We should have seen this coming. Read more: trump transforms legal Read more: trump plays naive After spending his campaign promising he'd "solve Ukraine in 24 hours," Donald Trump has just discovered a revolutionary method for making peace: give your adversary what they want before even sitting down at the negotiation table. This week, the American administration announced an easing of sanctions on Russian oil. According to the BBC, the measure aims to "facilitate peace negotiations." The Ukrainian president was more direct: this "certainly doesn't contribute to achieving peace."
Welcome to the art of the deal, 2026 version: preemptive capitulation.
Trump Logic: Reward First, Negotiate Later
The American administration justifies this decision by claiming that easing sanctions would only provide "limited financial support to Putin." Limited? Let's talk numbers. Russian oil represents roughly $500 billion in annual revenue for Moscow. Even "limited support" on this windfall means billions directly financing Russia's war effort.
Picture the scene: you're being robbed, and the police arrive saying "we're going to negotiate with the thief, but first, we'll give him the keys to your safe to show our good faith." That's exactly the logic at work here.
Most fascinating is that Trump is applying to geopolitics the same method he used in real estate: make spectacular concessions hoping to impress the other party. Except across the table isn't a Manhattan developer, but Vladimir Putin. A man who spent 25 years in power transforming every Western concession into a springboard for the next one.
Canada Watches, France Worries, China Smiles
While Washington discovers the joys of diplomacy through capitulation, let's see how other powers are reacting.
Canada, faithful to its tradition as an anxious follower, officially maintains its sanctions while nervously glancing south. Ottawa knows perfectly well it can't hold out long if the United States gives up. Trudeau finds himself in the uncomfortable position of choosing between his stated principles and his economic dependence on Washington.
France multiplies alarmed declarations. Macron denounces a "major strategic error" while knowing perfectly well that Europe alone cannot compensate for American withdrawal. The irony is delicious: after years of criticizing European "dependence" on the United States, Paris discovers it really exists when Washington changes course.
As for China, it watches with a barely concealed smile. Beijing sees in this American decision confirmation of what it's been repeating for years: the West has neither the coherence nor the determination necessary to maintain a stable international order. Every American concession to Russia sets a precedent for future negotiations over Taiwan.
Ukraine, the Adjustment Variable
Most revealing in this affair is the treatment reserved for Ukraine. Kiev was clearly not consulted on this decision that concerns it primarily. The Ukrainian president learns about it through the media and settles for a polite but firm statement.
It's the return of great power diplomacy, 19th-century style: negotiate over the heads of the countries concerned. Ukraine becomes an adjustment variable in the great game between Washington and Moscow. Never mind that Ukrainians die daily defending their territory: what matters is that Trump can announce a "historic agreement" before the midterm elections.
This approach reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict's nature. Putin never wanted to negotiate a compromise on Ukraine. He wants total victory or, failing that, a conflict freeze that lets him digest his territorial gains before the next offensive. Every Western concession only confirms his strategy: patience pays, the West always ends up giving in.
The Dangerous Precedent
Beyond Ukraine, this decision creates a terrifying precedent. It sends a clear message to all the world's autocrats: aggression pays, you just have to wait for the West to tire.
Xi Jinping is taking notes for Taiwan. Kim Jong-un is revising his plans for South Korea. Erdogan is looking at Greece with new eyes. All understand the lesson: just hold out long enough for Washington to eventually "facilitate negotiations" by conceding the essential.
Trump thinks he's being pragmatic. In reality, he just demonstrated that the world's leading power can be worn down by a conflict it's not even directly fighting. It's an admission of strategic weakness that will have consequences far beyond Ukraine.
The Art of the Deal or the Art of Defeat?
While Trump probably prepares to announce his "diplomatic victory," reality is more prosaic: he just offered Putin a victory without reciprocation. Sanctions were one of the few Western levers that actually worked. Abandoning them before even obtaining a ceasefire means showing your cards before playing.
History will judge this decision. But we can already bet that in 2050's geopolitics textbooks, it will appear in the chapter "How Not to Negotiate with a Dictator." Right after Munich 1938 and just before the next example that tired democracies will offer us.
VERDICT: 2/10 for strategy, 9/10 for managing to surprise even the most cynical. Trump just proved you can always do worse than imagined.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What recent decision did the American administration make regarding sanctions on Russia?
The American administration announced an easing of sanctions on Russian oil, which they claim aims to facilitate peace negotiations. This decision has been met with criticism, particularly from Ukraine, which argues that it undermines efforts to achieve peace.
Q: How does Trump justify easing sanctions on Russian oil?
Trump's administration justifies the easing of sanctions by stating that it would provide only "limited financial support to Putin." However, critics point out that even limited support could amount to billions in revenue that would finance Russia's war efforts.
Q: What are the implications of Trump's approach to negotiations with Putin?
Trump's approach involves making significant concessions upfront, akin to his real estate strategies, hoping to impress Putin. Critics argue that this strategy is flawed, as it may encourage further aggression from Russia rather than lead to meaningful negotiations.