Trump’s Ukraine Strategy: A Reality Check After Saudi Arabia Talks

A Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy?

The recent U.S.-Russia meeting in Saudi Arabia has sent ripples through global diplomacy, signaling a potential shift in Washington’s stance on Ukraine. Under the Biden administration, U.S. policy largely revolved around continued military aid and unwavering support for Kyiv. But with Donald Trump back in the White House, a different strategy is taking shape—one focused on diplomatic engagement rather than an indefinite military confrontation.

On February 12, Trump held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, followed by a statement on Truth Social in which he claimed both leaders agreed to work toward ending “millions of deaths” in Ukraine. The announcement of a possible peace summit in Saudi Arabia added further weight to speculation that Trump is actively working to broker an end to the war—something he promised throughout his election campaign.

Just a day later, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out what appeared to be the administration’s framework for negotiations: Ukraine would not be expected to reclaim all of its lost territory, and NATO membership would be taken off the table. This effectively walked back the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, which had previously positioned NATO integration as a priority.

The Saudi Arabia talks could prove pivotal in shaping a new phase of U.S. involvement in Ukraine. If Trump successfully brokers an agreement, it will mark a major shift in global power dynamics—one where Washington moves from fueling the war to actively facilitating peace.

Trump’s Middle East Gamble: Why Saudi Arabia Is Central to His Foreign Policy

Is the U.S. Really Abandoning Ukraine?

Trump’s recalibration of U.S. foreign policy has triggered divisive reactions. Some Western analysts have rushed to label it a betrayal of Kyiv, but in reality, the limits of military assistance had already been reached. Over the past three years, the U.S. and its allies have sent billions of dollars in weapons and aid, imposed crippling sanctions on Russia, and attempted to diplomatically isolate Moscow. Yet the war remains at a stalemate, with Russia continuing to hold key strategic positions.

This raises the question: Was Ukraine ever realistically going to achieve total victory? Even under the previous administration, the West’s support had constraints—it was never going to escalate to direct military intervention, given the risks of nuclear conflict. Whether led by Democrats or Republicans, any U.S. administration would have had to confront this reality at some point.

The Democrats, for now, avoid direct responsibility for this policy shift, allowing them to frame it as a Trump decision. But would a second Biden term have continued pouring limitless funds into Ukraine despite the war’s trajectory? That seems unlikely.

The Geopolitical Reality: A New Path Forward

While Trump’s foreign policy approach differs from his predecessor’s, it reflects the broader geopolitical reality. The war in Ukraine was never just about territorial disputes—it has been a proxy conflict between Russia and NATO, with Kyiv caught in the middle.

The Saudi Arabia peace talks suggest that the U.S. is now prioritizing a negotiated settlement rather than a prolonged, costly conflict. If the West insists on maintaining maximalist goals—such as full territorial restoration for Ukraine—it risks dragging the war on indefinitely, something that neither U.S. nor European interests can sustain.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s recent comments reinforce this shift. On February 14, Rutte acknowledged that NATO membership was never a guaranteed outcome for Ukraine—contradicting earlier rhetoric from Western officials. This signals that European leaders may also be aligning with the U.S. in pushing Kyiv toward a compromise.

Trump’s Strategy: Pragmatism or Retreat?

For Trump’s critics, his willingness to negotiate with Putin is a sign of weakness. But from a realist foreign policy perspective, it represents pragmatism. The U.S. cannot afford an endless financial and military commitment in Ukraine, and a diplomatic resolution—however imperfect—may be the only viable path forward.