Photo by Harold Mendoza on Unsplash
Nearly a year into Donald Trump’s presidency, the United States is adopting a noticeably different approach to the war in Ukraine, combining economic leverage, military aid, and strategic diplomacy to hasten the collapse of Russia’s capacity to sustain its aggression. Trump’s faith in the effectiveness of tariffs, a key element of his earlier administration, has resurfaced as a geopolitical tool. He is now ready to impose new trade barriers on China, not merely to protect American industries, but to pressure Beijing into withdrawing tacit support for Russia. The reasoning is straightforward: reducing China’s economic co-operation with Russia could significantly weaken Moscow’s ability to prolong the conflict.
At the same time, the U.S. stance on direct military support for Ukraine has hardened. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, once among those advocating a shift in American foreign policy priorities, now unequivocally backs increased arms shipments to Kyiv. His shift from America is rethinking its priorities to America will do what is necessary reflects a broader bipartisan consensus in Washington. The establishment of a so-called Victory Fund emphasises this commitment, signalling that the United States is not merely supporting Ukraine’s defence but actively investing in its victory.
The strategic logic is undeniable: helping Ukraine resist Russian aggression weakens Russia itself. Over the past eight months, Ukraine’s military has demonstrated not only resilience but capability. Russia, despite its numerical advantage, has failed to achieve decisive gains. In contrast, Ukraine continues to hold and reclaim territory with Western support. This dynamic has turned the war into a slow bleed for the Kremlin, one which the United States appears determined to prolong until the cost becomes unbearable for Vladimir Putin.
Putin, for his part, remains committed to funding the war by any means necessary, including through external borrowing. Washington aims to deprive him of this very option. New rounds of sanctions and trade restrictions targeting Russia’s remaining economic lifelines are under serious consideration, with strong support from both Congress and the American public, polls suggest that nearly 75% of Americans support increasing economic pressure on Moscow.
Diplomatically, Trump is now pursuing new alignments to strengthen this strategy. India has indicated its readiness to reduce purchases of Russian oil in favour of closer energy ties with the United States. Trump’s administration is using this opportunity to position the U.S. as a more reliable and geopolitically neutral supplier. Additionally, Trump has shown willingness to engage directly with both India and China, two powers whose positions are crucial to Russia’s economic survival. Through sustained diplomatic efforts, Washington aims to push these countries further away from Moscow, thereby isolating Russia’s economy globally.
The combined economic influence of the United States and its NATO allies, along with their sway over key players in the Global South, surpasses that of Russia. With fewer options for funding his war effort and waning support from previously neutral states, Putin faces a shrinking scope. The only feasible alternative to economic collapse is a negotiated settlement to the conflict.
For Europe, the stakes are high. As the United States sharpens its tools, tariffs, sanctions, and diplomacy, it calls on its allies to act together. From Washington’s perspective, the way to peace does not lie in compromise with Moscow but in sustained pressure that leaves the Kremlin no choice but to withdraw. Whether Europe chooses to match this resolve remains uncertain, but, as in all wars, the clock is constantly ticking.
