Trump’s gamble against Russia: Peace through strength

• The author is defense researcher at SETA Foundation in Ankara, and a PhD candidate in International Relations Department at METU, a university in Ankara
• Settling the situation in Ukraine would require, at minimum, territorial concessions and a rollback of the liberal international order that the West has established in Russia’s neighborhood

ISTANBUL

After months of failed diplomacy with Russia and in response to Russian President Putin’s recent intensification of drone strikes, US President Trump appears to be making a dramatic shift in his Ukraine policy. He has threatened to impose severe tariffs on Russia unless it agrees to a peace deal within 50 days. Alongside this threat, the US is resuming key arms deliveries to Ukraine. More notably, Trump is reportedly exploring options for deeper strikes inside Russian territory. A secret phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suggests the president is increasingly inclined to adopt a punitive approach toward Putin.

Although Trump later clarified that Ukraine should not target Russian soil and that long-range missiles like the Tomahawk would not be supplied, the very surfacing of such ideas reflects a deeper logic in his foreign policy. His recent handling of the Israel-Iran conflict may offer a useful precedent.

Deciphering the logic of escalate to de-escalate

The Israeli aggression against Iran and the ensuing conflict was an undesired military and diplomatic concern for Trump. Nevertheless, it ended up entangling the US in the issue. The US struck Iranian nuclear facilities with B-2 stealth bombers firing 14 GBU-57 bunker busters, accompanied by Tomahawk missile launches—a clear military show of force. The message was clear: demonstrate resolve to Iran, and restrain Israel. Trump’s insistence on calling parties to cease hostilities, and reaching peace immediately after the strikes was revealing. It was a rapid escalation followed by a swift push for de-escalation. In other words, the strikes were bold, but the aftermath was calm.

The immediate consequence of the American strikes was the end of the Iran-Israel air and missile battle, meaning that Trump’s escalation against Iran resulted in the de-escalation of the situation on the ground. Critics argued that the strikes were a mistake that they increased Iran’s insecurity and its motivation to acquire nuclear weapons, and that the attacks failed to neutralize Iran’s capabilities. But despite these criticisms, the strategy worked. Escalation was used not to prolong war, but to end it. And it may now be shaping Trump’s thinking on Ukraine.

Peace through strength

This concurs with Trump’s personality and his ideas on foreign affairs, in at least two major dimensions. First, it corresponds to Trump’s strongman politics which underscores peace through strength. In other words, the de-escalation of certain situations would require a calibrated escalation by the use of force that intends to force the adversary to back down. Second, it corresponds to Trump’s innate ideas on foreign affairs based on restraining the role of American military abroad, and reducing security commitments to external world.

In this respect, the strategy of escalate to de-escalate seems contradictory, and risky at first glance. Yet it is a strategy of impasse under the unavailability of better alternatives. And when conditions are met, it can bring out success despite the suboptimal situation. In other words, in moments of deadlock, escalation can be a last resort that may lead to de-escalation if conditions are right. Of course, Iran’s noticeable success in penetrating Iron Dome, and Israel’s shortage of missile interceptors were important contributing factors that ripened the situation in this case.

Now, after months of a more conciliatory approach, Trump appears ready to test this strategy against Russia. Recognizing that Putin, too, plays by strongman rules, Trump seems increasingly convinced that only a show of force will bring Russia back to the negotiating table; this time, on US terms. However, this will not come without major risks, and unintended consequences as the stakes in Ukraine are much higher and risks are more unpredictable.

A risky but calculated gamble

From Putin’s maximalist perspective, settling the situation in Ukraine would require, at minimum, territorial concessions and a rollback of the liberal international order that the West has established in Russia’s neighborhood. Furthermore, Russia is today and historically known for its high level of pain tolerance, both in economic and military terms. And Putin will likely respond to escalation with further escalation, particularly by resorting to nuclear signaling. And at home, Trump may face a backlash from his Congressional allies and the MAGA voter base that has a strong distaste for involvement in foreign wars, and unnecessary security commitments.

This raises a crucial question: What tools would Trump actually be willing to use to escalate the war to a point that forces Putin to de-escalate?

Boosting military assistance to Ukraine is the most obvious answer, particularly if it includes longer range strike capabilities, providing Ukraine with significant offensive capabilities against Russian cities and civilian infrastructure. The leaked phone conversation suggests that Trump at least has explored this option, reportedly asking Zelenskyy if he can conduct punitive strikes against St. Petersburg, and Moscow. This is what Zelenskyy has already been asking for years, and Europeans are signaling recently that they are showing increasing interest in such measures.

Under these conditions, and the success gained in the Middle East, it is increasingly tempting for Trump to escalate to de-escalate. Yet this will require Trump not only to change course but to sustain a long campaign against Russia. One recent lesson is the Germany’s avoidance of supplying highly capable Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Despite initial supportive rhetoric from Chancellor Merz, Berlin’s reversal undermined European credibility and signaled weakness to Moscow. It’s a clear manifestation of backing down against Russia.

Therefore, even if Trump changes course and embraces the strategy of escalate to de-escalate; fulfilling the promises and keeping the momentum will be major factors for success. Because Russia will closely observe this adversarial campaign in order to trace and measure the US resolve and commitment, watching for any signs of hesitation. Whether or not this strategy materializes, one thing remains clear: US policy continues to be the most decisive factor shaping the course of the war in Ukraine. And Trump’s latest moves suggest a new phase may be on the horizon.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu’s editorial policy.

Anadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS), and in summarized form. Please contact us for subscription options.