At the start of his second term in the White House, President Donald Trump’s policies toward Russia and the ongoing war in Ukraine since February 24, 2022, underwent notable changes during the first six months. Initially, Trump adopted a conciliatory approach toward Moscow, offering major concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin, including recognizing Moscow’s control over areas in Ukraine, excluding Ukraine’s membership in NATO, and easing U.S. sanctions on Moscow. Reports even suggested that Trump explored the possibility of official U.S. recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, seized in 2014—a clear departure from the previous Democratic administration’s hardline stance against Moscow.
Over time, as criticism mounted from allies and European diplomats, Donald Trump gradually shifted his foreign policy toward Russia. The U.S. president announced new packages of military aid to Ukraine, including supplying advanced air defense systems and missiles through NATO agreements. At the same time, Trump threatened to impose strict oil sanctions and demanded that Putin reach a peace deal within a specific timeframe—first 50 days, later shortened to 10 or 12 days—warning of severe restrictions on Russia’s exports and its supporters if it failed to respond to settlement initiatives for the Ukrainian crisis.
Multiple Reasons
The U.S. escalation against Russia coincided with rising rhetorical tensions between President Donald Trump and former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev over Washington’s imposed timetable for ending the war in Ukraine. Tensions deepened with the U.S. announcement of deploying two nuclear submarines off the Russian coast, to which Moscow and Beijing responded with joint military exercises—a clear message against American escalation. Several key factors explain the shift in Trump’s policies during his first six months back in the White House:
1– Putin’s unwillingness to end the Russia–Ukraine war:
A central driver of Trump’s policy shift toward Russia and Vladimir Putin was the American president’s gradual realization of Moscow’s clear refusal to end the war in Ukraine. Entering the White House with a negotiating spirit and a desire to reset relations with Moscow, Trump initially sent positive signals to Putin, including readiness to review sanctions in exchange for tangible progress toward settlement. However, this openness was met with Russia’s military escalation in Ukraine, manifested in intensified missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and expanded territorial demands. As negotiations stalled, Washington concluded that the Kremlin was not seeking a settlement, but rather entrenching battlefield gains and imposing a new balance of power through force. This behavior pushed the Republican administration—initially hoping for a quick deal to end the war—to reassess its approach, especially as Putin’s implied promises of cooperation gave way to diplomatic evasions and actual military expansion in Ukraine.
2– Domestic pressure to impose sanctions on Russia:
Trump’s second term witnessed growing pressure from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to impose tougher sanctions on Russia in light of its renewed military aggression against Ukraine. Many expressed frustration at Trump’s hesitation to adopt decisive measures, given his desire to keep negotiation channels with Putin open and his skepticism about the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool to change Russian behavior. However, bipartisan coalitions in Congress—both the Senate and the House—launched an intensive campaign to pressure the White House into adopting a wide-ranging sanctions package targeting Russia’s key economic sectors, alongside proposals to impose tariffs of up to 500% on countries continuing to import Russian oil.
This mounting pressure forced Trump to adjust his stance, especially amid growing domestic criticism and intensified Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory. His policy shift represented a pragmatic response to U.S. political realities, as he found himself compelled to balance his personal vision of flexible foreign policy toward Moscow with the growing insistence of Democrats and Republicans who saw sanctions as a central tool for weakening Russia’s war capability and deterring Putin’s expansionist agenda.
3– Targeting Russia’s sources of military financing:
With Russia persisting in military operations against Ukraine despite Trump’s repeated calls to halt them in pursuit of a peace deal, the U.S. president’s recent policies sought to target Moscow’s sources of military financing—chiefly the energy sector. He threatened direct sanctions on Russia’s energy industry, as well as secondary sanctions on countries importing oil and gas from Moscow. This was not only a means of imposing economic pressure on the Kremlin but also aimed to reduce Russia’s ability to fund its military operations and defense infrastructure, particularly as tensions in Ukraine escalated and Moscow continued military policies undermining U.S. efforts to resolve the crisis.
4– European allies’ pressure to change Trump’s Ukraine policy:
Trump’s change in stance toward Putin also came amid deep concern expressed by many of America’s traditional European allies—notably Germany, France, and Poland—over his Ukraine policy, fearing it would undermine European security and give Russia a green light for geopolitical expansion. In response to this pressure, Trump’s team reassessed the viability of its conciliatory approach toward Moscow, particularly after the Kremlin failed to respond to any peace initiatives or show goodwill in ending military operations in Ukraine. Confronted with this reality, the Trump administration took practical steps to adjust its policy, supporting arms supplies to Ukraine via NATO countries with European funding. This allowed Trump’s administration to share the burden of confronting Russia with European allies without Washington alone bearing the financial and political costs.
5– Trump’s personal desire to project toughness toward Putin:
Another explanation for the shift in Trump’s foreign policy toward Russia lies in Trump’s personality and individual motives. Much of this transformation reflects his desire to protect his image at home and abroad rather than a carefully crafted strategic vision. Trump feared being perceived as weak before Putin. His general approach to U.S. foreign policy has been to project the image of a “strong president” against international rivals. Trump came to view his early excessive accommodation toward Putin as potentially interpreted as weakness or naivety. This shift illustrates his belated realization that personal rapport alone is insufficient to ensure foreign leaders honor agreements, pushing him to use economic and military pressure tools not only to restrain Moscow but also to reinforce his image before the American public as a tough leader unwilling to let any rival—even Putin—undermine U.S. prestige or global standing.
Understanding Putin’s Behavior
Trump’s shift from openness toward Russia to confrontation stemmed from a mix of domestic and international political and security pressures. The U.S. administration found itself facing a crisis that required imposing real costs on Moscow to deter it, especially as Putin ignored American settlement initiatives that were already close to Russia’s preferred outcomes. In response to this intransigence, Trump publicly shortened the timeframe he gave Russia to end the war, threatening harsh sanctions, including secondary measures targeting countries importing Russian oil and gas. This threat was not just escalation, but a qualitative shift in U.S. policy tools—from relying on diplomatic incentives to imposing systematic economic pressure. It also revealed a growing realization within the White House that Putin only responds to serious threats, not political flexibility.
This policy shift reflects a deeper understanding of Russian behavior: Moscow is no longer seen as a party that can be contained through negotiations alone but as an actor using war itself as a bargaining tool. As a result, the Trump administration adopted a firmer stance combining economic pressure with deterrence measures, while keeping the door open for potential diplomatic re-engagement later. Thus, U.S. policy toward Russia moved from cautious optimism to coercive strategies, shaped by geopolitical calculations and deterrence logic, amid the rising recognition that leniency toward Russia only leads to further escalation.
