Trump should not let Putin keep ‘tapping us along’

Ahead of the August 8 deadline President Donald Trump gave Russia to accept a ceasefire or face economic punishment, the administration has sent mixed signals on whether he will follow through. For too long, Vladimir Putin has been allowed to use empty diplomatic games to forestall U.S. action. This time must be different.

Trump has previously accused Putin of “tapping us along,” and he’s right. Putin has no interest in genuine peace. Rather, he is cynically attempting to use diplomacy to redirect U.S. pressure away from Moscow and onto Kyiv even as Russian forces continue their assault on Ukraine.

Trump started strong this week. On Wednesday, he hiked tariffs on India for importing Kremlin crude, warning Russia’s other customers they may be next. The announcement came hours after U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff finished his fifth meeting with Putin since January, which Moscow is trying to parlay into an invitation for a prized sit-down with Trump.

Trump then declared that Witkoff made “[g]reat progress,” without offering details. The president reportedly informed European leaders he intends to meet with Putin as early as next week, then organize a trilateral summit with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Kremlin is resisting the trilateral summit, and it is unclear whether the White House will insist on the trilateral as a condition for the Trump-Putin meeting.

The surprise announcement has injected uncertainty into Trump’s plans to hit Russia with additional economic penalties on the Friday deadline. One White House official told reporters those measures “are still expected to be implemented on Friday.” Later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Trump would make that decision based on progress “over the next couple of days.”

Witkoff’s meeting shows that Putin is keen to keep Trump on a diplomatic merry-go-round. The White House must get off the ride.

Since January, Trump has repeatedly warned the Kremlin to accept a speedy peace or face economic punishment — only to kick the can down the road after Moscow engages in performative talks that lead nowhere.  

Putin has made clear he has no interest in peace unless it means Ukrainian capitulation. Moscow insists that Kyiv accept permanent neutrality, demilitarize, codify legal protections for Russian cultural influence in Ukraine, and withdraw from large swathes of territory claimed by Russia. The Kremlin likely hopes to use a potential leader-level summit to enlist Trump’s help in forcing Kyiv to swallow these terms.

Overconfident that his military now enjoys the upper hand on the battlefield, Putin has doubled down on his maximalist demands. He appears determined to continue the war, believing he can eventually grind down Ukrainian forces and outlast Western support will while enduring whatever economic punches Trump might throw.

Until Putin’s calculus changes, talk at the expense of action will only prolong the war. Trump should pursue a dual-pronged approach to bolster his leverage, maximizing his chances of securing a favorable negotiated outcome.

First, Trump should use the ample tools at his disposal to turn the screws on Russia’s economy. While it may not deal Russia a knock-out blow, exacerbating Moscow’s current economic woes could intensify pressure on Putin to end the war sooner rather than later.

Secondary tariffs against Russia’s other oil customers, particularly China, could be a useful part of this strategy. But tariffs should complement, not replace, the use of secondary sanctions targeting Russia’s energy and financial sectors. Tariffs are a blunter, less flexible tool.

The United States could join Europe in lowering the price cap on Russian crude exports, then use sanctions to compel compliance. This could include comprehensive sanctions against Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers, plus secondary sanctions penalizing anyone that circumvents the cap mechanism. Alternatively, Washington could take a page from its Iran playbook and use secondary sanctions to reduce Russian oil export volumes outright — a simpler but more disruptive strategy.

In parallel, Washington and its allies should ramp up support for Ukrainian forces. The goal should be to help Ukraine exhaust the Russian military’s offensive potential, defend against Moscow’s missile and drone barrages, and raise the costs on the Kremlin for its brutal war.

The new aid initiative Trump announced last month, in which NATO allies finance the supply of American arms to Kyiv, is a positive step. Continued direct assistance will be necessary, too. In addition to bolstering Ukraine’s air defenses, Washington should supply Ukraine with longer-range missiles that can strike military-industrial plants deep within Russia.

Taking these steps would not preclude diplomacy. But it would ensure that time that could be spent bolstering U.S. leverage isn’t wasted on more fruitless talks.

John Hardie is deputy director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where Peter Doran is an adjunct senior fellow. Fore more from the authors and FDD, please subscribe HERE. Follow the authors on X @JohnH105 and @PeterBDoran. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focused on national security and foreign policy.