Annotations Issue 30: What the Trump administration means for Ukraine
Ukraine’s fight is not just for its independence, but for the principles that protect every country from predation by their more powerful neighbors.
Dear readers,
Welcome back! It’s good to see you.
We have hit the ground running this year. In this issue, we begin a three-part series on the new U.S. administration, and what a second Trump presidency might mean for the U.S. and the world.
In the first piece of this series, Benton Coblentz, MPA ‘26, delves into the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. While the U.S.’s posture towards Ukraine remains rife with tensions, the new administration has an opportunity to send a strong message condemning Russian imperialism. In other words, “Ukraine’s fight is not just for its independence, but for the principles that protect every country from predation by their more powerful neighbors.”
As always, send us your questions, ideas, pitches, comments, or thoughts! As a reminder, Annotations is the place for Princeton students to submit short pieces (500-1000 words) that provide reflection, policy analysis, or commentary on current affairs, SPIA events, and more. Just write to us at jpia@princeton.edu with your pitch or submission, or reach out to us if you want to brainstorm an idea in the making.
Happy reading!
Mera, Paco, & Michelle
JPIA Digital Editors
What the Trump administration means for Ukraine
Ukraine’s fight is not just for its independence, but for the principles that protect every country from predation by their more powerful neighbors. While the Trump administration’s policies regarding Ukraine remain uncertain, now is the time to send a strong signal to Russia by supporting Ukraine’s military and reconstruction.
On February 24, 2025, three years will have passed since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainians will mark three years of full-scale war and more than a decade of armed resistance against Russian aggression—a struggle that began with Moscow’s illegal annexation of Crimea and intervention in the conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2014. As the full-scale war enters yet another year, Ukrainians are faced with as much uncertainty over their country’s future as ever, with much of their fate tied up in the decisions of the US administration now led by newly reelected President Donald Trump.
Throughout last year’s presidential election, some of Ukraine’s supporters in the United States were alarmed by the prospect of a second Trump presidency. Then-candidate Trump’s promise to end the war in “24 hours” and his statements against the US’s NATO allies certainly raised red flags about the kind of policy that President Trump might pursue if he were to return to the White House. Even during the campaign, however, Trump’s statements made his intended strategy toward Ukraine unclear. Although President Trump argued that Europe should shoulder more of the burden of supporting Ukraine, he still indicated that Ukraine’s survival was important to the United States.
In the early days of his second administration, this ambiguity remains. Most of the officials President Trump has tapped for key positions appear to be in favor of continued US support for Ukraine. Newly minted Secretary of State Marco Rubio had a strong voting record in favor of Ukraine aid in the Senate. Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who is now the special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, presented a plan in 2024 that would potentially involve imposing “maximum pressure” on Moscow to enter into negotiations. National security advisor Michael Waltz has similarly advocated for a plan to use economic leverage to bring Moscow to the negotiating table.
Certainly, the Trump administration’s initial rhetoric has indicated a positive trajectory for US support for Ukraine. Following some of the proposals from his advisors, President Trump threatened retaliatory actions like sanctions and tariffs on Russia if Moscow refuses to come to an agreement on an end to the war.
Nevertheless, there are signals that the Trump administration’s approach is not entirely in Ukraine’s favor. Already, a gap appears to be growing between Washington and Kyiv on policy. Lt. Gen. Kellogg called on Ukraine to hold elections in conjunction with a ceasefire, which Kyiv has previously resisted given security threats to voters and the potential for Russian interference in the electoral process. Reportedly, President Trump has instructed Lt. Gen. Kellogg to end the war in 100 days, which might ultimately put more pressure on Kyiv to come to the negotiating table than Moscow.
While it’s true that Russian President Vladimir Putin might back down in the face of a strong show of force from the Trump administration, he will also be negotiating from a position of strength if the administration’s only goal is to bring the war to a “swift end.” Such a swift end would more than likely involve pressure on Ukraine to accede to a new de facto border that follows the current frontline. US pressure on Ukraine to accept a partition like this—especially absent a guarantee of future NATO membership—would only play into the hands of an imperialist Russian elite whose ultimate satisfaction would be the revival of the Russian Empire.
If this is how the current conflict were to end, it would reveal the tension at the heart of President Trump’s approach to Ukraine. Fundamentally, Ukraine’s fight—and the US’s interest in supporting that fight—are grounded in international norms protecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity. At its core, Russia’s war is not only an attempt to subjugate Ukraine; Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine is an attempt to destroy the foundations of the international system and to replace the rule of law with the rule of might. Ukraine’s fight is not just for its independence, but for the principles that protect every country from predation by their more powerful neighbors.
Perhaps sensing this tension, Ukrainian officials are pursuing a smart strategy to deepen their relationship with the new administration by framing their case in terms that would appeal to President Trump’s priorities. President Zelensky epitomized Kyiv’s adapted approach when he recently spoke to Bloomberg and said that the end of the war should be “a victory for Trump and not for Putin.”
While President Trump has made positive statements about Ukraine in his first days in office, his other proposals – like the US annexation of Greenland or the Panama Canal –call into question his commitment to the very ideals that Ukraine is fighting for. If President Trump comes to see Russia’s annexation of Crimea and other Ukrainian territories as a useful precedent for his own expansionist aims in our hemisphere, what might that spell for the US relationship with Ukraine?
Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine is an attempt to destroy the foundations of the international system and to replace the rule of law with the rule of might. Ukraine’s fight is not just for its independence, but for the principles that protect every country from predation by their more powerful neighbors.
While this uncertainty might be unresolvable, the Trump administration can take concrete steps to bolster its commitment to Ukraine. Another consideration is the possibility of using immobilized Russian sovereign assets to purchase arms for Ukraine, which would be a strong signal of Washington’s enduring support.
The Trump administration could also send a strong signal by building upon the Biden administration’s focus on Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine’s recovery efforts will follow a long path, and efforts are already underway to rebuild liberated territories and to establish a more resilient Ukrainian economy and society even amidst war. The blanket pause on foreign aid and effective dismantlement of the US Agency for International Development that the Trump administration has instituted is contrary to US interests in this regard and risks forcing the US to fall behind other partners in the efforts to rebuild Ukraine.
Ukraine should also continue to bolster its relations with its other international partners. The European Union has committed to ensuring long-term support, making multi-year pledges to arm Ukraine. The UK remains steadfastly in support of Ukraine, even after the Conservative Party’s defeat in last year’s summertime elections. South Korea, despite its geographic distance, has also provided much-needed support, and the case for an increased role for Seoul in support of Ukraine is all the clearer after North Korea involved its troops in the conflict on Russia’s side.
As the world nears the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the salience of Ukraine’s struggle could not be higher. The way the Trump administration chooses to handle Ukraine will teach the world a lesson about how they will approach the world over the next four years. And the success of the Trump administration’s approach—whether it buttresses a principled global order or tears that global order to shreds—will define the US’s global reputation long after President Trump has left the White House.
Meet the Author: Benton Coblentz
Benton Coblentz is a graduate student at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, where he is pursuing a concentration in economics and public policy. Originally from Tukwila, Washington, Benton graduated with a B.S. in economics from the University of Washington in Seattle. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Benton went to work for the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, where he facilitated the Center’s work on Ukraine and the wider Eurasia region. He is an active member of the Truman National Security Project and has previously contributed his work to the Atlantic Council's publications, as well as The Hill and Politico EU.