Could Trump Actually Make a Deal Without Ukraine?

Ukraine could always say, “Nah bro, we’re good. Thanks, but no thanks,” to any unfavorable deal that gave away huge swaths of land to Putin. But would they?

DoD image. Public domain

Let’s answer the title question right up front: Trump has no legal power or authority, on paper, to force another sovereign nation to accept any terms it doesn’t want to accept.

When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, I remember being oh so proud to be an American living in a country that gave so generously to keep Ukraine alive.

Now, I feel shame.

So, it’s come to this. President Donald Trump is meeting to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on land previously owned by Russia, to carve up Ukraine like a real estate parcel…

Without the Ukrainians present.

Ukraine could continue to fight regardless of what Trump and Putin decide. Unfortunately, the United States could make life extremely difficult for the besieged nation should Ukraine find itself on Trump’s bad side.

The power to keep fighting is tied directly to the flow of money, weapons, and intelligence.

And the United States is Ukraine’s single largest supplier of all three. If Washington decides to close the tap, Kyiv’s options narrow quickly; not because its will to fight disappears, but because its capacity does.

History offers a few grim reminders. In 1973, the United States strong-armed South Vietnam into signing the Paris Peace Accords, a deal that effectively guaranteed their eventual defeat.

Saigon hated the terms, but US aid and air support were dangling by a thread, and the alternative was fighting alone against a better-supplied North.

Aid conditionality, the not-so-subtle art of tying money and matériel to political compliance, has been used before on allies from Egypt to Pakistan. The message is always the same: you can keep fighting if you want, but you’ll be doing it without our bullets, our cash, and our satellites.

For a country already waging a war of national survival, that’s not much of a choice.

The Levers Washington Could Pull

If Trump wanted to force Ukraine toward an unfavorable peace, the tools wouldn’t have to be subtle; they’re built right into the mechanics of the US–Ukraine relationship.

The first and most obvious lever is military aid. US shipments of artillery shells, Patriot interceptors, ATACMS missiles, JDAM kits, and F-16 spare parts keep Ukraine’s war machine running.

This has slowed dramatically since Trump regained office, but hasn’t stopped completely.

Shut off that supply altogether, and Ukraine’s air defense network could begin to falter within a few weeks to a few months. Artillery units would be forced to ration shells, shifting from counterbattery fire to static defense.

Europe might try to plug the gap, but its production lines are already at capacity and measured in years, not months.

The second lever is financial lifeline aid. The billions Washington sends each year don’t just buy weapons; they keep the Ukrainian government functioning. Teachers, police, firefighters, doctors, etc. Many are paid with Western budgetary assistance.

Remove that support, and Kyiv risks fiscal collapse, leaving the war effort to compete with basic state survival.

Intelligence sharing is the third pressure point, and it’s more important than most people realize. US ISR assets, everything from RQ-4 Global Hawk flights over the Black Sea to satellite imagery and SIGINT from RC-135 Rivet Joints, give Ukraine the coordinates it needs to hit Russian S-400 systems, ammunition depots, and command posts far behind the front.

Without that feed, deep strikes become educated guesses, and costly ones at that. We saw this firsthand when Trump temporarily stopped intelligence sharing earlier this year. Ukraine was effectively fighting blindfolded.

Diplomatic isolation is another option. Washington could quietly signal to NATO that it is stepping back and encourage major European capitals, Berlin, Paris, and Rome, to follow suit. Of course, these big EU nations are just as likely to give Trump the middle finger.

Some, like Poland and the Baltic states, might resist, but it would fracture NATO unity and increase pressure on Kyiv to compromise just to preserve cohesion among its friends.

Humanitarian and reconstruction aid could also be weaponized. Instead of an outright cut, the US could condition post-war rebuilding funds, de-mining assistance, or even non-lethal aid on signing a deal, selling it domestically as “fiscal responsibility.” It’s slower than cutting off ammunition, but the message would be clear.

Then there’s the more insidious route: political warfare inside Ukraine. The US could lend quiet support to Ukrainian political figures more amenable to a ceasefire, tilting the domestic debate away from total victory and toward “realism.”

With the CIA so focused on helping Ukraine going back to 2013, I would have said this is a nonstarter. However, Trump is quietly gutting the intelligence community and staffing it with loyalists as I type this sentence.

Even without a formal coup, this could undermine Zelensky’s political position and erode his negotiating leverage.

Finally, there’s battlefield engineering… Shaping the war’s tempo by delaying weapons deliveries or withholding critical intelligence at decisive moments, creating operational crises that make talks look like the only way out.

This would mean Ukrainian soldiers would likely lose their lives as the US cuts off essential intel right at the worst possible moment.

It’s a dangerous game, but if the White House’s goal was to corner Ukraine, history suggests it’s possible.

Why Trump Might Try It

Donald Trump has never hidden his admiration for Vladimir Putin’s ruthlessness or his skepticism toward the US commitment to Ukraine.

During his first term, he famously called NATO “obsolete,” publicly questioned why America should defend allies who “don’t pay their bills,” and framed Ukraine aid as a costly distraction from domestic priorities. That worldview hasn’t changed.

Also, to Trump, a “win” isn’t measured by the survival of a democratic ally; it’s measured by whether he can stand in front of cameras and declare he ended a war on his watch. The details, like whether the “peace” involves the permanent loss of Ukrainian territory, are negotiable.

A peace deal with Putin would serve multiple purposes. Domestically, it would appeal to his isolationist base, which sees the Ukraine war as a European problem siphoning off American tax dollars. It would also let him frame Democrats and foreign policy hawks as warmongers unwilling to take “yes” for an answer.

Internationally, it would position him (in his own mind) as the ultimate dealmaker who could tame the Kremlin with a handshake where others failed.

Trump is a transactional thinker, and in his calculus, Ukraine is a bargaining chip. If conceding territory to Russia can be spun as a grand bargain that brings “peace,” he may see it as a low-cost trade for better US–Russia relations, potential concessions in other areas, or even economic deals down the line.

And unlike a traditional diplomat, Trump has no qualms about excluding the primary stakeholder from the room.

His willingness to meet with Putin without Ukraine present signals exactly where he believes the real conversation, and the real leverage, lies.

Trump values only strength. In the war between Ukraine and Russia, Trump clearly believes that Russia is the stronger party and, therefore, the only party worth talking to.

In that sense, a one-sided peace is the point. The risk is that in chasing a headline and a quick win, Trump could lock in a precedent that borders can be redrawn by force… A precedent that other authoritarian leaders are watching very closely.

What Could Ukraine Do?

Well, first, it’s important to understand that, according to recent polling, more Ukrainians than ever (about half) are willing to give land to Russia if it ends the war.

Of course, there are contrary polls that state that most Ukrainians are unwilling to cede territory.

For his part, Zelenskyy himself has said repeatedly that he refuses to give up land. I don’t blame him. To give land to Russia (to end the war) would be a betrayal of the Ukrainians who have lost their lives so far in this war, at least in my opinion.

If Washington turned hostile, Ukraine wouldn’t simply roll over and sign away its sovereignty. Kyiv has spent more than three years fighting an existential war against a numerically superior enemy; stubborn survival is in its political DNA.

The first and most obvious counter-move would be to pivot toward a Europe-first war effort.

In fact, Ukraine is already moving in this direction.

Poland, the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, and the Nordics have made it clear they view a Ukrainian defeat as an existential threat to their own security.

While Europe can’t instantly replace the scale of US military aid, these countries have already shown a willingness to send proportionally larger shares of their arsenals than Washington, and their defense industries are ramping up wartime production at a pace not seen in decades.

Ukraine could also turn to the global South and Asian allies who are outside Washington’s direct influence but wary of Russian expansionism.

Japan and South Korea have advanced defense industries and deep pockets. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE may not want to get entangled, but their sovereign wealth funds could quietly bankroll arms purchases from non-US suppliers.

Even nations like Australia or Brazil could offer niche systems or munitions. Actually, the Aussies have already given some pretty clutch systems, including Bushmaster APCs, Abrams tanks, and a mountain of other aid.

Another lever is the private sector. Ukraine has cultivated relationships with Western defense contractors that sometimes bypass government-to-government channels.

This includes direct commercial contracts for drones, software, and battlefield electronics. A hostile White House could still try to block arms exports, but creative procurement through intermediaries and non-US firms could blunt the impact.

If Russia can use gray-market tactics to get Nvidia AI boards for Shaheds, Ukraine can too.

Finally, Ukraine’s greatest weapon might be public diplomacy. The Zelensky administration has proven adept at speaking directly to Western publics, from addresses to parliaments to viral social media moments.

If Congress remains more pro-Ukraine than the Oval Office, Kyiv could use American public opinion to pressure lawmakers into defying the administration. A Trump White House might be able to close certain doors, but it cannot easily silence the story of a smaller democracy resisting a predatory neighbor, and stories like that resonate across borders.

Kyiv’s playbook in such a scenario wouldn’t necessarily be about matching US aid one-for-one; it would be about building a coalition resilient enough to fight on, even if the traditional leader of the free world decided to change sides.

Finally, Ukraine could use European weapons and aid for as long as possible and tie up Russian forces until Putin dies off.

In this scenario, expect to see more Russian military gains.

But I would also expect Ukraine to run a brilliant insurgency and make the invaders pay for every square kilometer they occupy. This is actually the way I thought the whole war was going to go in the early days. Turn Ukraine into the Russians’ Afghanistan, part 2.

Ultimately, we have to hope that domestic and international pressure will be enough to persuade Trump to avoid any deals that punish the victim nation. After all, it was Ukraine that was invaded, and it was Ukraine that humiliated Putin. Putin should not be allowed to dictate the terms of any so-called “peace” simply because he’s experiencing a modicum of success in his summer offensive.

This meeting between the world’s two biggest egos will take place on Friday.

Let’s see what happens.

Слава Україні!