When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visits the White House on Friday, he will be greeted by a US president who just weeks ago appeared to wash his hands of Russia's war in Ukraine.
“I wish both countries the best,” Donald Trump said in a social media post on Sept. 23, signaling what many interpreted as the end of his efforts to bring peace to a conflict he was once known to resolve in 24 hours.
But now, with the landslide victory in the Gaza ceasefire and hostage release agreement, Mr. Trump is once again making it his mission to end the war in Ukraine—albeit with a twist.
Why did we write this
President Donald Trump appears to have learned a lesson from the Hamas-Israel ceasefire: To achieve peace, you have to lean heavily on the combatants. Now he is applying this approach to Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine.
Analysts say the president believes his tough-guy stance and use of American power played a decisive role in Hamas and Israel agreeing to the deal. Now he is considering a similar approach to ending the war in Ukraine.
If the “peace through war” approach worked in the Middle East – Exhibit A is how US involvement in Israel's 12-day war against Iran convinced a weakened Iranian state to pressure its client Hamas into a deal – why not try it in the war in Ukraine?
Trump signaled last week that he might change course and provide Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles that would put Moscow within range of the Ukrainian military. “I could tell [to Russia]look, if the war is not resolved, I will sell [the Ukrainians] “Tomahawks,” he told reporters traveling with him to the Middle East on Sunday.
Leaks from the administration in recent days suggest that the White House is considering other offensive (and defensive) systems for Ukraine, as well as technical assistance to target any new weapons. And publicly, administration officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have adopted increasingly aggressive rhetoric toward Russia, especially after the president's triumphant trip to the Middle East.
Everything from Zelensky's visit to the Tomahawk launch to the administration's aggressive new tone signals to Russian President Vladimir Putin that Trump wants to end the war, some analysts say, and that he is now willing to use force to achieve that goal.
“Tomahawks are more of a political message than a military message,” says Mark Montgomery, a retired admiral and now senior director of the Center for Cybersecurity and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. “But there are Tomahawks and … on the table that could deliver some kind of offensive weapons to Ukraine that could now begin to be useful on the ground.”
He says among the issues being discussed are low-cost laser-guided missiles that could be mounted on F-16s and used to destroy Russian attack drones wreaking havoc in Ukraine.
Moreover, he adds that Zelensky’s visit itself is a message to Putin. “This is Zelensky’s third visit in a year,” he notes, “in Netanyahu style.”
Still, Admiral Montgomery says he doubts that what he calls an attempt to “smoke out” Putin will work – and others agree.
“None of this is going to change the calculus,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of defense analysis at Defense Priorities, a Washington think tank that advocates restraint in U.S. foreign policy. “Putin has shown that he is willing to bear these costs,” she adds, “and I see no reason to think that the situation has changed.”
At the heart of the argument that Tomahawk talk is primarily a political message is the reality that even if Mr. Trump announces on Friday that he is selling long-range missiles to Ukraine, the weapon system will not be operational in war for at least several months.
Experts note that Tomahawks will require a launch system that is not available.
“Currently, Ukraine doesn’t have the capability to launch Tomahawks even if we provided them,” says Dr. Kavanagh, “so there’s really nothing that can help today.”
On the other hand, she says the decision itself to provide Tomahawks could lead to escalation and put the United States on a slippery slope toward deeper involvement in the war. She notes that Russia is already rattling the nuclear saber, pointing out that Tomahawks are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
Others argue that providing Tomahawks capable of striking Moscow would level the playing field with an aggressor that regularly strikes Kyiv and other cities deep in Ukraine.
For some foreign policy analysts, the key takeaway from this moment is what it says about the evolution of President Trump's views on the war in Ukraine—and the sides in it.
In August, while hosting the Russian leader at a summit in Alaska, Trump appeared to embrace Putin's views on the war. Mr Zelensky subsequently visited the White House accompanied by European leaders who feared Mr Trump might intimidate their Ukrainian counterpart – as he did during a February visit to the White House – into a pro-Russian stance.
But more recently, the president expressed disappointment in Putin, admitting in comments to French President Emmanuel Macron that “unfortunately, this relationship [with Mr. Putin] didn't mean anything.”
Suggesting he has not yet given up on the relationship, Mr. Trump said on Thursday that he had spoken at length with the Russian president and the two leaders had agreed to meet in the future in Budapest, Hungary.
Meanwhile, Mr. Zelensky has sought to maintain Mr. Trump's good graces and convince the president that a strong and deepening relationship with Ukraine is not a charity but a benefit for the United States, some analysts say.
“Zelensky visiting the White House on Friday no longer needs to come in despair,” says Admiral Montgomery.
The admiral notes that ahead of Mr. Zelensky's visit, a phalanx of Ukrainian officials staged a press conference of sorts throughout Washington, touting everything from joint drone production to energy cooperation. “Zelensky is doing a good job of showing Trump the enduring value of Ukraine to the United States beyond the wartime alliance,” Adm. Montogomery says.