After a period marked by intense Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities, the United States’ approach to ending the conflict is under scrutiny. While U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions, experts and former officials note a lack of corresponding concrete measures to pressure Moscow, raising questions about the effectiveness of current U.S. diplomatic efforts and potential leverage.
Contents
This article examines recent statements from U.S. leadership, the ongoing context of Russian aggression, and analysis from foreign policy experts regarding the disconnect between rhetoric and action in U.S. policy toward the Russia-Ukraine war.
Trump’s Statements and Lack of Action
Following several nights of consecutive mass strikes by Russia on Ukrainian targets in late May 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump described his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, as having gone “absolutely crazy”. Trump suggested these actions could lead to “the downfall of Russia.”
He later stated he was “not happy” with Putin and vaguely mentioned the possibility of additional U.S. sanctions on the Kremlin when pressed by reporters.
However, despite months of this conflict and recent escalations, the U.S. has not taken significant new steps to pressure Russia into ending its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This perceived inaction contrasts with previous administrations’ approaches and has drawn comment from foreign policy veterans.
Daniel Fried, who served as U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, characterized the current U.S. diplomacy as weak, suggesting it doesn’t align with the idea of “peace through strength” often discussed in U.S. foreign policy circles.
Ceasefire Talks and Putin’s Stance
Efforts by Ukraine and its allies to achieve a ceasefire intensified around the same time as the increased Russian attacks. President Trump and President Putin held a phone call on May 19. During this conversation, Putin reportedly once again did not agree to a full ceasefire, despite calls from global leaders.
Instead of an immediate cessation of hostilities, Putin proposed negotiations for a “memorandum regarding a potential future peace treaty,” but without specifying a timeline.
After the call, Trump briefed European leaders. Reports indicated these leaders were “surprised” the U.S. president seemed “relatively content” with Putin’s response.
John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, observed that Putin appears interested in continuing the fighting and avoids a ceasefire. Herbst suggested that Putin aims to continue the war without incurring new American sanctions, arguing that he is currently “winning” in this regard and that Trump’s approach has enabled this position.
Trump described his call with Putin as “progress,” a characterization that differed from the Russian readout, which offered no immediate commitments and only suggested future discussions on terms without an immediate ceasefire. Steven Pifer, another former ambassador to Ukraine, echoed the view that the outcome represented “a victory for Vladimir Putin” because he wants to continue the war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow amid discussions on Ukraine ceasefire
Lack of Leverage Applied
Experts interviewed noted that Russia’s demands for peace remain maximalist and unacceptable to Ukraine. These include Ukraine accepting the loss of Crimea, recognizing Russia’s claim over four Ukrainian oblasts (despite not fully controlling them), permanent neutrality for Kyiv, demilitarization, and significant political change in Ukraine.
While Putin has not offered concessions indicating a genuine interest in peace, Trump characterized the tone of his conversation with Putin as “excellent” and claimed “progress.”
Since the call, Russian officials have openly stated a lack of interest in negotiations with Ukraine or a ceasefire. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reportedly said last week, “We don’t want this anymore.”
Following the large-scale Russian attacks, questions arose about why the U.S. response seemed limited to verbal condemnation on social media platforms, without tangible actions.
Pifer pointed out that although the U.S. holds substantial leverage, such as tightening sanctions, potentially seizing frozen Russian Central Bank assets, or providing more weapons to Ukraine, none of these steps have been taken. He stated that Putin is not likely to be affected by verbal expressions of discontent from Trump as long as no concrete pressure is applied.
Fried agreed, emphasizing the U.S. unique position to influence Russia’s approach. He argued that without the credible threat of U.S. action, Russia is unlikely to agree to a ceasefire. Fried also expressed concern that allowing Putin to dictate the terms or timeline for talks while continuing attacks is counterproductive diplomacy, especially when Russia faces economic difficulties and slow, costly military advances.
Russia also recently requested a meeting of the U.N. Security Council following the attacks, citing alleged European “threats to international peace and security.” Explore related developments here.
Damaged building in Kyiv, Ukraine following Russian missile and drone attacks
Europe’s Potential Leadership Role
Amid questions about U.S. policy direction, reports surfaced on May 26 that the U.S. might consider imposing sanctions on Moscow soon. However, without official announcements and with U.S. policy appearing inconsistent, some suggest Europe may need to take a more prominent role.
Fried commented that the U.S. seems to have “sidelined itself” on sanctions enforcement, implying that European nations and Ukraine may need to develop alternative strategies. Pifer noted the contrast between earlier transatlantic unity and the current diplomatic uncertainty, stating he does not foresee a positively engaged U.S. under current leadership.
The issue of transatlantic coordination gained further urgency on May 27 with reports that U.S.-EU negotiations on aligning sanctions enforcement against Russia have failed, creating uncertainty for a unified future strategy against Moscow. David Kramer, a former Assistant Secretary of State, highlighted that while Europe might proceed with its own sanctions, a united front with the U.S. would be significantly more effective.
Ukraine’s Position
Kramer argued that the U.S. and Europe should impose additional sanctions and increase military aid to strengthen Ukraine’s position at any future negotiation table. He challenged the notion that Kyiv has “no cards to play,” stating that Ukraine possesses “arguably one of the best militaries in Europe.”
Kramer believes Ukraine is in a decent position to negotiate and should not do so from a position of weakness. However, he stressed they require support from the West.
Ukrainian servicemen training in Kharkiv Oblast, highlighting Ukraine's military capabilities
Outlook
Despite the current diplomatic landscape, some experts see a possibility for change. Fried suggested Trump might eventually grow “tired of being played” by Putin and utilize the leverage available to the U.S. Herbst expressed similar hope, stating that if Trump were to apply pressure on the side refusing to compromise, it could potentially open a path toward genuine peace negotiations.
Understanding the reasons behind Russia’s invasion is crucial context for these discussions. Learn more about Moscow’s stated justifications for the war here.
Conclusion
As Russia continues its aggressive actions in Ukraine and publicly rejects ceasefires, the disparity between the U.S. administration’s critical rhetoric and its lack of concrete punitive actions remains a key point of discussion among foreign policy experts. While some hope remains for a shift in the U.S. approach, the current situation highlights challenges in transatlantic coordination and the complex path towards resolving the conflict.
For more in-depth reporting on the Russia-Ukraine war and international responses, explore related articles on our site.
