From honeymoon to divorce. Just a few days ago, Donald Trump was still hoping to meet with Vladimir Putin in Budapest to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. But faced with Moscow's intransigence, the US president has finally called it quits, indicating that he is refusing to meet with the Kremlin leader "in the near future". On October 22, the US Treasury Department made this clear by announcing new sanctions against two Russian oil companies.
This is an unprecedented tightening of sanctions by the Trump administration, but it is absolutely necessary, said John E. Herbst, director of the Atlantic Council, in an interview with the French newspaper L'Express.
For this former ambassador to Ukraine between 2003 and 2006, Donald Trump must learn from his diplomatic successes in the Middle East, which he considers "brilliant", and exert much greater diplomatic, military and economic pressure on Russia: "The only way to achieve peace is to convince the aggressor that he will not win this war."
L'EXPRESS: Donald Trump has achieved diplomatic success in the Middle East, but when it comes to the war in Ukraine, he is failing... How do you explain this?
JOHN E. HERBST: If Donald Trump wants to bring about a lasting peace in Ukraine, as he claims, then he must work to change the mindset of the country that rejects that peace. While Volodymyr Zelensky has already accepted half a dozen of Trump’s ceasefire proposals, Putin, for his part, has rejected them all. I say “rejected” because he obviously doesn’t want to seem like he’s rejecting them and upsetting Trump. But in reality, he has rejected them.
So the only way to achieve peace is to convince the aggressor to stop fighting. And to do that, Putin must understand that he’s not going to win this war. Trump can do that by providing Ukraine with modern weapons that will prevent Putin from taking over new territory. Trump must also use the full economic power of the United States, in concert with its allies, to make the war very expensive for the Russian economy. So far, the American president has been diligently avoiding this. The announcement of sanctions against Russian oil companies could be a turning point, at least I hope. But we will have to go much further, taking other similar measures, so that in six, eight or ten months Putin will be forced to agree to a ceasefire.
L'EXPRESS: What was the recipe for this success in the Middle East?
JOHN E. HERBST: I think Donald Trump's diplomacy in the Middle East has been brilliant. It all started in his first term, when he recognized the vulnerability of some key Middle Eastern countries to Iran, concluding the Abraham Accords, which allowed the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize their relations with Israel. These agreements also allowed Morocco to improve its relations with the Jewish state.
But the most important step was perhaps the end of the war between Gaza and Israel. To achieve this, Trump did three things. First, he mobilized America’s new Arab partners to pressure Hamas. Second, he defended Israel while supporting its military actions against Hamas. Finally, he supported the Israeli strike against Iran, not only by verbally supporting it but also by participating in it, which significantly weakened Iran, the main supporter of Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen.
The result was that Hamas and its Iranian sponsors found themselves under extreme pressure. At the same time, Trump insisted that Netanyahu accept his peace plan, which raised the issue of a future Palestinian state, a prospect that Netanyahu was not particularly inclined to support. In doing so, he showed that he was ready to deal with Israeli intransigence and sent a positive message to Arab countries.
This success was due to the use of US power to shape the diplomatic game in the region. Of course, this is not enough, as we know very well that Hamas will do everything possible to maintain its power in Gaza, but it is nevertheless a real step forward. Unfortunately, we have not seen anything like this on the Ukrainian front, as President Trump has always been reluctant to put such pressure on Russia.
L'EXPRESS: You explain that Donald Trump should put the same diplomatic and military pressure on Russia. But Hamas is not Putin's Russia and the balance of power is not the same, is it?
JOHN E. HERBST: That's true. But I notice that since the end of the Cold War, the United States has lost one form of "muscle memory": that of deterrence in the face of an aggressive superpower. And yet the United States knew how to do it. The whole logic of the Cold War was to prevent the Soviet Union from committing acts of aggression that could seriously threaten the United States, NATO, or our allies. Then we did not give in to pressure, even when the Soviet leader, and later Putin, pounded his fist on the table at the United Nations and waved the nuclear threat. In 1962, when the Soviets installed missiles in Cuba, John F. Kennedy did not hesitate to act decisively, fearing a nuclear escalation.
By contrast, when Russia invaded Ukraine, Joe Biden allowed himself to be intimidated by Moscow's nuclear threats. This is not the case for Trump, who is less timid on the subject, but several members of his team have often raised the issue of the risk of nuclear war with Russia. In other words, they spoke tough, but their tone remained marked by weakness, like Jake Sullivan (editor's note: national security adviser in the Biden administration). This ambivalence has not completely disappeared from Trumpian circles and probably partly explains the failure of his diplomacy regarding the war in Ukraine.
Another factor that should not be overlooked is Trump's fascination with Putin. He seems obsessed with the idea of maintaining good relations with him. This factor has nothing to do with the nuclear issue, but it could cloud his judgment.
L'EXPRESS: Isn't it easier for Trump, from the perspective of his electorate, to support Israel than Ukraine?
JOHN E. HERBST: I don't think that's the determining factor. Recent polls show that the vast majority of Americans, about 65-70%, consider Russia an aggressor, an adversary of the United States, and that Ukraine needs more support. Even among Republicans, this opinion is a majority. So I don't think his electoral base is what prevents Trump from continuing to support Ukraine's military efforts.
Moreover, many of the isolationist figures in the MAGA movement have opposed American aid to Israel or strikes on Iran. Tucker Carlson has criticized the president on this issue, as has Marjorie Taylor Greene. But Trump has made it very clear that he is the only one who decides what the country's foreign policy should be. And ultimately, there has been very little backlash in the MAGA movement towards his Middle East policy.
L'EXPRESS: The US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control has announced new sanctions against Russian oil companies, "due to Russia's lack of serious commitment to a peace process aimed at ending the war in Ukraine". Is that a good sign?
JOHN E. HERBST: It's a very good sign! Obviously, this is a first step, and we need to move much further and much faster. I am convinced that Trump wants a lasting peace, but if he wants to achieve it, he needs to put much more pressure on Vladimir Putin. Without that, he will get nothing from Moscow. But overall, I am more optimistic than most of my fellow researchers on this topic, because given the situation and his desire to end this war, everything points to Trump taking a tougher stance towards Russia.
L'EXPRESS: Do you think these sanctions will force Putin to be more "reasonable", as Trump hopes?
JOHN E. HERBST: Not right away. This is not the first time that Putin has faced severe Western sanctions. He still thinks he can charm Trump. That is why the US administration must maintain and intensify this pressure in the coming months. This pressure must be expressed specifically in Russia not making significant gains on the battlefield, and its already weakened economy sinking even further. This is the only scenario in which Putin would accept a ceasefire.
L'EXPRESS: More precisely, if the Trump administration wants to increase its diplomatic, economic and military pressure on Putin, what more can it do?
JOHN E. HERBST: It is entirely possible to do more. For example, we could attack the "shadow fleet" of Russian oil tankers. We could also target some major Russian financial institutions that are currently evading sanctions. This would significantly worsen Russia's economic prospects. The United States should use its influence to convince the G7 countries to allow Ukraine to use frozen Russian state assets.
Finally, Ukraine should be provided with more advanced weapons, in particular Tomahawk missiles, something Trump has so far refused to do. This would send a message to Moscow that Washington is determined to do everything possible to ensure that Putin cannot emerge victorious from this war.
L'EXPRESS: To be consistent, shouldn't Donald Trump reverse his decision to drastically cut US aid to Ukraine?
JOHN E. HERBST: A survey published about three months ago shows that 69% of Americans believe that aid to Ukraine should be at least equivalent to that provided under Joe Biden. Two-thirds of those surveyed - 46% of Americans - even believe that it should be increased! So Trump could easily afford it.
But again, we have to be realistic and recognize that he has a firm position on this issue, which he has never hidden. Until proven otherwise, he is the president, so he has the final say... But as long as the United States agrees to sell weapons and provide military intelligence, Ukraine has the means to confront Russia.
L'EXPRESS: European Union leaders have opened the door to using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine's military efforts. Will this be a decisive step?
JOHN E. HERBST: Of course, because Ukraine needs this funding, especially since the United States has stopped its aid. This would not include all of Russia's frozen assets, but approximately $175 billion, an amount more than enough to finance Ukraine's efforts for another two or even three years. This would be significant progress.
Unfortunately, the EU's capricious bureaucracy risks delaying a decision that would be better taken quickly. This is a shame. But if the Trump administration allows Ukraine to use approximately $10 billion worth of Russian assets frozen in the United States, it could speed up the process for the Europeans as well.