How US shifts are fuelling Russia’s aggression The war Trump might let Putin win

In a piercing exposé, The Atlantic lays out a dire warning: that a quiet but unmistakable shift in American policy is emboldening Vladimir Putin to escalate his war on Ukraine. Despite Donald Trump’s public boasts of ending the war “in one day,” his administration’s actual actions are tilting in the opposite direction—delivering not peace, but dangerous encouragement to the Kremlin.

The article argues that Putin’s belief in eventual victory is not merely rooted in battlefield strategy but in a growing perception that the U.S.—Ukraine’s most important backer—is losing interest in the fight. That perception is based on facts. Trump’s administration has recently blocked the delivery of vital weapons and Patriot air-defence interceptors that had already been funded under the Biden administration. Though Trump vaguely signalled support for more ammunition, his words were swiftly contradicted by Pentagon decisions, leaving Ukrainian civilians more vulnerable than ever during Russia’s worst aerial bombing campaign since the start of the war.

Compounding the danger, the Trump administration has also halted the adaptive enforcement of sanctions—an essential component of economic pressure on Moscow. Under Biden, U.S. officials had actively tracked and updated sanctions to target Russian evasion tactics. But now, with no new sanctions being issued, Putin’s network of “dummy companies” is reportedly free to funnel funds and sensitive tech—including semiconductors and weapons components—into Russia unchecked.

The shift isn’t just kinetic or economic; it’s informational. The Atlantic highlights the quiet dismantling of the State Department’s Global Engagement Centre (GEC), which had countered Russian disinformation globally. Trump-appointed officials accused the GEC of stifling American conservatives, despite it operating exclusively outside the U.S. With the GEC defunded, USAID grants cut, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty facing massive reductions, the U.S. is rapidly losing its ability to challenge Russian propaganda—both abroad and inside Russia itself.

Even more alarming is the role played by Trump’s close circle. The article singles out Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer turned Russia envoy, who parrots Putin’s false narratives about Ukraine’s statehood and borders. Such language, echoing Putin’s rhetoric that Ukraine is an artificial construct, undermines not only Ukraine’s legitimacy but also the foundational post-WWII norm of territorial sovereignty.

This confluence of decisions sends a singular message to Moscow: The U.S. is no longer serious about stopping Russian aggression. As sanctions fade, weapons stall, and truth is left undefended, the article warns that Washington is offering incentives for Putin to press forward—not just against Ukraine, but against NATO unity and U.S. global influence.

Yet The Atlantic insists this trajectory is reversible. A change in course—ramping up military aid, reactivating sanctions, and recommitting to the information war—could still alter the outcome. Ukrainians, it notes, continue to resist, innovate, and fight, not for territory but for survival. With the right backing, they could still win. But if the U.S. chooses instead to appease, the war—and all its devastating consequences—will grind on.