Trump’s Ukraine ceasefire is slipping away

Donald trump promised to end the war in Ukraine within a day. Now, insiders say, he hopes to secure a ceasefire within his first 100 days—ie, by the end of this month. He has started to refer to the conflict as “Biden’s war”. But if it drags on, he worries it will increasingly become his.

How to stop the fighting? Russia has ignored America’s call for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, which Ukraine accepted on March 11th. Instead it has played for time and intensified its attacks. On April 13th two Russian missiles struck the town of Sumy, killing 34 people, many of them gathering to attend Palm Sunday services. It followed a similar strike on Kryvyi Rih on April 4th that killed 20 people.

Radek Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, said Mr Trump’s team should realise that the Kremlin was “mocking their goodwill”. Mr Trump, though, seems immune to shame. He has proved peculiarly indulgent of Russia and hostile towards Ukraine. Even as some of his aides denounced the Russian attack on Sumy, Mr Trump suggested it was a “mistake”, albeit a “horrible” one. Astonishingly, on April 14th he blamed Ukraine for being invaded by Russia, shrugging off a Ukrainian request to buy American missiles. “You don’t start a war against somebody that’s 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,” he declared.

Admirers of Mr Trump insist he is ready to get tough with Russia. He has renewed his predecessor’s sanctions on Russia, and has expressed impatience with the Kremlin, telling one interviewer that he was “pissed off” with Russia and floating the idea of imposing “secondary tariffs”, presumably on countries buying Russian oil. On April 11th he said, “Russia has to get moving.” European leaders are clamouring for additional sanctions on Russia to make such words count, so far to no avail.

In March Mr Trump briefly cut the weapons and intelligence to Ukraine. Keith Kellogg, an adviser, compared this to “hitting a mule with a two-by-four across the nose”. It worked: within days, Ukraine agreed to the 30-day ceasefire. For the obdurate Russians, however, there have been no sticks, only carrots. American and Russian officials met in Istanbul on April 10th to discuss upgrading their embassies. The countries also exchanged two prisoners. Russian media say the rapprochement is proceeding regardless of the Ukraine talks.

When Mr Trump announced his worldwide “reciprocal tariffs” this month, he whacked Ukraine with the minimum 10% universal rate while excluding Russia (supposedly because it was already under sanctions). One solace for Ukraine is that the turmoil of the trade war is such that the price of oil has tumbled from around $80 a barrel in January to $65, sharply cutting Mr Putin’s revenues.

Notably absent from Mr Trump’s discourse is any notion of additional military aid for Ukraine. Indeed, America’s support is dwindling. The flow of weapons approved by Joe Biden will run out in the coming months, and Mr Trump has not authorised any more. Another budget allocation to support Ukraine looks unlikely.

America is withdrawing troops and equipment from Rzeszow, a vital hub in Poland for weapons being sent to Ukraine. Their duties will henceforth be carried out by European troops. Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth, the American defence secretary, stayed away from a meeting in Brussels on April 11th of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, a gathering of 50-odd countries contributing military help that was created and led by his predecessor, Lloyd Austin, though Mr Hegseth joined by video link.

Another sign of the times is that Pentagon figures recently questioned one ally about why it was still supplying weapons to Ukraine—a challenge that was ignored. Diplomats in Washington also report that some Trump aides say privately that they are “fed up” with Europe’s effort to strengthen Ukraine. As always with such a chaotic administration, it is hard to distinguish the true signal from the noise.

For now Europeans are pushing along two tracks. The first is the effort by Britain and France to create a European “reassurance force” to help Ukraine after a ceasefire. Russia objects to that deployment, even if America is offering no assurance that it will back the Europeans. The force would not seek to police the front lines between Russian and Ukrainian forces. Instead it would stay away from the front, probably in western Ukraine, where it would concentrate on training Ukrainian forces, and perhaps do joint air patrols.

Europeans hope to show Mr Trump that they are taking up the burden of European security, hoping to retain at least some kind of American commitment, to NATO if not to Ukraine. Under this emerging scheme, the future “deterrence” of Russia would come in three zones: reinforced Ukrainian troops holding the line against Russia in the east, European forces in the west and, at least for now, a lingering American presence in NATO countries.

But the creation of such a force depends on an ever-elusive ceasefire. Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump’s envoy to Russia, is reported to have said that the quickest way of securing one would be to let Russia take four Ukrainian provinces which it claims, including territory it has failed to conquer. That would be unacceptable to Ukraine and its European partners.

All this reinforces the need for the second track: increasing Europe’s military assistance to Ukraine. David Shimer, a former official in Mr Biden’s National Security Council, says there is no time to waste. Europeans should give away more of their stocks of weapons despite the risks; finance Ukraine’s military industries; negotiate with Mr Trump to buy American air-defence systems for Ukraine; and use frozen Russian assets to pay for it all.

With Russia determined to press its invasion, and America seemingly determined to pull away, Ukraine will have to fight on, Mr Shimer says. “Now is the time for the Europeans to intensify their aid to Ukraine—so that Ukraine has the support it needs to defend itself and to push Putin to engage in meaningful negotiations.”