OP-ED: Trump and Ukraine — How the Pressure on Moscow Has Shifted Sides

Strikes of Unprecedented Range

Since Washington stopped imposing operational restrictions on Kyiv, Ukraine has intensified its deep strikes into Russian territory. On June 26, 2026, Ukraine carried out the largest drone attack of the year, striking targets from Moscow all the way to Crimea. On June 18, a major refinery on the outskirts of Moscow was struck. In Crimea, fuel is now so scarce that the government has declared a state of emergency. Gas stations are no longer serving ordinary motorists.

These strikes have had a devastating economic impact on Russia. Damage to refineries has at times taken nearly a quarter of Russia’s refining capacity offline. By late May, Russian refining output had fallen to its lowest level in two decades. Dozens of regions have implemented fuel rationing. An oil powerhouse that can no longer supply its own population with gasoline: this is an image that Putin cannot erase.

Russian Logistics Under Constant Pressure

Ukrainian medium-range drones have made the area behind Russian lines extremely dangerous, severely disrupting military logistics. Ukraine is also striking supply lines to occupied Crimea, gradually cutting off the peninsula from the rest of Russia’s war machine. The city of Cheboksary, about 1,000 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, was hit by Flamingo missiles. During the St. Petersburg Economic Forum in June, a Ukrainian strike targeted the city’s oil terminal, and black smoke blanketed the sky. A warship burned in the harbor.

These images—the black smoke over St. Petersburg, the lines at gas stations in Crimea—are more powerful than any speech. They are cracks in the narrative of “invincible Russian power.” And every Ukrainian strike that hits its target tells the Russian people something that Putin is desperately trying to hide: this war is backfiring on him.

A Troubling Paradox

On June 29, 2026, The American Prospect published an analysis by Ryan Cooper titled “Has Ukraine Turned the Tide?” The argument is provocative: by cutting off U.S. aid to Ukraine, Trump may have inadvertently given Kyiv its greatest freedom of action since the war began. Under Biden, the money came with strings attached. Under Trump, there was more money—but no strings attached either. Ukraine chose to strike.

The analysis notes that Europe has filled most of the funding gap caused by the U.S. withdrawal, and that Ukraine’s domestic defense industry has matured enough to make up for much of the shortage of ammunition. The result: According to Cooper, Ukraine now has a decisive advantage on the ground. He is careful to point out that it is “far too early to proclaim an inevitable victory”—but the reversal in the balance of power is now evident.

Putin Faces a Strategic Impasse

For Putin, the options are dwindling. He could attempt a full-scale mobilization—but that would cause severe disruptions to Russian society and the economy, exacerbating the labor shortage, risking runaway inflation, and triggering serious social unrest. The war of attrition he hoped to win through sheer numbers is backfiring. Ukraine is holding its ground, striking back, and advancing. Russia is slowly bleeding out.

Cooper’s analysis is honest within its limitations—and that is what makes it credible. He does not say that Ukraine has won. He says that something has changed. And in a war that has lasted more than four years, that “something” may be the greatest change of all: Ukraine is no longer merely enduring. It is choosing.

A Clear-Eyed Assessment of an Unpredictable Leader

According to several diplomatic sources cited between June 25 and 30, 2026, Trump reportedly stated that Putin will do nothing without pressure. This statement—as cold as it is pragmatic—is in fact a clear break from the conciliatory stance of the early months of Trump’s second term, when he was making a series of symbolic gestures toward Moscow. The U.S. president appears to have reached an operational conclusion: only pressure works.

It is precisely this shift in assessment that explains the signal sent to Kyiv: an informal green light from the White House to tighten sanctions against Russia. After months of ambiguity, Washington is beginning to send a clear message. The neutrality it had displayed was merely a posture. The United States’ actual position—even under Trump—remains structurally incompatible with a victory for Putin.

Zelensky: From “You Don’t Hold the Cards” to “Very Courageous”

The contrast is striking. In early 2025, Trump had humiliated Zelensky in the Oval Office, publicly telling him that he “doesn’t have the cards.” At the G7 summit in France, Trump described him as “doing pretty well,” adding that the Ukrainian president is “holding his ground.” This is no longer the same rhetoric. It’s even, coming from Trump, something that sounds like respect—albeit unintentional.

This shift in Trump’s language is worth noting. A man who rarely humiliates his own partners in public—and who had crushed Zelensky with his words—now acknowledges that the Ukrainian president is “doing pretty well.” For Zelensky, this may be the most symbolic victory of all: having survived Trump himself.

Moscow Demands an Explanation

Faced with this reversal, the Russian reaction has oscillated between confusion and barely contained anger. Sergey Lavrov called it “rude” for Marco Rubio to publicly announce that no agreement had been reached in Anchorage. Dmitry Peskov also voiced public complaints, noting that Russia has never believed in U.S. neutrality. These statements are telling: Moscow now finds itself demanding explanations from the White House—a position of diplomatic inferiority that Putin has always refused to adopt.

In June, Russia requested formal clarification from the United States following Trump’s apparent shift in stance. This request, reported by RBC Ukraine on June 26, 2026, illustrates just how unsettled the Kremlin is by the new situation. A country waging war with the certainty that America is in a position of passive waiting does not ask for explanations. It demands them because it feels the ground shifting beneath its feet.

The Telegraph: “Despite his best efforts, Trump may just have won the war for Kyiv”

On June 29, 2026, The Telegraph published an analysis by Sir William Browder—a British financier and staunch opponent of Putin—titled “Despite his best efforts, Trump may just have won the war for Kyiv.” Browder notes that Ukrainian strikes have altered the course of the war more than anything that had happened before. He calls for going further: more weapons, more air defense, the confiscation of the Russian central bank’s $300 billion in frozen reserves, and secondary sanctions against buyers of Russian oil in India, China, and Turkey.

Browder is pushing in the right direction. What he’s saying between the lines is that this window of opportunity is real but fragile. Ukraine has the tactical advantage now. But if the West doesn’t support it with the right tools—secondary sanctions, confiscated reserves, and a steady supply of weapons—the momentum could shift. Wars aren’t won by inaction.

Alternative Funding That Held Up

When Trump cut off aid, many believed that Europe would be unable to make up the shortfall. They were wrong. According to an analysis by The American Prospect, Europe has filled most of the funding gap left by the U.S. withdrawal. This was by no means a foregone conclusion. It required difficult political decisions, massive financial commitments, and a level of European solidarity unprecedented since the end of the Cold War.

At the same time, Ukraine’s defense industry itself has matured significantly. Flamingo drones, domestically developed long-range missiles, and enhanced electronic warfare capabilities: the Ukraine of 2026 is no longer the Ukraine of 2022 that relied on Western deliveries. It is an autonomous military-industrial player, capable of striking targets 1,000 kilometers away without depending on a foreign arsenal.

The Geopolitical Signal for China, Iran, and North Korea

The implications of this turning point extend beyond Ukraine. China is watching what is happening and drawing its own conclusions about resistance to an occupying power. Iran, already weakened by U.S. pressure, sees that Western resolve is not dead. North Korea, which has supplied ammunition to Russia, is beginning to realize that Moscow may not be the reliable partner it thought it was. Ukrainian resistance sends a message to the world: democracies can survive and fight back.

What Ukraine has accomplished since Trump let the leash slip is a lesson in sovereignty. Not the rhetorical sovereignty invoked in speeches. Real sovereignty—the kind exercised through arms, industry, and the ability to strike the enemy on its own soil. It is also a message to the West: it is possible to resist. It is possible to win. Provided we are willing to truly fight.

Seize the reserves, sanction the buyers

Sir William Browder and other analysts are calling for additional concrete measures. The first: the confiscation of the Russian central bank’s $300 billion in frozen reserves, which have been tied up in Western institutions since 2022. These funds belong to an aggressor state. Leaving them untouched is like offering it an economic lifeline it does not deserve. Confiscating them means directly financing Ukraine’s reconstruction with the very money of its destroyer.

The second measure: secondary sanctions against refineries in India, China, and Turkey that purchase Russian oil at discounted prices. These countries are profiting from the war without paying the moral cost. Secondary sanctions would force them to choose between the Western market and Russian oil—a choice they’d rather avoid but will have to make. Economic pressure on Moscow will only be complete once this energy lifeline is cut off.

The EU must act quickly—not wait

The European Union has already imposed sanctions on Chinese companies supporting Russia’s war effort. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, stated on June 15 that Brussels had confirmed through its own channels the Sino-Russian military training and was assessing its implications. This is good news. But assessing is not the same as acting. The time is now. The momentum on the ground is favorable. If Europe acts now with sustainable economic tools, it can secure this advantage.

The West has a bad habit: waiting until Ukrainian victories are too obvious to deny before taking action. This delay costs lives. If Ukraine now has the tactical advantage, it is the duty of Europe and America to amplify it immediately—not to admire it from afar while waiting to see if it holds.

Trump in spite of himself—or a calculating Trump?

The question remains open: Is Trump acting on a transactional instinct, realizing that supporting Ukraine gives him leverage over Putin that he didn’t have by playing neutral? Or has he simply followed the reality on the ground, unable to ignore any longer that Ukraine was winning decisive battles? In either case, the result is the same: the U.S. stance has hardened, pressure on Moscow has intensified, and Zelensky—whom they had sought to humiliate—is now treated as a leader who stands his ground.

This is not the end of the war. The American Prospect makes it clear: it is far too early to declare victory inevitable. But something has changed. Russia is in economic, military, and diplomatic trouble. Ukraine is striking back. And Trump—Putin’s supposed ally—finds himself, despite himself, on the right side of history.

I don’t know if Trump will eventually fully embrace this role. I don’t know if Putin will choose to negotiate before the pressure completely breaks him. What I do know is that the tide has turned—and that in a war of this nature, the tide matters just as much as the weapons.

Ukraine has survived the worst—and is moving forward

More than 1,580 days of war. Bombed cities. Hundreds of thousands dead. U.S. aid cut off. Humiliation in the Oval Office. And yet: Zelenskyy is still here. The Ukrainian army is still here. Ukrainian drones are striking Moscow. Fuel is running out in Crimea. The Russian war machine is burning. This resistance is no accident. It is the result of a people who have collectively decided that they have no choice but to prevail.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist