In recent weeks, President Trump has demonstrated a striking inconsistency in his approach to Ukraine, oscillating between appeasing Vladimir Putin and exerting pressure on him to consider a ceasefire. This unpredictable stance echoes, to some extent, the indecisiveness previously exhibited by former President Biden in response to Putin’s aggressive maneuvers.

Trump remonstrated again with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for refusing to sacrifice Ukraine’s sovereignty (after suggesting he could eject Russia from all of Ukraine), and finally ended by calling off another ill-advised summit meeting with Putin, imposing long-delayed sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil production companies. 

When viewed collectively, these wavering strategies from both Trump and Biden are likely perceived by Putin and his allies in Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran as a sign of strategic uncertainty from the United States. This perception is concerning as it comes at a time when the potential for a multi-front conflict looms large. It is imperative for Trump to act decisively to avoid such a dire scenario.

Biden said at first he would accept “a minor incursion” by Russia and rejected a no-fly zone for fear of triggering “World War III.” He vetoed use of modern U.S. and German tanks and other Western weapons systems, only to reverse himself later. He hamstrung Ukraine’s ability to strike targets deep inside Russia, all while defining the conflict as an existential struggle for the peace of Europe and preservation of the international order. 

It is crucial for Trump to understand that the conflict in Ukraine transcends a mere personal feud between leaders. This is the most significant instance of cross-border aggression in Europe since World War II, initiated and perpetuated by Russia’s invasion and its continuing war crimes. Other adversarial nations are also contributing to this anti-Western campaign.

While the origins of this conflict can be traced back to the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris administrations, it persists under the Trump-Vance administration and threatens to escalate. However, there is an opportunity for Trump to alter the course of events. By empowering Ukraine, he could enable the nation to achieve what he recently suggested is possible: to expel the Russian forces from its territory.

Yes, the conflict started during the weak Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris national security terms, but it is festering under Trump-Vance and potentially spreading. Trump can change the dynamic if he finally unleashes Ukraine and empowers it to do what he said two weeks ago is a realistic possibility: drive the Russian invaders out.

Ostensibly, Trump would not be doing this out of compassion for Ukraine’s many victims, or because of moral outrage at Putin’s massive violations of international law and norms. More likely, it will reflect his disenchantment with Putin’s once-vaunted reputation as a strongman who knows how to get his way and is ruthlessly efficient at doing it.  

Trump has gone from calling Putin “genius” to labeling him last week as a “paper tiger.” The way Trump describes Russia’s present difficulties in Ukraine — “They were expected to win it in three days,” he said last month at the United Nations’ General Assembly — sounds very much as if he is disappointed that Russia did not make as short work of its 2022 invasion as it had in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea in 2014. It may be that he is now seeing Putin as an inevitable loser — in Trump’s eyes, the worst thing that could be said about a leader.

If we are witnessing the emergence of a new Trump, or at least a new Trump Ukraine policy, the first thing he should do is send the Tomahawks he dangled before Ukraine for a few tantalizing days until Putin, again, talked him out of it.  

Next, he should persuade America’s NATO allies to utilize the frozen Russian assets to purchase additional Tomahawks and other advanced weapons systems to impose an increasingly unbearable cost on Russia for continuing the war. China should also bear a cost through increased sanctions for supporting Russia’s aggression. 

Trump should also deliver a public ultimatum to Putin: unless he agrees quickly to end the war and withdraw completely from Ukraine, the U.S. will take a more active and direct involvement on Ukraine’s side, and will undertake a concerted effort to persuade NATO to admit Ukraine as a full member. 

These developments would amount to a military and political defeat for Putin. To make it as complete and as meaningful on a global scale as the unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany that ended World War II, Trump should inform the Russian people that if they choose to rid themselves of the Putin regime, the United States stands ready, willing and able to lead the West in supporting the effort through overt and covert means.

The offer would also send a message to China, Iran and North Korea that their days of terrorizing their neighbors and their own populations are rapidly nearing an end. Such an outcome would surely justify multiple Nobel prizes for Trump — one for each year one of the four world tyrants is peacefully toppled.

Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies, a member of the advisory board of the Global Taiwan Institute and member of the advisory board of The Vandenberg Coalition.