The Trump Administration's Whirlwind Week | Opinion

If you have been reading the news over the last week, you might think the United States was on the precipice of throwing Ukraine to the wolves, turning its back on Europe, and reconciling with Russian President Vladimir Putin, perhaps the most hated man in the world. President Donald Trump's Feb. 12 phone call to Putin, U.S. Vice President JD Vance's scorching speech to the Europeans during the Munich Security Conference, the first in-person meeting between U.S. and Russian officials in years, and the war-of-words between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky all have European politicians, foreign policy experts, and the journalists covering them spooked about a possible sea-change in Europe's security architecture.

The Trump administration's early machinations toward Ukraine and Europe have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. The New Yorker's Susan B. Glasser asserted that Trump sold out Ukraine after a single phone call. "It is difficult to put into words what an about-face this is for US support for Ukraine, which for years was built on helping the country defend itself, though not win the war," The Guardian's Andrew Roth wrote. The consensus opinion is best summed up by Peter Baker of The New York Times: "Mr. Trump is in the middle of executing one of the most jaw-dropping pivots in American foreign policy in generations, a 180-degree turn that will force friends and foes to recalibrate in fundamental ways."

But is the consensus actually accurate? Boisterous headlines aside, some perspective is desperately needed. There are a few points to keep in mind.

First and foremost, anybody writing or saying that the Trump administration has sold out Ukraine, undercut it, or given too many concessions to Russia doesn't seem to be paying attention. As a factual matter, the U.S. hasn't negotiated anything with the Russians about the war in Ukraine, let alone come to a final settlement that will then be shoved down Kyiv's throat. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's meeting in Saudi Arabia this week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov may have been a shock to many in Washington, D.C., and Europe—given Trump's keen interest in ending the three year-long war diplomatically, there shouldn't be much surprise about any of it—but in the end was far less dramatic than so many think. All Rubio and Lavrov did was begin a formal negotiating process that may or may not succeed.

What commenced this week wasn't so much negotiations but rather negotiations about negotiations. In other words, the U.S. and Russia were trying to figure out when the real talks would start, how they would be structured, and what subjects would be placed on the table for discussion. There was enough agreement on those basic items to move forward with Washington and Moscow establishing a mechanism to manage the substantial differences and issues that have all but destroyed the bilateral relationship between them.

Another assertion that needs to brushed to the side is the notion that Washington is ready to sacrifice Ukraine at the altar. Again, just because a viewpoint is popular doesn't make it true. Sure, the U.S. decided to meet with the Russians bilaterally and press on without the Ukrainians being in the room. Zelensky is incredibly distraught over this (not unreasonable from where he's sitting), so much so that he cancelled his own trip to Saudi Arabia to get a briefing from Rubio about what transpired behind closed doors.

Yet the "ready to sacrifice Ukraine" talking point only makes sense if the Trump administration came to actual decisions in Saudi Arabia about what a peace settlement will look like. This hasn't happened. In fact, it's likely the U.S. is still in fact-finding mode, acquiring as much information as it can from the various stakeholders before presenting a formal U.S. position. As articulated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, all the Trump administration has presented thus far are a list of fairly obvious points. It's unlikely Ukraine will be a member of NATO as part of any deal and it's unrealistic to expect that Ukraine's pre-2014 borders will be restored. While some in Europe may have been befuddled that Hegseth put the cart before the horse, he didn't say anything most people didn't already know.

As for the description of the U.S.-Russia meeting in Riyadh as the beginning of a so-called reset, I would beg to differ. Such a label would strongly suggest that Washington and Moscow are on the cusp of a 180-degree turn from the current state of affairs—or at the very least that both are willing to trade concessions with each other and go through the confidence-building steps necessary to reorient the relationship. It's hard to see how people can jump to this conclusion after one meeting, particularly when the U.S. and Russian delegations walked away without anything other than an agreement to hold more discussions. "Reset" is therefore a misnomer, if not a red-herring, akin to claiming you will reach the mountain top before you even start hiking the trail.

The war in Ukraine can elicit a ton of emotion. Don't let it cloud out the reality.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.