Trump’s Dragging His Feet on Ending the Ukraine War: Political Backlash or Leadership Deficiency?

The recent remarks of former President Donald Trump on the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia surprised many when he indicated concern that Russia could be “dragging their feet” to come to an agreement with Ukraine and bring about a peace deal. Though Trump indicated that Russia desires to have the war ended, he also alleged that they could be slow in achieving it. This comment, made in an interview with Newsmax, highlights the escalating sophistication of the war, where both sides experience heavy casualties—estimated at 2,500 troops weekly. Trump’s insistence on repeatedly calling for peace and optimism regarding getting a resolution has contributed to the controversy surrounding how the U.S. should be involved in the conflict. Yet, there is a striking contradiction in Trump’s strategy.

While he says publicly that he wants peace, his actions—or inactions—doubt it. The most straightforward thing Trump could do to accelerate a peace deal would be to stop all U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, including sharing intelligence. This would have a big impact on Ukraine’s ability to push back against Russian aggression, likely bringing the two sides to the negotiating table. But still, in spite of his bluster, Trump has not made this move, and the question remains: Why?

Underlying Trump’s reluctance is the fear of political retribution from his base.

The president emeritus is acutely aware of the partisanship of the American voter, and his base, comprised in large part of supporters who align with his “America First” philosophy, have been adamant about U.S. staying out of foreign wars. The notion of withholding aid to Ukraine seems like a rational next step for Trump if he truly wants to see the conflict end quickly. After all, taking the support away from Ukraine would most assuredly prompt the nation to the table. Yet, taking such an action would also isolate a great many of his political allies and foreign partners, potentially undermining his influence internationally. Trump’s political support base is very powerful, especially among Republicans, where there are widespread isolationist and anti-interventionist attitudes.

If he were to campaign for withdrawing aid from Ukraine, he would endanger alienating not only the establishment Republicans but also the hawkish flank of the party that favors continued aid to Ukraine. They see the conflict not just as a struggle for Ukrainian independence but as part of an ongoing struggle of the West against autocratic nations such as Russia. For Trump, losing the support of this segment of his base would be politically expensive, and he might worry that to do so could jeopardize his prospects in the next election. Additionally, Trump has also consistently positioned his foreign policy actions as ways of safeguarding American interests, usually under the delusion that the U.S. shouldn’t be the world policeman. Reducing the aid to Ukraine might be viewed as breaking his classic rhetoric, and he might lose the support of his loyal voters, who trust that American issues should be given more priority than global conflicts.

Trump’s failure to act decisively, even when he says he wishes the war would end, creates an image of political cowardice.

Though he presents himself as a strong leader capable of brokering peace, his inaction on Ukraine indicates a fear of making tough decisions that could be politically unpopular. Leadership involves being willing to make unpopular decisions. The stalling on this matter suggests that Trump is more interested in keeping political favor than in actually ending the suffering brought about by the war. In addition, Trump’s assertions that Russia is stalling peace talks seem to ignore the fact that it is his own political calculations that are stalling any real action.

By refusing to cut off the aid to Ukraine, he is letting the war continue, meanwhile posing as a man of peace. This inaction only contributes to the impression that Trump is not willing to do what it takes to accomplish his expressed objective of ending the war.

The implications of Trump’s reluctance are far greater than within American politics.

The more the conflict lingers in Ukraine, the bigger the humanitarian costs it exacts on both the Ukrainian populace and Russian troops. Apart from the mind-boggling number of casualties, the war has destabilized the region, causing a spillover impact on world markets, especially within the energy trade. By refraining from an aggressive push toward a swift outcome—be it by stopping aide or advocating negotiations—Trump becomes vulnerable to locking this vicious circle of destruction further. Additionally, Trump’s reluctance sends a signal to the world’s allies and enemies. America has been a stalwart supporter of Ukraine for years, and Trump’s unwillingness to act decisively could undermine confidence in America’s commitment to its friends. If the world perceives that Trump is willing to dawdle on ending a war that has cost thousands of lives, it will question his leadership on other international issues.

At the core of Trump’s doing nothing about the conflict in Ukraine is a central question about leadership.

Even if he can assert that he wants peace, his failure to initiate the action that would make it happen indicates that his concerns are elsewhere—chiefly in staying politically popular rather than producing actual-world outcomes. The conflict in Ukraine is a bad situation that calls for leadership, not political strategy. Trump’s inability to act decisively represents a pattern of shying away from tough choices, and here it could quite possibly be his fear of repercussions that is between him and the peace he professes to desire. Ultimately, it may be this reluctance and not the stalling of Russia that is keeping the war alive.