Trump against Himself: Who Will Win—The “Dominator” or the “Genius of the Deal”?

“Dominator.” Perhaps no word captures Donald Trump’s psychological makeup better. Throughout his active career—from ambitious real estate mogul to President of the United States—he has sought not just to be first among equals but a hyper-powerful leader, whose word is treated as immutable truth by both ordinary Americans and world leaders. Only a few months into his term, “Daddy Donald” has already displaced the seemingly immortal image of “Uncle Sam” in the public imagination.

Recent weeks have been exceptionally successful politically for Trump the Dominator: US airstrikes on key targets of Iran’s nuclear program; a high-profile NATO summit where the allies agreed to his demand to raise defense spending to 5 percent of GDP; the passage of a controversial “big and beautiful” bill encompassing nearly all of Trump’s domestic priorities—just in time for Independence Day; a favorable Supreme Court ruling; news of a possible ceasefire in Gaza; and finally, a Nobel Peace Prize nomination, courtesy of the Israeli prime minister.

The one thing still missing from Trump’s championship belt is the achievement of “lasting peace” in Ukraine—or at the very least, a ceasefire. As he himself has acknowledged, the challenge has proven far more complex than anticipated, especially against the background of his campaign promises to end the war “within 24 hours.”

Trump’s proposed settlement plan, whose main points were outlined by his foreign policy team, was rejected by the Ukrainian government, although Kyiv agreed to the US president’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire. The main opposition came from the Kremlin, which, in the White House’s view, ought to have welcomed the opportunity to achieve many of its Ukraine “plan” goals through diplomacy—from the territorial partition of Ukraine to denial of its NATO membership—and the prospect of improved bilateral relations.

But for the Russian ruler, this was not enough. Counting on Russia’s military advantage, the increased capabilities of its war economy and China’s steadfast backing, he continues to demand the elimination of the so-called “root causes of the conflict,” which essentially means the transformation of Ukraine into at least a vassal state. Even the so-called peace talks in Istanbul, which Trump personally supported, are playing out according to the Russian script, with US officials excluded from the negotiations. Meanwhile, the Russian offensive grinds on, and missile and bomb attacks on civilian targets have reached an unprecedented level of intensity, resulting in heavy civilian casualties.

Trump thus faces a sharp dilemma. On the one hand, there are incentives for cutting a deal with Putin that I outlined in the previous article: respect for the Russian dictator, shared views on the foundations of global politics and a desire to reshape US–Russia relations in order to pursue the illusion of aligning Russia with the Trump-led global order—drawing Moscow away from Beijing and advancing ambitious economic ventures reportedly of keen interest to Donald Trump Jr. The Trump administration’s departure from the principle of strategic partnership with Ukraine and its efforts to end the war at any cost—including by disregarding Ukrainian national interests—should be seen through the same lens. The war is framed as a strictly European issue.

On the other hand, Putin’s overt insolence, verging on barely disguised contempt, clearly frustrates Trump. It undermines his plans to “leave Ukraine behind” and focus on domestic and foreign policy priorities that matter more to him. It also poses serious reputational risks, challenging the carefully curated myth of “Trump the Almighty.” In my view, this reputational factor is no less influential than any strategic calculation. Trump’s perspective may also be sobered by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent comment that Beijing cannot let Russia lose the war in Ukraine.

If a recent Pentagon statement about resuming “additional defensive weapons” shipments to Ukraine is anything to go by, the issue of US arms and military equipment supplies appears to be approaching a match point — a decisive moment where the situation could tip either in Ukraine’s favor or in the opposite direction. The specifics matter: when will the deliveries resume, what quantities and systems will be included, and will the arms come from Biden-era stockpiles or include new items?

It is also important to fully understand the circumstances around the suspension of the most recent shipment, stopped just short of the Polish border. During a phone call, the US president reportedly assured his Ukrainian counterpart that he had not issued any such order. Was this the initiative of the US Secretary of Defense, who had previously announced cuts to military aid? Or perhaps a senior Pentagon official? That seems unlikely, given the highly centralized nature of political decision-making during Trump’s second term. Unless Pete Hegseth and his subordinates acted preemptively, anticipating the “big boss’s” well-known view that his predecessor spent too lavishly on Ukraine, depleting America’s strategic weapons reserves in the process.

Another tricky question remains: why did Trump not publicly deny the arms shipment cancellation, despite his near-daily interactions with the media? Could it be loyalty to the embattled Hegseth? That seems unconvincing, particularly since the White House itself confirmed the suspension. Surely they were aware of how delighted the Kremlin was with the decision—it even drew praise from Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Russian president. Taken together, the halt and subsequent resumption of arms deliveries appears to reflect Trump’s characteristic volatility and emotional swings. This time, the pendulum has swung in Ukraine’s favor. But for how long?

It’s probably too early for long-term forecasts. A sign of genuine progress would be the Trump administration agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine on a permanent and sufficient basis, recognizing that free military aid is currently unrealistic. Such a scenario could materialize if European partners can mobilize the necessary funds. But time is running short. Biden’s “reserves” are clearly dwindling, and the EU or its leading members have yet to offer a systemic solution. For now, the confiscation of Russian assets remains taboo, and new creative proposals remain under discussion.

Another key indicator will be the tightening of sanctions and enforcement against those helping Russia evade the restrictions. Yet here the picture remains unchanged. Trump’s threats of toughest-ever sanctions are oddly paired with his (as presented by State Secretary Marco Rubio) assertions that new sanctions could obstruct “peace talks.” As if there were any way to compel Putin to negotiate seriously other than arming Ukraine. Those hoping that the Graham–Blumenthal bill will change the situation should remember: it is the US president who holds the authority to impose, define and enforce sanctions.

In this circumstances, the role of leading European powers is growing exponentially. They must drastically narrow the gap between tough rhetoric and real action—and should not expect even minimal results from vague, open-ended dialogues with Putin.

In sum, significant issues remain regarding US support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression. There is a possibility resolution, but for now it remains just that, possibility. Given current international and domestic realities, only “Daddy Trump” can translate that potential into reality.

So, who will win the battle over Trump’s inner compass when it comes to Ukraine—the Dominator, capable of exerting maximum pressure on Russia, or the Deal-Maker, blind to the futility of any pact with the Kremlin? We shall see.