of Europe. That is a far better outcome than a permanently isolated, militarized Russia driven ever deeper into China’s embrace.
NATO’S EASTERN FLANK RACES TO REARM AS TRUMP PRESSURE EXPOSES WESTERN EUROPE’S DEFENSE GAP
That doesn’t mean trusting Putin. It means understanding his incentives. Putin wants two things: money and real estate. He wants the economic benefits of international engagement and the territorial advantages of an empire. Trump is uniquely positioned to offer the former while making the latter prohibitively expensive. That is the needle Trump is trying to thread.
But he is threading it while balancing competing global equities: keeping energy prices manageable, maintaining pressure on Iran, deterring China, supporting Israel, reassuring allies and protecting the American economy. Europe’s continued military dependence makes every calculation harder. And until Europe is genuinely capable of assuming primary responsibility for its own defense, America cannot simply disengage from Russia, however much we might wish to concentrate our resources elsewhere.
Which brings us to Zelensky. I have enormous respect for his courage and determination. And when Ukraine strikes Russian oil refineries, the military logic is obvious. Petroleum revenues finance Putin’s war machine. Disrupting them is a legitimate strategic objective when conducted within the laws of war. Zelensky is right to hit Russia where it hurts. But being right is not always enough. An attack that makes perfect sense to Ukrainian military planners may complicate Trump’s larger negotiations, disrupt energy markets and create political problems at home.
Zelensky’s first responsibility is Ukraine’s survival. Trump’s first responsibility is America’s interests. Those interests overlap enormously, but they are not identical. Here is what Zelensky must understand: Trump is not simply Ukraine’s principal supplier of weapons, intelligence and money. He is a strategic partner managing a far larger set of global obligations. Zelensky needs to stop approaching Washington principally with a shopping list and start asking a different question: Mr. President, what can Ukraine do to help you accomplish your broader objectives while protecting our sovereignty?
That is not capitulation. It is sophisticated diplomacy. It means coordinating major military and economic initiatives before they become surprises. It means understanding American energy concerns and domestic political pressures. It means offering Trump practical ways to demonstrate progress rather than simply demanding more assistance. And it means recognizing that Trump’s ability to sustain American support depends partly on convincing Americans that his policies are working.
There is another reality diplomats often prefer not to discuss: Donald Trump conducts foreign policy through personal relationships to an extraordinary degree. I worked for him. I know. The conventional diplomatic playbook emphasizes prepared meetings, formal communications and bureaucratic coordination. Trump places enormous weight on personal access and whether someone understands what he is trying to achieve. The late diplomat George Ball captured an enduring truth: “Nothing propinks like propinquity.” In plain English, proximity matters.
Zelensky needs to be talking to Trump constantly. Not once a month. Not only when he needs another weapons package. Almost every day. Sometimes to discuss the battlefield. Sometimes to share intelligence. Sometimes to float an idea. Sometimes just to tell him a joke or share some gossip. That may sound trivial when thousands are dying in Ukraine, but it isn’t. Personal familiarity creates trust. Trust creates access. Access creates influence.
Even Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, with their almost hourly access to Trump, can occasionally be surprised by a decision. That is the nature of his unusually fluid, personalized decision-making process. Imagine the disadvantage of a foreign leader relying exclusively on traditional diplomatic channels. Zelensky cannot afford that disadvantage.
There is also the uncomfortable matter of American politics. Trump needs Republicans to retain control of the Senate in November. Zelensky needs Ukraine to survive the coming winter. To a neutral observer, those objectives are hardly equivalent. To each leader, however, they are critical. Should Zelensky intervene in an American election? Absolutely not. Should he understand Trump’s political pressures and help create conditions under which continued American support becomes easier to defend? Absolutely.
There is a world of difference between helping a political party and helping an American president demonstrate that his foreign policy is producing results. Zelensky should be looking for opportunities to do the latter every day. Understanding Trump’s political constraints is not the same as surrendering Ukraine’s interests. It is recognizing that the most effective way to secure American support is to make Ukraine’s success part of Trump’s success.
But this bargain must run both ways. Zelensky cannot be expected to restrain attacks on Russian energy infrastructure while Putin continues pounding Ukraine’s power plants, cities and civilian infrastructure. Ukraine has already demonstrated a willingness to consider reciprocal restraint. That willingness must be met by Russian action, not simply another American request for Ukrainian patience. If Trump wants Zelensky to accommodate his broader strategy, Trump must use America’s enormous economic leverage to make Putin accommodate it as well.
That means no unilateral rewards for aggression, no permanent sanctions relief in exchange for temporary gestures and no settlement that leaves Ukraine defenseless while Russia rearms. A temporary diesel arrangement or sanctions reprieve is not normalization. It is a tactic. Real normalization requires verifiable Russian behavior and meaningful consequences for renewed aggression. Putin wants economic engagement. Trump controls much of what makes that engagement possible. That leverage should be used to secure lasting concessions, not exchanged for another fleeting promise.
Meanwhile, Europe must accelerate its military transformation. The United States cannot indefinitely remain Europe’s principal insurance policy while simultaneously preparing for the far greater strategic challenge posed by China. The ultimate prize is not a handshake with Putin or another White House announcement. It is a Europe capable of defending itself, a Russia with powerful incentives to stay within its borders and an America free to concentrate its strategic weight where the greatest long-term danger lies.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Until Europe reaches that point, Trump must balance competing military, economic and political demands that Zelensky cannot afford to ignore. And Trump must recognize that Ukraine’s survival is essential to making his larger strategy credible. Zelensky needs Trump’s leverage, weapons and economic power. Trump needs Zelensky’s cooperation to produce a sustainable settlement rather than a theatrical one. Putin must understand he cannot play them against each other indefinitely.
The message to Zelensky is simple: Help Trump succeed in his larger geopolitical mission, and insist that Ukraine’s survival be part of that success. The message to Trump is equally simple: Give Zelensky a reason to trust that helping you will not cost him his country. Neither man needs to abandon his interests. Both need to understand the other’s.
That is how transactional diplomacy works when it works well. And that is how you thread the needle.
