“If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on.”
Whatever Mr. Rubio’s meaning, his words were the latest American gift to Mr. Putin’s cause. At every turn since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, he or his top national security aides have issued statements that played to Russia’s advantage: taking NATO membership for Ukraine off the table, repeatedly declaring that Ukraine would have to give up territory and even blaming Ukraine for the invasion itself.
On Friday, Mr. Trump himself suggested that the United States could walk away from the conflict, much as it did when frustrated in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Indeed, in an interview with The New York Times in the spring of 2016, when he was first running for president, Mr. Trump described Ukraine as Europe’s problem. “I’m all for Ukraine; I have friends that live in Ukraine,” he said.
But Mr. Trump added: “When the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn’t seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we’re the farthest away.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth struck a similar tone in February, when he declared on his first official trip to Europe that Ukraine would not enter NATO for the foreseeable future, that Russia would likely keep the 20 percent or so of Ukraine it had seized, and that any peacekeeping or “tripwire” force in Ukraine to monitor a cease-fire would not include Americans.
Mr. Trump’s distrust of Mr. Zelensky remains as strong as ever. “I’m not a fan,” he told Ms. Meloni in an Oval Office meeting on Thursday.
There is virtually no serious discussion underway at the White House or on Capitol Hill about the next package of arms for Ukraine when the current support, which was pushed through in the last months of the Biden administration, runs its course, according to congressional supporters of Ukraine.
European officials say they have not even received assurances that the United States will continue its extensive intelligence sharing for Ukraine, which has been key to its ability to target Russian troops and infrastructure.
In fact, when the White House talks about its relationship with Ukraine these days, it is usually in terms of what it is getting, not what it plans to give. Since the Oval Office blowup, the United States and Ukraine have been renegotiating a deal for American investment and access to Ukrainian minerals, rare earths and other mining projects.
It has taken the better part of six weeks to rewrite the deal that was left unsigned at the White House that day. But Mr. Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this week that they would sign a substitute agreement next Thursday.
The deal Mr. Trump really covets is one with Russia. But getting there requires getting past Ukraine — either by declaring a cease-fire, or just setting the problem aside.
Some experts argue that even if Mr. Trump makes that huge shift, it likely will not work. They doubt Mr. Putin is ready to limit his ties to China, Iran and North Korea — countries that fuel the war effort with technology, drones and, in North Korea’s case, troops.
In several interviews, including one with Tucker Carlson, Mr. Witkoff described the benefits of a broader relationship with Russia, one that would essentially normalize relations. When Mr. Carlson asked about Mr. Putin’s broader ambitions to take all of Ukraine and perhaps seek to reabsorb some of the former Soviet republics, Mr. Witkoff dismissed the idea. He said he was “100 percent” certain that Mr. Putin has no desire to overrun Europe, or even to control Ukraine.
“Why would they want to absorb Ukraine?” he asked. “That would be like occupying Gaza.”