TRUMP has always asserted that the Ukraine war was Biden’s having occurred during his watch. “If I were President in 2022, Putin would have not invaded Ukraine.” Trump boasted he would end this war on his first day as president. Then he curtailed weapons delivery to Ukraine allowing the war to aggravate, bringing Ukraine almost to its knees, giving the advantage to his BFF Putin.

In a stunning reversal that has sent shockwaves through global capitals, Donald, the TACO (Trump’s always chickens out) has executed a dramatic U-turn on his administration’s policy towards the war. (The Straits Times, by Jonathan Eyal, July 16, 2025.) This departure from a previously skeptical and often isolationist stance involves a new, multi-pronged strategy: the provision of sophisticated American weaponry to Kyiv, a firm demand for reciprocal military aid from European allies, and a 50-day ultimatum to Moscow to negotiate peace. This braggadocio was intended for his adoring and unthinking MAGA constituents. A toothless threat to Putin.

Failure to comply, Trump warns, will result in crippling sanctions, including a 100-percent tariff on China and India if they continue to purchase Russian oil. This policy pivot, following months of inaction and criticism of US aid, raises critical questions behind these impulses and their potential for success.

Volatile policy shifts

The motivations behind this abrupt shift are far from simple, representing a complex tapestry of domestic political calculus, personal ego, and shrewd economic opportunism, but a more pragmatic analysis points to a confluence of pressures.

Domestically, the electoral calculus is clear: “Trump’s support for Putin has no domestic electoral advantage.” (ibid, Eyal, The Straits Times.) With pressure mounting from within his own party and a public weary of a seemingly endless conflict, a more decisive posture became politically expedient.

Furthermore, there is a distinctly personal element at play. Trump’s reported frustration with Putin’s defiance, despite their previous conversations, suggests a bruised ego. The feeling of being played and insulted by the Russian leader appears to have triggered a reaction that is as much about personal pride as it is about international strategy.

Making money on the side

Beyond domestic politics and personal pique, a significant driver of this new policy is a powerful economic incentive, cleverly packaged as a strategic masterstroke. “The circuitous strategy of selling advanced American weapons systems to European allies, who in turn are expected to send their own Soviet-era or other armaments to Ukraine, is a core component of the plan. This allows Trump to assert that he is not wasting taxpayer’s money on direct aid—a frequent talking point for his base — while simultaneously generating a tidy profit for the American defense industry.” (ibid, Eyal, The Straits Times.) This financially driven approach provides a compelling, if cynical, rationale for the policy’s architecture, blending national security interests with a clear-eyed view of commercial benefit.

This new, aggressive stance is particularly striking when viewed against the backdrop of Trump’s past rhetoric and actions concerning Russia — from once describing Russia’s 2022 invasion as “genius” to being accused of a fundamental misunderstanding of Russian history and intentions. Trump has always been historically illiterate.

A pretend ceasefire

His previous calls for a ceasefire were widely seen as optics, lacking the credible threats or incentives necessary to compel a change in Moscow’s behavior, arguably making the bloodshed in Ukraine worse. This history of perceived conciliation and naiveté makes the current ultimatum to Putin all the more perplexing.

The immediate international reception has been a mixture of relief, apprehension, and deep-seated skepticism. For Zelenskyy, the promise of advanced air defense systems like the Patriot offers a desperately needed shield against relentless Russian aerial assaults. Yet, the 50-day ultimatum introduces a period of intense uncertainty, a high-stakes countdown that could either force a diplomatic breakthrough or provide Russia with a window to intensify its offensive.

Predictably, Moscow has met the announcement with defiance, gambling that Trump’s threats are mere bluster, and that his administration lacks the long-term commitment required for a protracted crisis. Putin has always been cynical of Trump’s bully tactics — being one himself. He has read Trump as TACO and can wait out this latest policy shift.

European allies, while delighted by the renewed American commitment, remain cautiously optimistic, fully aware of Trump’s famously fickle minded approach to foreign policy. The challenge for Europe is now twofold: first, to meet the logistical and political demands of transferring their own weapons to Ukraine, and second, to navigate the risks of escalation that come with it (ibid).

Germany might be pushed to send long-range missiles capable of striking deep within Russian territory, a move that could dramatically heighten tensions. Meanwhile, the 50-day delay before tariffs are imposed on China and India creates its own strategic ambiguity. It could be a genuine attempt to allow these nations to pressure Putin, an opportunity for them to divest from Russian energy, or simply a way for Trump to delay a potentially disruptive trade war.

Ultimately, this dramatic policy U-turn crystallizes into a single, critical question: Is this a credible, game-changing strategy, or is Trump still susceptible to Putin’s manipulation? This implies a newfound resolve born of frustration. Trump may not admit it, but he is being played by Putin and that his previous approach was misconceived from the start. Trump has always been putty in Putin’s hands, a nod to the ex-KGB’s formidable gambling instincts and his proven ability to exploit his adversary’s personality.

Be that as it may, Trump’s audacious policy reversal marks a pivotal yet unpredictable moment. It is a complex gambit born from a mix of political necessity, personal pride and economic self-interest. While it offers a glimmer of hope for Ukraine and a renewed sense of purpose for NATO, its success is far from guaranteed. The coming weeks will reveal whether this is a truly transformative moment that alters the trajectory of the war, or merely another chapter in a volatile geopolitical saga.

We get a hint at the post-Summit Putin-Trump meeting in Alaska this week. Briefly, Putin was “...positive describing the negotiations as constructive framing the meeting as a long overdue necessity, given that relations had plummeted to their lowest point since the Cold War.” He stroked Trump’s ego by confirming that had he been president in 2022, the war would not have occurred. Putin expressed a desire for a lasting settlement that would address the conflict’s primary causes and Russia’s legitimate concerns, not Ukraine’s “...asserting that this personal rapport is the key to bringing the conflict in Ukraine to an end... restoring a more pragmatic relationship between Russia and the United States.”

Trump in his cognitively impaired ramblings countered with classic Trumpian clarity: “There’s no deal until there’s a deal... but we have an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

Many thought this was an insanely idiotic retort. The contrast between the two leaders is profound.