ust over two months into U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term, new uncertainties have begun to reshape the West’s approach toward the war in Ukraine. As the conflict grinds through its third year, signs of strategic drift have emerged across Western capitals. With battlefield momentum stalled, political divisions deepening, and public fatigue rising, the West now faces a narrowing window to reassess its goals—or risk drifting toward a scenario of prolonged stalemate and fractured unity.
While former president Joe Biden framed the war as a broader fight for democracy and pledged open–ended support to Kyiv, Trump’s foreign policy instincts emphasize burden sharing, cost efficiency, and transactional diplomacy. These principles are already shaping Washington’s posture. Military aid packages have slowed, public rhetoric has shifted toward ending the war “quickly,” and U.S. diplomatic overtures increasingly hint at conditional support rather than blank checks.
This recalibration has strategic implications. European governments—many already divided over escalation risks and resource constraints—are adjusting to a more cautious American role. France’s recent suggestion of deploying troops to Ukraine, though swiftly walked back, reflects a growing recognition in European capitals of the need to shoulder greater responsibility. Meanwhile, Germany’s hesitation on supplying advanced weaponry underscores the lack of consensus even within core NATO states.
Against this backdrop, the West faces three strategic pathways:
Sustain Pressure: Doubling down on military and financial support could help Ukraine regain initiative, but this option requires sustained political will and economic resilience—both of which are increasingly in doubt. With U.S. aid packages entangled in domestic political gridlock, the viability of this path is uncertain.
Pursue Conditional Peace: A growing chorus of voices across the political spectrum is advocating for a negotiated settlement. Under Trump’s leadership, Washington may move in this direction more assertively—pushing Kyiv to accept a compromise that preserves some form of sovereignty while freezing the conflict. However, any settlement risks emboldening Russia if not paired with credible deterrence mechanisms.
Strategic Paralysis: The most likely—and most dangerous—scenario is one in which the West remains divided and indecisive. Piecemeal support, mixed signals, and lack of a unified strategy would prolong the war without a clear endgame, weakening both Ukraine’s position and Western credibility.
Each option carries risks, but the cost of inaction is mounting. Russia is adapting to long–term war footing, expanding defense production and exploiting sanctions loopholes. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s manpower and morale are under increasing strain, and the prospect of a sustained, low–intensity war favors Moscow’s attritional strategy.
To avoid strategic paralysis, Western leaders must urgently recalibrate their objectives. This does not mean surrendering Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but rather acknowledging that maximalist war aims may be incompatible with political and economic realities. A credible endgame requires a balance of deterrence, diplomacy, and burden sharing—anchored by clear, realistic goals.
Trump’s second term has changed the equation. The window for decisive action is narrowing. Without a coherent strategy that bridges American pragmatism and European resolve, the West risks not only losing momentum in Ukraine—but undermining its own global standing.
a global affairs media network
Strategic pathways toward a credible endgame for Ukraine
Photo by Алесь Усцінаў via Pexels.
March 26, 2025
As Trump’s second term reshapes U.S. policy, the West must recalibrate its Ukraine strategy or risk strategic paralysis and division, writes Dr. Elkhan Nuriyev.
J
ust over two months into U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term, new uncertainties have begun to reshape the West’s approach toward the war in Ukraine. As the conflict grinds through its third year, signs of strategic drift have emerged across Western capitals. With battlefield momentum stalled, political divisions deepening, and public fatigue rising, the West now faces a narrowing window to reassess its goals—or risk drifting toward a scenario of prolonged stalemate and fractured unity.
While former president Joe Biden framed the war as a broader fight for democracy and pledged open–ended support to Kyiv, Trump’s foreign policy instincts emphasize burden sharing, cost efficiency, and transactional diplomacy. These principles are already shaping Washington’s posture. Military aid packages have slowed, public rhetoric has shifted toward ending the war “quickly,” and U.S. diplomatic overtures increasingly hint at conditional support rather than blank checks.
This recalibration has strategic implications. European governments—many already divided over escalation risks and resource constraints—are adjusting to a more cautious American role. France’s recent suggestion of deploying troops to Ukraine, though swiftly walked back, reflects a growing recognition in European capitals of the need to shoulder greater responsibility. Meanwhile, Germany’s hesitation on supplying advanced weaponry underscores the lack of consensus even within core NATO states.
Against this backdrop, the West faces three strategic pathways:
Sustain Pressure: Doubling down on military and financial support could help Ukraine regain initiative, but this option requires sustained political will and economic resilience—both of which are increasingly in doubt. With U.S. aid packages entangled in domestic political gridlock, the viability of this path is uncertain.
Pursue Conditional Peace: A growing chorus of voices across the political spectrum is advocating for a negotiated settlement. Under Trump’s leadership, Washington may move in this direction more assertively—pushing Kyiv to accept a compromise that preserves some form of sovereignty while freezing the conflict. However, any settlement risks emboldening Russia if not paired with credible deterrence mechanisms.
Strategic Paralysis: The most likely—and most dangerous—scenario is one in which the West remains divided and indecisive. Piecemeal support, mixed signals, and lack of a unified strategy would prolong the war without a clear endgame, weakening both Ukraine’s position and Western credibility.
Each option carries risks, but the cost of inaction is mounting. Russia is adapting to long–term war footing, expanding defense production and exploiting sanctions loopholes. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s manpower and morale are under increasing strain, and the prospect of a sustained, low–intensity war favors Moscow’s attritional strategy.
To avoid strategic paralysis, Western leaders must urgently recalibrate their objectives. This does not mean surrendering Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but rather acknowledging that maximalist war aims may be incompatible with political and economic realities. A credible endgame requires a balance of deterrence, diplomacy, and burden sharing—anchored by clear, realistic goals.
Trump’s second term has changed the equation. The window for decisive action is narrowing. Without a coherent strategy that bridges American pragmatism and European resolve, the West risks not only losing momentum in Ukraine—but undermining its own global standing.
