Before his Oval Office meeting with President Zelenskyy on February 28, President Donald Trump declared, “I hope I’m going to be remembered as a peacemaker.”
After the meeting, the US President made his definition of peace abundantly clear: “I want immediate peace. [Zelenskyy] wants to keep fighting, we’re not doing that . . . We’re going to get this done or let them go [on their own] and then see what happens . . . Without us, he doesn’t win.”
On March 3, the administration said it would freeze all military aid to Kyiv and it emerged on March 5 that it had “paused” much of its intelligence sharing. Not only did Washington halt the supply of American weapons under previously approved aid programs, but it is also weighing a full freeze on arms shipments from its stockpiles.
There’s not enough champagne in the Kremlin for the celebrations of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime.
The decisions weren’t the result of the public disagreement in the Oval Office, as Ukraine was, and still is, prepared to sign a resource-extraction deal. That televised spat was just one act of a bigger play for yet another “reset” with Russia, something the administration has made clear it seeks.
Reports suggest that Nord Stream 2, the Russian gas pipeline to Europe, may yet rise from the dead. Kremlin insiders and Trump allies are said to be in secret talks to revive the link, while the German government is mulling how to disrupt any agreement.
The deal, if realized, could see US investors stake a claim in its operations — paving the way for Russian gas to flow if sanctions are eased following a Ukraine ceasefire. It would be a stark reversal for Trump, who once led efforts to kill the project, and it could hand Washington leverage over Germany’s energy market.
Sanctions relief is now a clear possibility. The White House has directed the State and Treasury departments to draft a list of measures that could be eased, and an options paper suggests select Russian entities and oligarchs which could benefit as part of broader talks to reset diplomatic and economic ties with Moscow, Reuters reported.
This has happened before. And it never ends well.
For decades, Washington has had an urge to “reset” relations with Moscow. But every time the reset button has been pressed, it has delivered the same predictable result — Russia has seen Western goodwill as weakness and exploited it.
Under George HW Bush, optimism flourished with agreements like START I and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, but at the same time Russia launched a war in Transnistria and the first Chechen war soon afterwards.
Bill Clinton’s administration agreed changes to START II and NATO-Russia initiatives. Russia became a member of the G8 and the Council of Europe, yet the Second Chechen war erupted.
George W Bush initially sought another reset of relations, emphasizing cooperation in the fight against terrorism and pursuing dialog through the NATO-Russia Council and the G20, but Russia began to openly resist Western influence, culminating in Putin’s 2007 Munich speech and the 2008 war in Georgia.
Barack Obama’s “reset” in 2009 temporarily revived dialog, with the New START Treaty and collaboration on blocking Iran’s nuclear program, but Russia’s hybrid warfare, election interference, and military interventions in Ukraine and Syria once again revealed Moscow’s true colors.
The weak and ineffective sanctions imposed after the 2014 annexation of Crimea then demonstrated that the West had chosen to turn a blind eye to Russia’s imperialism.
Donald Trump also sought rapprochement, though his first presidency was marked by growing concerns over Russia’s cyber warfare, disinformation campaigns, and election meddling. The war in Ukraine, begun in 2014, dragged on with no sustainable peace in sight.
All that culminated in the 2022 full-scale invasion. Joe Biden’s response, with stronger sanctions and military support for Ukraine, led to a “below zero” level of cooperation with Russia. Had sanctions come earlier, and military aid faster with no restrictions, many Ukrainians believe the war could have been over by now with Kyiv as the winner.
Every Western reset has inadvertently strengthened the Russian economy and its military power, which has fueled both domestic repression and external aggression. The US has already helped China to rise and challenge its global dominance, and it now risks enabling another rival. If it continues down this road, it’s unlikely to be just Ukraine paying the price.
The administration may be clinging to a new illusion — that it can drive a wedge between Russia and China, but that partnership isn’t going anywhere.
Part of the fault lies with the US school of Russian studies, which has long been shaped by myths spun by the KGB, leaving generations of policymakers with a romantic view of their adversary. Eastern European scholars who understand Russia are dismissed as paranoid Cassandras, leading to a vicious cycle of repeatedly falling into the same trap.
If the self-harming inclinations of the Western world are not healed, Russia and China will ultimately celebrate the ultimate victory.
Elena Davlikanova is a Democracy Fellow with the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA.) Her work is focused on Ukraine and Russia’s domestic issues and their effects on global peace. She is an experienced researcher, who in 2022 conducted the studies ‘The Work of the Ukrainian Parliament in Wartime’ and ‘The War of Narratives: The Image of Ukraine in Media.’
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
Ukraine 2036
How Today’s Investments Will Shape Tomorrow’s Security
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
