Amr Abdelaty‏‏

During the early months of his current Presidential tenure, Donald Trump started adopting a reconciliatory approach toward Moscow. He offered significant concessions to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. These included recognizing Moscow's control over parts of Ukraine, as well as excluding the latter from joining NATO, and easing U.S. sanctions on Russia. Reportedly, Trump also explored the possibility of an official U.S. recognition of Crimea's annexation, which Russia took control of in 2014. Such measures indicated a clear shift from the previous Democratic administration's hardline stance against Moscow.Following increasing criticism from allies and European diplomats, Trump gradually abandoned his pacifying approach toward Russia and started adopting a firmer stance against it. He announced new packages of military aid to Ukraine, including advanced air defense systems and missiles through agreements with NATO. Meanwhile, Trump threatened to impose strict oil sanctions and demanded Putin reach a peace agreement within a set timeframe—initially 50 days, then shortened to 10 to 12 days. Besides, he threatened to impose severe restrictions on Russian exports and its supporters if the country failed to cooperate on settling the Ukrainian crisis.Multiple ReasonsThe American escalation against Russia coincided with rising verbal tensions between Trump and former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, following Washington's proposed date for ending the war in Ukraine. Tensions heightened when the U.S. announced the deployment of two nuclear submarines off the Russian coast, to which Moscow and Beijing responded by organizing joint military exercises—sending a clear message to counter the U.S. escalation. In this context, the shift in Trump’s policy toward Russia could be explained as follows:1- Putin's Reluctance to End the Russo-Ukrainian War: One of the main drivers behind Trump’s policy shift toward Russia and Vladimir Putin was the American president’s gradual realization of Russia’s clear refusal to end the war in Ukraine. Trump entered the White House with a desire to negotiate and reshape relations with Moscow. Initially, he expressed his readiness to approach Putin, and an intention to review sanctions against Russia conditioned by a settlement in Ukraine. However, this openness was met with Russian military escalation in Ukraine, marked by increased missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and expanded territorial demands. As negotiations stalled, Washington concluded that the Kremlin was not seeking a settlement but rather aiming to consolidate territorial gains and enforce a new status quo by force. This behaviour led the Republican administration, which had hoped for a quick deal to end the war, to reassess its position. The reassessment became especially urgent after Putin’s implicit promises of cooperation turned into diplomatic evasions and actual military expansion in Ukrainian territories.2- Domestic Pressure in the U.S. to Impose Sanctions on Russia: As Trump took office in 2025, he faced significant pressure from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to impose tougher sanctions on Russia amid its renewed military aggression in Ukraine. Many politicians expressed their frustrations with Trump’s hesitance to adopt decisive measures against Moscow. His reluctance stemmed from a desire to keep the negotiation window open with Putin and doubts about the effectiveness of economic sanctions as a tool to change Russian behaviour.. However, bipartisan alliances in the congress led intense campaigns to pressure the White House to adopt an expanded sanctions package targeting critical sectors of the Russian economy, alongside proposals to impose tariffs up to 500% on countries continuing to import Russian oil. This growing pressure forced the president to adjust his stance, especially amid escalating internal criticism and intensified Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory. Trump's shift represented a pragmatic response to the realities of the domestic political landscape. He tried to balance between his personal vision of flexible foreign policy toward Moscow and the increasing demands from Democrats and Republicans to sanction Russia. Both parties consider the sanctions a central tool to weaken Russia’s military capacity as well as deter Putin from continuing his expansionist plans.3- Targeting Russia's Military Funding Sources: Despite repeated calls from Trump for Moscow to halt military operations to reach a peace deal, U.S. policies increasingly aimed to target the sources of funding for Russia's military capabilities and respond to Kremlin’s stubbornness in negotiations. The primary target was the energy sector, with threats of direct sanctions on Russia's energy industry and secondary sanctions on countries importing Russian oil and gas. This approach was not only a means to impose economic pressure on the Kremlin but also sought to reduce Russia’s ability to finance its military operations and defense infrastructure, especially amid growing tensions in Ukraine and continued Russian military policies undermining U.S. efforts to resolve the crisis.4- Europe Pressuring Trump to Support Ukraine: Trump's policy shift toward Putin followed calls by several European allies—particularly Germany, France, and Poland—who expressed their deep concern over Trump’s rapprochement with Russia, . They cited fears of undermining European security and enabling a Russian geopolitical expansion. In response, Trump's reassessed his openness toward Moscow, especially after the Kremlin failed to respond to any peace initiatives or show goodwill to end military operations in Ukraine. In this context, the Trump administration followed alternative trajectories which included&nbsp;promoting defense supply to Ukraine with European funding, rather than unilaterally bearing its full financial and political costs.5- Trump's Desire to Adopt a Tough Stance Toward Putin: One explanation for the recent shift in Trump’s foreign policy toward Russia relates to his doctrine. Much of these changes seem linked to his desire to protect his image domestically and internationally rather than a well-thought strategic vision. Trump’s general approach to U.S. foreign policy emphasizes portraying himself as a "strong president" against international adversaries. He viewed his initial excessive friendliness toward Putin as potentially being perceived as weakness or naivety. This shift reflects Trump’s late realization that personal relations alone cannot guarantee other leaders’ commitment to agreements. As a result, he began relying on economic and military pressure. This approach aimed not only to restrain Moscow but also to bolster his image before the American public as a decisive leader who would not allow any international rival, even Putin, to undermine U.S. prestige or global standing. Understanding Putin’s BehaviourThe shift in Trump’s policies from openness toward Russia to a confrontational approach resulted from a combination of domestic and international political and security pressures. The U.S. administration faced a crisis that required imposing tangible cost on Moscow, especially given Putin’s insistence on ignoring American initiatives to end the Ukraine crisis. In response to Russia’s obstinacy, Trump publicly reduced the timeframe given to Russia to end the war. Furthermore, he threatened to impose harsh sanctions, including secondary sanctions against countries importing Russian oil and gas. This threat was not merely an escalation; it reflected a qualitative shift in U.S. policy tools, from relying on diplomatic incentives to imposing systematic economic pressure. In sum, this reflects growing awareness within the White House that Putin only responds to serious threats, not to political rapprochement.Trump’s policy shift demonstrates an understanding of Russian behaviour. Moscow is no longer seen as a party that can be contained solely through negotiations but as an actor using war as a diplomatic lever. Therefore, the Trump administration adopted a firmer stance, combining economic pressure and deterrence while maintaining the possibility of re-engaging diplomatically in the future. Consequently, the U.S. policy toward Russia transitioned from cautious optimism to coercive measures driven by geopolitical calculations and deterrence, amid growing realization that leniency toward Russia could lead to further aggression.

Why has Trump pivoted from rapprochement to deterrence toward Moscow?