Trump and His Three Musketeers: A New U.S.-Russia Approach to Ukraine
What sets Trump apart is his willingness to take big risks in pursuit of big wins.
President Donald J. Trump’s most consistently repeated geopolitical promise was to end the Russia-Ukraine war. While this goal is popular among American voters, peace alone will not satisfy them. The real question is: How does that peace make Americans feel about themselves? Trump’s legacy hangs on the answer.
This is a high-wire act that could lead to either a traumatic fall or a crowd-pleasing triumph. It could resemble Richard Nixon’s withdrawal from Vietnam or Joe Biden’s pullout from Afghanistan—a stinging defeat that diminishes America while emboldening its foes. In both cases, Americans felt worse about themselves, even though the fighting had stopped.
Now consider Ronald Reagan’s disengagement from Nicaragua or George H.W. Bush’s departure from Iraq in 1991—both ended conflicts while leaving local leaders in charge, claiming they would seek peace and prosperity. The first two outcomes tarnished promising presidential legacies, while the latter two became mildly positive historical footnotes.
How does Trump avoid a Nixon-Biden verdict and secure a Reagan-Bush judgment?
That depends on Trump and his three musketeers: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Like the chevaliers of old, they carry out the king’s will and require both courage and cunning.
Two of them, Rubio and Waltz, bring extensive experience from both the U.S. House and Senate. Hegseth, for his part, has deep military expertise.
Much of Trump’s political pain since 2016 has been tied to Ukraine and Russia. From the first day of his presidency, he was relentlessly attacked over baseless accusations of “collusion” with the Russian government. The ordeal left a deep scar.
Adding to that, Trump faced an impeachment trial over allegations that he asked Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for information about payments between a Ukrainian energy company and Biden’s son.
As a result, Trump is the most prominent figure in Washington who openly distrusts the Ukrainian leader and one of the few who views Russian president Vladimir Putin in purely transactional, rather than moral, terms.
Trump dispatched Rubio to Saudi Arabia to meet his Russian counterpart—without Ukrainian or European participation. This meeting marks the first extensive U.S.-Russia discussions since Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, causing anxiety in Kyiv and across Europe.
Zelenskyy fails to grasp that Trump holds him partly responsible for one of his impeachments and dislikes his performative moralism—a natural stance for a former actor like Zelenskyy but anathema to a pragmatic dealmaker like Trump.
Trump has called Zelenskyy “a dictator” for refusing to hold elections and has blamed Ukraine for the war.
The message is clear: Trump does not view the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a battle of good versus evil but as a tragedy with no clear heroes. If Zelenskyy wants to salvage his nation, he must abandon public posturing and engage in quiet, pragmatic discussions with Trump’s inner circle—starting with: “Okay, I get it. What do you guys want?”
From Trump’s perspective, Europe also faces a painful readjustment.
German chancellor Olaf Scholz’s remark that “there must be no decision over the heads of Ukraine” seems tone-deaf in Trump’s Washington. Who is he to say anything? Trump’s advisors ask. How many tanks or euros has Germany sent? And when exactly did Germany stop buying gas from Putin?
The harsh reality for Europe is that Trump’s team views European leaders as secondary players.
Furthermore, businessmen in Trump’s orbit note that European contributions to Ukraine have not exceeded $15 billion in any quarter since 2022—while U.S. contributions surpassed $24 billion in the fourth quarter of 2024 alone.
European leaders seem to assume that the Ukraine conflict will follow the pattern of the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s, where America provided the bulk of military and financial support while Europe retained an equal seat at the table—just as it did in 1945. Trump appears determined to prevent that scenario, leaving the European Union in an uncomfortable position.
Meanwhile, U.S. treasury secretary Scott Bessent has signaled that the White House could either lift or increase sanctions on Russia, depending on Moscow’s willingness to negotiate. During a recent visit to Kyiv, Bessent presented Zelenskyy with a demand for mineral rights as “payback” for past U.S. military aid.
Bessent claimed that Ukraine had agreed to the terms. However, on Wednesday, Zelenskyy disputed this, noting that the United States had provided $69.2 billion in assistance under the Biden administration—far less than what Trump’s White House is now demanding in return. He insisted that any agreement would require U.S. security guarantees for a postwar settlement.
The Trumpist doctrine of deal-making in service of America First makes it unsurprising that his team is demanding access to Ukraine’s $500 billion in mineral resources as a condition for continued American protection. The only surprising thing is that anyone would be shocked by this.
Trump’s closest advisors have reinforced this approach:
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio has advocated for a shift toward a multipolar world in which the United States takes a secondary role in Europe.
- National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has stated that Europe must “own this conflict going forward”—which means footing the bill.
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has bluntly told NATO allies that Europe must provide the bulk of future military aid to Ukraine.
Trump’s insistence that Europe handle “local issues” like Ukraine without heavy U.S. involvement could eventually force the development of an independent European security framework.
The outcome of Trump’s negotiations with Putin remains uncertain, but whatever the result, these talks mark a historic shift in U.S.-Russia relations and the future of European security.
If Trump and his team can secure a peace agreement that avoids the perception of a U.S. defeat and pushes Europe toward military self-reliance, his gamble will pay off spectacularly.
But if Russia breaks the truce and seizes Kyiv—forcing a humiliating “helicopter-on-the-embassy-rooftop” moment—Americans will feel dishonored, and Trump’s reputation will suffer.
The stakes are high, and the outcome is unknown. What sets Trump apart is his willingness to take big risks in pursuit of big wins.
About the author: Ahmed Charai
Ahmed Charai is the publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune. He is on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Center for the National Interest, and the International Advisory Council of the United States Institute of Peace.
Image: Drop of Light / Shutterstock.com