In a stunning turnabout, President Donald Trump has announced a dramatic surge in weapons deliveries to Ukraine. The initial component of the arms shipments will be Patriot air defense batteries, along with missiles and artillery shells. Joined in the Oval Office by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the president outlined the arrangement which provides for NATO member countries to deliver U.S.-made weapons to Ukraine from their own stocks, with those inventories to be replenished by new weapons sold by U.S. manufacturers. The scheme has the advantage of flowing arms to Ukraine immediately, rather than waiting for new arms to be manufactured. Media reports suggest that offensive weapons are likely to be included as the program proceeds, perhaps even long-range missiles that could threaten Moscow.
Reports also reveal that this novel approach was proposed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during the recent NATO summit in The Hague. Officials described the positive tone of the meeting, noting that Zelenskyy wore a suit for the first time since 2022.
This tone marks a striking contrast with the disastrous Oval Office meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump in March, in which Zelenskyy was lambasted by his hosts for showing up in battle dress and failing to be sufficiently deferential to Trump.
Trump likely bought into Zelenskyy’s ideas in The Hague in large part because of his boiling frustration at Russian President Vladimir Putin. Last month in these pages, I noted Trump’s stern criticism of Putin’s conduct of the war in Ukraine, in which he said Putin “has gone absolutely CRAZY!” Putin’s response to that criticism was to immediately launch more than 350 explosive drones and nine cruise missiles at Ukraine. Putin claimed, through a spokesperson, that Trump’s tirade was “connected to an emotional overload of everyone involved.” Trump’s next move would reveal a lot about his resolve. We now have our answer. The bromance is over.
Reports identify as a turning point a call between Trump and Putin on July 3 in which Putin announced his intention to take more Ukrainian territory, no longer stringing the president along with promises of developing a peace plan. Trump felt he had been played, saying he was “very disappointed” in Putin’s duplicity.
In the Oval Office, Trump leveled a stinging criticism of Putin, saying “I don’t want to say he’s an assassin, but he’s a tough guy, he fooled a lot of people.” Trump went on to claim that Putin had fooled Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, but “he didn’t fool me.”
Trump’s response doesn’t stop at weapons shipments. He also declared that if a cease fire agreement is not reached within 50 days, he will impose “severe tariffs,” amounting to secondary sanctions against purchasers of Russian oil. These sanctions would impose tariffs of 100% against goods entering the United States from nations purchasing Russian oil exports. For example, if China or India purchase Russian oil, American purchasers of Chinese or Indian products would pay a tariff of 100% for all goods imported. The aim would be to deter those nations from purchasing Russian oil, thus damaging the Russian economy and its financial capacity to wage war. Trump did not conceal his affection for tariffs: “I use trade for a lot of things. But it’s great for settling wars.”
On Capitol Hill, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., have sponsored a bill that would impose a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian oil. The bill has drawn approximately 80 co-sponsors, but Trump has now stated that he prefers to use his own authority to impose tariffs of 100% on those purchasers.
Secondary sanctions do not have a history of great success. Iran has not been deterred by them, and Russia is operating with a wartime economy in an increasingly frugal society. Yet there is a chance that Putin will not want to risk the loss of revenue from black market sales to purchasers who may be compelled to comply with American sanctions.
Secondary sanctions can also have unintended consequences, such as damaging alliances and trading relationships. And in the case of Russian oil, removing those barrels from the market could increase the price of crude oil, impacting costs at American gas pumps.
Trump has set a rather distant horizon for imposing secondary sanctions. Fifty days gives him room to negotiate, but it does little to stop the carnage in Ukraine and may be viewed as an empty threat. The flow of arms and munitions, if truly mobilized immediately, holds more promise.
In addition to the robust surge in weapons, Putin cannot be happy to see Trump suddenly endorsing an aggressive posture by NATO allies. Indeed, Trump effusively praised the solidarity and commitment of the European contingent. A further positive note comes from Germany, where a dramatic increase in defense spending, coupled with a commitment to provide a German Patriot battery, represents a breakout moment for Berlin.
These elements may represent a turning point, following a haphazard series of criticisms of Zelenskyy, the bizarre suspension of aid to Ukraine by an unnamed someone in the Pentagon, and an apparent lack of communication with the White House. Yet, it may be that American policy on Ukraine has finally got it right.
It’s tempting to invoke the apocryphal words of Winston Churchill, saying that “Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.” In an era of Google searches, we now know that these words likely were never uttered by Churchill. But if he were alive today, he probably would agree that they meet the moment.