For several years we have witnessed President Donald Trump’s puzzling attempts at a cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin. The Trumpian hubris, honed and incubated in the real estate scrums of New York City, seems to equate national security and diplomacy with personalized dealmaking and charm offensives over office towers. With Putin, however, not so fast.
Trump is not the first U.S. president to believe that personalizing diplomacy with the world’s autocrats will lead to success. Indeed, there are instances in which personal relationships with adversaries have aligned with opportunities to accomplish a common goal.
For example, the personal diplomacy between Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs Eduard Shevardnadze laid the groundwork for the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, as well as gaining Russian cooperation years later in responding to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
These moments are exceedingly rare exceptions, and, in that case, reflected the hard truth that both diplomats represented states whose interests, at least for the time, were sufficiently aligned.
In recent days Russian drones and missiles have savagely pounded densely populated urban areas of Ukraine, despite the charade of Russian interest in peace talks. After a round of attacks over the weekend Trump erupted at his friend Vladimir. “He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I’m not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.”
Hours later, Putin launched over 350 explosive drones and at least 9 cruise missiles. This was Putin’s response to Trump’s insistence on ending the attacks, after previously advising Trump that he was “working on” a draft memorandum for peace negotiations. Putin’s spokesman said that Trump’s outburst was “connected to an emotional overload of everyone involved.”
Before the dawn of name calling and rhetorical disparagement through social media, there were more straightforward responses to ultimatums in time of war. On December 22, 1944, German soldiers faced off against an American battalion near Bastogne in Eastern Belgium. A contingent of German officers, carrying a white flag, presented a letter to Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe asserting that the Germans had surrounded the American forces and demanding surrender. McAuliffe asked his aide, “They want to surrender?” The aide replied, “No sir, they want us to surrender.” After some deliberation, McAuliffe dictated a reply, had it typed up and presented to the German officers. It said simply: “To the German Commander, NUTS!”
The German officers were thoroughly confused at the response. McAuliffe’s regimental commander helped them out. He translated the slang to simply mean “You can go to hell.”
As it turned out, the threatened German artillery barrage was moved to another location, and General Patton’s Third Army broke through German lines and took the town, a breakthrough in what history re as the Battle of the Bulge.
Putin has now said the equivalent of “NUTS!” to Trump. Trump’s next move will reveal a lot about his resolve. He has hinted at imposing sanctions against Russia but has shown no clear intentions. Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal have drafted the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, and have gathered around 80 co-sponsors, including Senators John Cornyn and and Ted Cruz of Texas, meaning that the would overcome a filibuster. The bill provides for sanctions and tariffs, including secondary sanctions that would punish other states doing business with Russia. Graham pointed out, “It’s clear to me – and I think it’s clear to President Trump – that the Russians are playing games.” The senators would be unlikely to pursue the legislation over Trump’s objections.
One nation that appears to not be playing games is . The Germans have announced that the Western European ers of Ukraine have removed the range restrictions on Ukraine’s use of weapons supplied by these allies. This will allow Ukraine to launch attacks further into Russian territory, if they have the armaments to do so.
But the real question is what the United States will do. Sanctions do not have a strong history of effectiveness. Russia, China, India and Iran are adept at avoiding sanctions. A more effective choice would be to continue to flow military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine in a manner more aggressive than the timid and halting assistance provided by the Biden istration.
Europe cannot do it alone. Time likely is running out. Ukraine’s arsenal is depleting. The spring and summer fighting season is upon us. China is supplying Russia with drones, signaling a rising degree of for Russia’s campaign.
Presidents often think about their legacies. While peace prizes have a seductive allure, being the president who lost Ukraine would go down in history as a tragic humiliation.