On 12 February 2025, the international community witnessed a striking demonstration of the apparent disarray within the United States’ foreign policy apparatus.
Two key developments underscored this perception: US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth’s contradictory statements at the Ramstein meeting at NATO headquarters and President Donald Trump’s phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A Defence Policy in Disarray
During the latest Ramstein-format meeting, attended by defence ministers of NATO countries and key partners, US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth delivered remarks that left many questioning Washington’s strategic coherence. His speech, at times self-contradictory, appeared to confuse the fundamental distinctions between global security and national border security, exposing a lack of institutional awareness regarding defence policy and the broader strategic landscape.
Hegseth’s presentation was criticised for its lack of depth and coherence, with some observers noting that it bore the hallmarks of a continuation of domestic political campaigning rather than a serious discussion of transatlantic security. His arguments were described as simplistic, failing to reflect the complexities of modern warfare and strategic deterrence.
Trump’s Conversation with Putin: Implications and Fallout
Far more consequential was President Trump’s phone call with Vladimir Putin. The call, which took place early in the morning Washington time, was later publicised through Trump’s Truth Social account. The former president characterised the conversation as “long and productive,” claiming that he and Putin had discussed Ukraine, the Middle East, energy markets, artificial intelligence, and the strength of the US dollar.
In his statement, Trump invoked historical parallels, recalling the cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Second World War. He portrayed the call as an effort to establish a path to peace in Ukraine, asserting that he and Putin had agreed to engage in direct negotiations. He also indicated that US officials would be reaching out to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to discuss the matter.
From Moscow, the Kremlin’s official readout of the call was far more restrained. It focused primarily on issues of prisoner exchanges between Russia and the United States, stating that the two leaders had also discussed Ukraine but without elaborating on any specific outcomes. Putin reportedly reaffirmed the need to address the “root causes” of the conflict and expressed readiness for further dialogue.
Ukraine’s response was notably muted. The official statement from Kyiv merely acknowledged that President Trump had informed Zelensky of the conversation’s details, without any additional commentary on its substance or implications.
Contrasting Narratives and Strategic Uncertainty
The stark differences between the US, Russian, and Ukrainian accounts of the call suggest a deep disconnect in how each party perceives the trajectory of the war and the potential for negotiations. Trump’s narrative suggested a sweeping diplomatic breakthrough, while the Kremlin’s response was markedly cautious, offering little indication that substantive progress had been made.
For Ukraine, the call raised concerns about a potential shift in US policy under Trump’s administration. Kyiv has consistently emphasised that any peace process must be predicated on a full Russian withdrawal from occupied territories and accountability for war crimes committed by Russian forces. However, the brevity of Ukraine’s statement on the matter suggests a strategic decision to avoid premature conclusions about Washington’s evolving position.
The Risks of Trump’s Approach
Trump’s handling of the conversation with Putin has raised alarm among European allies. His decision to discuss Ukraine’s fate without prior consultations with NATO partners reflects an approach that appears more focused on his personal diplomatic instincts than on established strategic frameworks. This raises serious questions about the coherence of US policy towards Russia and Ukraine.
Furthermore, his rhetoric in the aftermath of the call, including his characterisation of Putin as a potential partner for peace, has been met with scepticism. Critics argue that such language risks legitimising the Russian president, who remains under an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes committed in Ukraine. The call also came just days before the Munich Security Conference, heightening concerns that Trump’s approach may be perceived as appeasement.
Strategic Consequences and European Responses
Trump’s outreach to Putin is likely to reinforce European efforts to enhance their own security frameworks, particularly in bolstering the continent’s defence industrial base. With uncertainty over Washington’s long-term commitments, European governments may accelerate efforts to reduce dependency on the United States for military aid and strategic leadership.
At the same time, Trump’s decision to exclude key officials from the process—most notably Keith Kellogg, a prominent defence adviser—has fuelled speculation about internal divisions within his administration. Reports suggest that figures such as Steve Witkoff, who played a role in securing the release of American teacher Marc Fogel from Russian detention, have gained influence in Trump’s inner circle, potentially signalling a shift in the administration’s approach to negotiations with Moscow.
The Broader Picture: A Diplomatic Stalemate?
Despite Trump’s optimistic framing, there is little evidence to suggest that his call with Putin represents a meaningful step towards resolving the war in Ukraine. The fundamental positions of the parties remain unchanged: Kyiv continues to demand a full Russian withdrawal, while Moscow insists on recognition of its territorial claims and a reordering of European security arrangements.
From a strategic perspective, Trump’s outreach risks being counterproductive. Rather than pressuring Putin to de-escalate, it may embolden the Russian leadership to prolong the conflict in the hope of securing favourable terms. Moreover, the lack of coordination with European allies could further undermine transatlantic unity, complicating efforts to present a united front against Russian aggression.
In the absence of a coherent strategy, Trump’s engagement with Putin risks becoming another episode in an increasingly fractured US foreign policy.
Read also:
Trump Administration Signals Stronger Sanctions Against Russia
