I want a deal, and the only way to get one is not to abandon
As Donald Trump prepares to reclaim the presidency, the war in Ukraine enters a new phase of uncertainty — not because the fighting has stopped, but because the philosophy guiding American support is shifting. Trump has signaled he will not abandon Kyiv, yet he opposes the deep missile strikes that Biden only recently authorized, framing restraint not as weakness but as leverage. After nearly three years of sustained destruction, the question before the world is whether a negotiated peace is an act of wisdom or of surrender.
- Trump's sharp rebuke of ATACMS strikes into Russian territory — calling them escalatory — signals an immediate rupture with Biden's final military posture toward Ukraine.
- His incoming team, including a Secretary of State who calls the war an impasse and an envoy who ties future aid to peace talks, is already reshaping the terms of American commitment.
- NATO allies and the Biden administration are racing to arm Ukraine before January, betting that a stronger battlefield position will translate into a stronger negotiating hand.
- Zelensky has begun hinting at painful flexibility — offering to temporarily cede territory in exchange for NATO membership over the parts of Ukraine still under Kyiv's control, a proposal blocked by the alliance's own charter.
- Russia is escalating its rhetoric in parallel, with Putin threatening hypersonic missile strikes on Kyiv and Western capitals as Ukrainian forces used newly authorized weapons against a Russian airfield.
Donald Trump arrived at a Time magazine interview in late November carrying a carefully balanced message: he would not abandon Ukraine, but he would not support the deep strikes into Russian territory that the Biden administration had just authorized. The remarks came days before he met Macron and Zelensky in Paris for Notre-Dame's reopening — and they sketched the outline of a fundamental shift in Washington's approach to a war now entering its third year.
At the center of the dispute are ATACMS missiles, American-made weapons with a range of up to 300 kilometers. Biden had long resisted allowing their use inside Russia, fearing NATO entanglement. That restriction fell in November, partly in response to North Korean troops joining Russian forces. Ukraine moved quickly. Trump moved faster — calling the strikes escalatory and questioning the logic behind them entirely.
But Trump framed his opposition as strategy, not abandonment. By signaling that weapons could be withheld, he argued, Zelensky would have greater incentive to accept a negotiated settlement. His administration-in-waiting reinforces that posture: Marco Rubio has called the war an impasse, and Keith Kellogg, designated special envoy, has tied future military aid to Ukrainian participation in peace talks and urged postponing NATO membership indefinitely.
The diplomatic ground is already moving. Trump met with Hungary's Viktor Orbán, a fellow skeptic of Ukraine aid. Orbán claimed to have proposed a Christmas ceasefire and prisoner exchanges, alleging Zelensky refused — a charge Kyiv denied. Meanwhile, Putin threatened to deploy the Oreshnik, an experimental hypersonic missile, against Kyiv and Western nations supporting Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil.
Zelensky has begun showing his own flexibility. He suggested Ukraine might temporarily cede occupied territory if NATO extended membership to the portions still under Kyiv's control — a guarantee, he argued, against future Russian aggression. The structural obstacle is NATO's own charter, which bars admitting nations with active territorial disputes. Russia currently holds eighteen percent of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory.
With Trump's inauguration weeks away, Biden and NATO allies are accelerating weapons deliveries, hoping a better-armed Ukraine will negotiate from strength. Whether Trump's approach produces a durable peace or a managed retreat remains the defining question of his return to power.
Donald Trump arrived at the Time magazine interview with a message that seemed to split the difference: he would not abandon Ukraine, but he would not tolerate the kind of deep strikes into Russian territory that the Biden administration had just authorized. The president-elect made these remarks on November 25th, before meeting with Emmanuel Macron and Volodymyr Zelensky at Notre-Dame's reopening in Paris. His words signaled the shape of things to come—a fundamental shift in how Washington would approach a war that has now consumed nearly three years.
The tension at the heart of Trump's position centers on the ATACMS missiles, American-made weapons with a range of up to 300 kilometers. For months, Ukraine had pressed for permission to use them deep inside Russian territory, a request the Biden administration had resisted out of fear that such strikes would pull NATO more directly into the conflict. In November, that restriction finally fell away, partly because North Korean troops had begun fighting alongside Russian forces. Ukraine wasted no time using the new capability. Trump's response was immediate and sharp: he called the strikes escalatory and questioned why the United States was taking such action at all.
Yet Trump framed his opposition to the missile strikes as a negotiating tool, not a rejection of Ukraine itself. He told Time that leverage over American support would be essential in talks with Moscow. The logic was clear: if he could convince Zelensky that weapons might be withheld, the Ukrainian president would have stronger incentive to accept a negotiated settlement. Trump has long claimed he could end the war in twenty-four hours, though he has never explained how. What he has done is staff his incoming administration with people who share his urgency. Marco Rubio, his choice for Secretary of State, has called the conflict an impasse and urged pragmatism. Keith Kellogg, designated as special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, has stated that any further American military aid would require Ukraine to participate in peace talks and has advocated for postponing NATO membership for an extended period.
The diplomatic landscape was already shifting. On Monday, Trump met with Viktor Orbán of Hungary, a fellow skeptic of continued Ukraine support. Orbán subsequently announced on social media that he had proposed a Christmas ceasefire and large-scale prisoner exchanges, claiming Zelensky had rejected them. Ukraine denied the allegations. Meanwhile, Putin had threatened to deploy the Oreshnik, an experimental hypersonic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, against decision-making centers in Kyiv and against Western countries aiding Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil. The Kremlin declared on Thursday that Russian forces would respond to Wednesday's ATACMS attack on a military airfield—a line Putin had drawn in the sand.
Zelensky, for his part, has begun signaling flexibility. In November, he told Sky News that Ukraine might cede territory temporarily if NATO granted membership to the parts of the country still under Kyiv's control. Such a guarantee, he reasoned, would prevent Russia from attacking again. The obstacle is structural: NATO's charter forbids admitting countries with active territorial disputes, because Article 5 binds all members to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. Borders must be clear and recognized. Russia currently controls eighteen percent of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, plus portions of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia.
NATO allies and Biden himself are racing to strengthen Ukraine's hand before Trump takes office in January. Weapons shipments are accelerating. The calculation is that a better-armed Ukraine will either hold more ground at the negotiating table or resist Russian advances more effectively. Trump, meanwhile, has suggested that the Middle East is an easier problem to solve and that the death toll in Ukraine has become unsustainable for both sides. He has expressed interest in expanding the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. Time magazine named him Person of the Year for 2024, highlighting his political comeback and his party's control of both chambers of Congress. The question now is whether his approach to Ukraine will be as transformative as his return to power.
Citações Notáveis
I want to reach a deal, and the only way to reach a deal is not to abandon. I am strongly opposed to sending missiles hundreds of kilometers into Russia. Why are we doing this? We are just escalating this war.— Donald Trump, to Time magazine
If we want to end the hot phase of the war, we must place the territory of Ukraine that we control under NATO's umbrella. This is what we must do quickly, and then Ukraine can recover the other part of its territory through diplomatic channels.— Volodymyr Zelensky, to Sky News
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
When Trump says he won't abandon Ukraine but opposes the missile strikes, what is he actually saying?
He's saying the relationship is transactional. Support exists, but it's leverage. The missiles are a problem not because they're ineffective, but because they remove his bargaining chip.
So the missiles themselves aren't the real issue?
Not entirely. He frames them as escalatory, which is true in a narrow sense—they do bring NATO closer to direct confrontation with Russia. But the deeper issue is that once Ukraine has the tools to strike deep, it has less reason to negotiate quickly.
And Zelensky understands this?
He's already signaling he does. By suggesting he'd accept temporary territorial loss in exchange for NATO membership, he's trying to find the deal Trump wants to make.
But NATO won't accept a country with disputed borders.
Exactly. So Zelensky is proposing something that looks like a compromise but may be impossible to execute. It's a negotiating position, not a solution.
What happens if Trump cuts off aid entirely?
That's the unspoken threat. It's why NATO and Biden are rushing weapons to Ukraine now—to build up enough capability that Ukraine can negotiate from strength, or at least not from desperation.