Amid intense Russian missile and drone strikes across Ukrainian cities, former senior U.S. officials are questioning the effectiveness of President Donald Trump’s approach to the conflict, arguing that his rhetoric has not translated into concrete action to pressure Moscow. Despite Trump’s recent strong words regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin, critics suggest the U.S. has not leveraged available tools, potentially emboldening the Kremlin rather than restraining it.
Contents
Trump’s Comments Follow Russian Strikes
Following three consecutive nights of mass missile and drone attacks by Russia on Ukrainian cities, U.S. President Donald Trump described his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, as having gone “absolutely crazy” and suggested his actions could lead to “the downfall of Russia.”
Trump later expressed that he was “not happy” with Putin and vaguely mentioned the possibility of imposing further U.S. sanctions when questioned by reporters. However, despite these statements and months of ongoing conflict and refusal by Moscow to agree to a ceasefire, the U.S. has yet to take significant new steps to compel Putin to end the full-scale invasion.
The Recent Call with Putin
On May 19, as international efforts to end Russia’s war in Ukraine intensified, President Trump and President Putin held a phone call. During this conversation, Putin reportedly did not agree to a full ceasefire, despite calls from global leaders for such a pause. Instead, Putin proposed negotiating a “memorandum regarding a potential future peace treaty” with Ukraine, without specifying a timeline.
Following the call, Trump briefed European leaders, who were reportedly surprised by the U.S. president’s apparent satisfaction with the conversation. John Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and current senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, noted that Putin seems interested in continuing the fighting without incurring new American sanctions. “And Trump has enabled Putin to maintain that position,” Herbst added.
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks in MoscowTrump’s characterization of the call as making “progress” appeared to conflict with the Russian readout, which offered no substantive commitments and only suggested future discussions on terms, without an immediate ceasefire. Steven Pifer, another former ambassador to Ukraine and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, called this outcome “a victory for Vladimir Putin,” stating that Putin “wants to continue the war” and would prefer to do so without new U.S. sanctions.
Criticism Over Lack of US Pressure
Former officials interviewed for this report universally highlighted that the Kremlin’s demands remain maximalist and unacceptable to Ukraine. Russia continues to insist on terms including Ukraine accepting the loss of occupied territories, permanent neutrality, demilitarization, and political change in Kyiv. Despite Putin offering no concessions signaling genuine interest in peace, Trump described the “tone and spirit of the conversation” with Putin as “excellent.”
Since the May 19 call, Russian officials have reportedly abandoned any pretense of interest in negotiations or a ceasefire with Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was recently quoted as saying, “We don’t want this anymore.” Following the recent mass attacks on Ukraine, former officials questioned why the U.S. response has largely remained limited to strong rhetoric without concrete action.
According to Pifer, despite possessing “substantial leverage” such as tightening sanctions, seizing frozen Russian Central Bank assets, or increasing weapons supplies to Ukraine, Trump has not utilized these tools. He argued that Putin is not concerned by expressions of unhappiness about the pace of negotiations as long as no steps are taken to apply pressure on Moscow. Daniel Fried, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, agreed, emphasizing that the U.S. is uniquely positioned to influence Russia’s approach. “Without the threat of U.S. action, the Russians are not going to allow a ceasefire,” Fried said. He described allowing Putin to dictate terms or schedule while continuing attacks as “bad diplomacy.”
Fried also expressed concern over missed opportunities, noting Russia’s economic challenges and slow, costly advances in Ukraine. He suggested this moment presents an opportunity to press advantage, not lose it. Read more about Russia’s recent request for a UN meeting following the attacks.
Europe Considers Taking the Lead
Amid reports that the U.S. administration was considering imposing sanctions on Moscow this week (though nothing official has been announced) and a perception of drifting U.S. policy on Russia, some suggest Europe may need to take the lead. Fried commented on a perceived retreat from sanctions, stating, “It seems the Europeans and Ukraine need to figure out their Plan B, with an America that’s sidelined itself.”
Pifer noted the contrast between earlier transatlantic unity and current diplomatic incoherence. “I’d like to see the U.S. engaged in a positive and helpful way,” he said, but expressed doubt this was happening under current leadership. The issue gained urgency with reports on May 27 that U.S.-EU negotiations on coordinating sanctions enforcement against Russia had reportedly failed, raising uncertainty for a united future strategy against Moscow.
A damaged building in Kyiv after a Russian attackDavid Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of State and Executive Director of the George W. Bush Institute, noted that while Europeans might proceed with their own sanctions, coordination with the U.S. would be significantly more effective. Kramer argued the U.S. and Europe should impose additional sanctions and increase military aid to strengthen Ukraine’s position for any genuine negotiations.
Ukrainian soldiers conduct military training in Kharkiv OblastRegarding previous suggestions that Kyiv had “no cards to play,” Kramer firmly disagreed, stating, “Ukrainians do have cards to play… They have arguably one of the best militaries in Europe.” He concluded that Ukraine is in a reasonable position to negotiate and does not need to argue from weakness but requires Western assistance.
A Glimmer of Hope?
Despite the current criticisms, the former diplomats and officials suggested a slim possibility for a shift in the situation, largely dependent on a change in the U.S. approach. Fried speculated that Trump might eventually grow “tired of being played” by Putin and decide to use the tools available to the U.S. Herbst echoed this, suggesting that if Trump were to press the side refusing to compromise, it could potentially open the door to a real peace process.
Explore more context on the conflict by reading Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Debunking Putin’s ‘root causes’ claims.
