WASHINGTON (Independence Avenue Media) — Russia continued its campaign of aggression against Ukraine on Wednesday, bombing a kindergarten in a deadly barrage of drone strikes that followed President Donald Trump’s decision to hold off meeting with his Russian counterpart. For former U.S. Ambassador John Herbst, the sequence of events fit a tragically repetitive pattern.
“So far, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has been able, at critical moments, to persuade Trump not to put pressure on him. Right? It happened in May, when Trump and European leaders were about to put sanctions on Russia. It happened again in August. And as Zelensky was coming to Washington to try and make a deal on Tomahawks, it happened a third time.”
That insight could not have proven more prescient. Just hours after the following interview concluded, the cycle of pressure and retreat appeared to repeat itself. A prospective summit in Budapest — the product of an unexpected call between Putin and Trump less than a day before the Ukrainian president’s White House visit — was scrapped. By evening, Trump unveiled significant new sanctions on Russia for the first time in his second term, targeting its two largest oil companies.
The announcement came just as Trump was sitting down with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office.
In the following interview, Herbst, senior director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, said he would expect Trump to return to pressuring the Kremlin once it became clear that Putin is not genuinely interested in making peace.
“Persuading Putin to stop shooting is an outcome that can be achieved with American strength,” if applied consistently, he said. “If Trump pursues that, that would be a major achievement. But let’s see. … Let’s see if he’s willing to do that.”
The following interview, recorded October 20, has been edited for length and clarity.
Kartlos Sharashenidze, Independence Avenue Media: Following President Trump’s recent White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, what are your observations? How do you read Trump’s approach to Russia’s war against Ukraine?
Ambassador John Herbst, Atlantic Council: Well, the thing is, Trump is mercurial. And the stance he’ll take on the war will change over time. But it’s also true that there is a certain framework in which it changes over time. He thought he could solve this war quickly and obviously he’s been unable to do that. There was a period starting in the middle of February where he thought Ukraine was the problem in achieving a peace. Now, of course, that was wrong. And after he made numerous ceasefire proposals, all of which Zelensky accepted and Putin tried to not reject — [Putin ultimately] deflected. He refused to agree. Trump began to realize that Putin was the problem. And we saw a period starting in May where Trump began to try and put some pressure on Putin. But each time he tried to put pressure, Putin would offer a meeting, and Trump would back off on the pressure. And that’s essentially what we’re seeing right now.
This continued after a very warm meeting between [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and Trump in New York [some] weeks ago. But as Trump began to talk publicly about providing more advanced weapons to Ukraine, including Tomahawk missiles, Putin called Trump and said, “let’s have a meeting.” And then Trump immediately dropped the idea of putting pressure. So, that doesn’t mean that this latest turn away from providing pressure is the end point in Trump policy. I suspect once it becomes clear that Putin is not interested in making peace one more time, Trump will come back to the idea of putting pressure on the Kremlin. That’s kind of how this thing has developed over time.
Sharashenidze: So, what we’re seeing is that after this meeting with Zelensky at the White House and the call with Putin, President Trump said both sides should “stop where they are,” which sounds like he’s talking about freezing the front lines, right? From your perspective, could this kind of solution lead to a just and lasting peace? And could it also be seen as giving Russia a kind of legitimacy over the Ukrainian territory it currently controls?
Amb. Herbst: Trump has never talked about a just peace. He’s talked about a durable peace. And he’s been pretty consistent on that.
A durable peace along the current lines of battle; a durable peace involving serious deterrence capability for Ukraine to prevent future Russian aggression — that’s what he’s been pursuing. And I think he has the ability to achieve this if he’s willing to put major pressure on the Russian economy and on the Russian forces on the battlefield in Ukraine. But so far as we’ve already discussed, he’s been reluctant to do that.
[However], the fact that he is on record seeking this means that it would be a problem for him if he’s not effectively pursuing this objective. And that’s why I think eventually he’s going to have to put pressure on Putin.
Sharashenidze: During this almost four-year war, Ukrainian officials have said that any resolution should be just and lasting, not just quick. Do you think their position has changed with the latest developments?
Amb. Herbst: My sense is that Zelensky would accept a lasting peace as long as it’s actually lasting. He wouldn’t accept that happily, but, given the circumstances, I think he’s already indicated a willingness to do this. That would take some explaining to the people of Ukraine, to the political class in Ukraine. But Ukrainians are not stupid. They understand their circumstances. So, I think this is a point that Zelensky can sell. But again, it has to be a durable peace, and he needs to have serious deterrent capability. But Putin doesn’t want [this], Putin has rejected this. Zelenskyy has not.
Sharashenidze: You mentioned Trump’s shifting statements and positions. A few weeks ago, he called Russia a “paper tiger” and said Ukraine could “win back all its territory” with support from the EU and NATO. Now, he’s calling for both sides “to stop where they are” and “let both claim victory.” How do you interpret this change in tone?
Amb. Herbst: It’s very simple. Trump will entertain very different ideas at different times, and his rhetoric, his public statements reflect that. But again, Trump is on record as saying he wants a durable peace. So, there will be a political cost for him in not achieving that durable peace. And I think that would keep him from ultimately allowing Putin to take control of Ukraine.
Sharashenidze: How do you think Putin is reading Trump’s shifting positions?
Amb. Herbst: Well, so far Putin has been able, at the critical moments, to persuade Trump not to put pressure on him. Right? It happened in May, when Trump and European leaders were about to put sanctions on Russia. It happened again in August. And as Zelensky was coming to Washington to try and make a deal on Tomahawks, it happened a third time — now in October. But the fact that Trump keeps coming back to pressuring the Kremlin reflects the fact that Putin is blocking Trump’s efforts to achieve peace in Ukraine and that’s not going to go away.
Sharashenidze: Does Putin view President Trump’s willingness to engage with him as a diplomatic opening, or as a sign that Washington might be willing to back off its support for Ukraine?
Amb. Herbst: I think Putin hopes that. He may even expect it, but that is not working so far for Putin. Putin has been able to stop Trump from taking strong steps against the Russian economy and the Russian military, but he’s not been able to persuade Trump to back off of support for Ukraine. And again, Putin is counting on that. But for Trump, [at least in terms of public relations] at an absolute minimum, it would be politically difficult.
Sharashenidze: And one last question: Do you see any realistic path to peace? In your view, what would be the best outcome for Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S.? What kind of resolution would you hope to see?
Amb. Herbst: The best outcome would be arming Ukraine to the hilt, allowing them to shoot wherever they want as long as they don’t shoot at Russian civilians and Ukraine taking back a good part of its territory. If American policy was that strong, with our European partners, that would be the result. But Trump is not interested in that. So, he’s the president. I’m not. A durable peace based upon, again, persuading Putin to stop shooting, is an outcome that can be achieved with American strength. If Trump pursues that, that would be a major achievement. But let’s see. I mean, he is pursuing it. If he pursues it energetically and with strength, he will achieve his goal. Let’s see if he’s willing to do that.
