[Opinion] The Troubling Core of the Trump-Putin Saga

The unfolding drama between President Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has forced me to confront a deeply unsettling question about our nation: Is our leadership merely a pawn in Vladimir Putin’s game, embracing his distorted narrative on the Ukraine conflict and its resolution? Or does Trump see himself as a Mafia don, eager to divvy up territories with Russia, much like crime families do? Perhaps in his mind, it’s something like, “I’ll take Greenland, you take Crimea. I’ll handle Panama, and you can have your share of Arctic oil. And how about we split Ukraine’s rare minerals? Seems fair, don’t you think?”

No matter which angle you look at it, the America we once knew is on hold for the next four years, at least. Our foundational values, trusted allies, and truths are all cast into doubt or up for grabs. President Trump isn’t just thinking outside the box—he’s abandoned the box entirely, disregarding the truths and norms that once guided America.

I can empathize with our allies’ confusion. Consider the poignant essay by the courageous Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, who expressed his shock:

“When I first heard President Trump’s comments blaming Ukraine’s Zelensky for instigating a war that Russia launched, I was stunned,” Sharansky wrote in The Free Press. “Trump seems to have echoed the words of Russia’s Putin, repeating Kremlin propaganda that casts Zelensky as an illegitimate leader. It’s absurd when Putin says it, but coming from the U.S. President, it’s alarming and lacks any semblance of common sense.”

It’s possible that Trump is simply enthralled by Putin, viewing him as a champion against Western liberalism, rather than applying the logic he promised. Yet, there’s another possibility: Trump views American power not as a savior to those seeking freedom, but as a means to exploit them. To him, it’s akin to running a protection racket.

Reflect on this telling excerpt from a Wall Street Journal piece about Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s recent meeting with Zelensky in Kyiv. Bessent presented an offer that strongly evoked a scene from “The Godfather”—a demand for Ukraine to hand over its mineral rights in exchange for U.S. aid.

On the surface, it seemed like a straightforward negotiation: “Bessent pushed the document towards Zelensky, insisting on a signature. Zelensky, taken aback, said he’d consult with his advisers. Bessent leaned in, urging him, ‘You really need to sign this,’ suggesting that refusal would anger some in Washington. Though Zelensky took the paper, he stopped short of agreeing.”

This situation highlights the consequences when Trump is surrounded not by critical thinkers, but by enablers. Anyone versed in international affairs, like Bessent, would know that a Ukrainian leader cannot capriciously surrender billions in mineral rights without consulting legal, parliamentary, or public opinion. Yet Bessent felt compelled to pursue Trump’s demands, no matter how audacious or unreasonable. If Trump envisions turning Gaza into a casino, that’s what you promote. If you need to corner Ukraine, even amid war, that’s what you execute.

A president with a strategic mindset would perceive Putin as wielding weak cards, ripe for exploitation. Evidence? As The Economist recently highlighted, Russia’s initial gains in the war quickly dwindled. By April 2022, following Russia’s northern retreat, they held 19.6 percent of Ukraine, suffering around 20,000 casualties. Now, they control 19.2 percent, with casualties punching up to 800,000, claimed British sources. Half of Russia’s tanks are no more, and of those left, only 500 can be swiftly refurbished. With T-80 tanks nearing depletion and losses in artillery doubling, economic pressure mounts with spiraling inflation and a 21 percent interest rate.

In poker terms, Putin’s all-in decision resembles a bluff with a pair of twos. However, Trump appears to fold rather than call him out.

Instead of fortifying our bonds with European allies and intensifying military pressure on Putin to put forth an irresistible offer, Trump has opted for a contrary route. He’s driven a wedge between us and our allies at the United Nations, refusing to support a resolution that condemns Russian actions in Ukraine. In this maneuver, he sided with regimes like North Korea, while initiating a misinformation campaign against Zelensky, not Putin.

While erroneously attributing the start of the war to Ukraine, Trump falsely claimed Zelensky’s approval rating was at 4 percent (contrary to an actual 57 percent, which outstrips Trump’s own). He denounced Zelensky as a “dictator” who should prepare for elections, all the while granting Putin—who imprisoned presidential rival Alexei Navalny for nearly three decades leading to his death—a free pass.

Zelensky seems trapped into considering an irrational minerals agreement, even though it could cost Ukraine beyond the $120 billion in U.S. military and humanitarian support received, support vital for countering Russia’s aggression.

This predicament is disgraceful. Trump appears to be exploiting Ukrainians amid Russia’s invasion, with no corresponding demand for reparations from Putin or promises of future U.S. security for Kyiv. As clarified by the White House, “This economic agreement does not ensure future aid nor involve any U.S. military commitment in the region.”

While I see no issue with America seeking investment preferences in Ukraine post-conflict as gratitude for support, pressing for it prematurely and without security commitments is a move even Don Corleone might shy away from, but not Don Trump.

Trump’s interpretation of Putin is flawed. He seems to believe a little warmth, some understanding of Putin’s security needs—a figurative hug—might lead to a peace agreement. It’s an illusion. As Russia expert Leon Aron, author of the acclaimed “Riding the Tiger: Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the Uses of War,” notes, Putin’s aim isn’t peace—it’s victory. Absent a triumph, Putin remains vulnerable domestically. Capitalist democracies may yearn for peace, but authoritarian regimes thrive on victory. Our strategy needs a shift.

According to Aron, signaling to Putin that Western allies are prepared to challenge his gambit with resolute strength could change the dynamics—without tarnishing the courage of a nation striving for a united and liberated Europe.

Our support for Ukraine should be steadfast to secure the best possible terms. This likely includes acknowledging a cease-fire that recognizes Putin’s control in parts of eastern Ukraine; a temporary halt on Ukraine’s NATO aspirations; and a gradual lifting of Western sanctions, contingent upon Russia retracting its offensive military presence. In exchange, Putin must accept European peacekeeping forces and a no-fly zone, underpinned by U.S. assurances, preventing a Russian military return and ensuring non-interference with Ukraine’s EU membership.

It’s crucial for the U.S. to ensure Ukraine’s pathway to EU membership remains open—a process already underway. I hope Russians will one day look across to Ukraine, observe its thriving, free-market democracy, and contrast it with their existence under Putin’s oppressive autocracy. To my mind, this war has less to do with NATO and more with preventing Ukraine’s EU integration.

From Moscow, a Russian scholar, who spoke candidly on condition of anonymity, shared that Putin’s camp views Trump’s circle as a troupe of amateurs—easy targets for the astute and shrewd leader, all part of Putin’s broader strategy: “MRGA—Make Russia Great Again (and Make America Less Great Again).” Putin aims to curb U.S. global dominance, seeking a landscape where America becomes just another power player, largely retreating to the Western Hemisphere, detached from Europe and Asia. Trump, in Putin’s vision, serves as a tool in orchestrating this decline.

The question remains: Will Trump and his network ever grasp this reality, or will that realization come only when it’s well past the point of return?