Will Trump’s Coup Against Putin Be Completed?

After the end of his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump launched a campaign to reshape the structure of the Republican Party by sidelining the traditional elites who were not in harmony with his political vision, which led to the withdrawal of about 700 senior strategic figures of the party. This shift enabled him to return once again to the White House. Upon assuming office, and thanks to his charisma and self-confidence, he surrounded himself with a number of close associates who presuppose that their experience and knowledge are less than his, a matter that entrenched his dominance over decision-making.

In parallel, Elon Musk moved to purge an entire layer of senior cadres in the central administrations, while 90% of the appointed positions remain vacant, which generated a strong impression of imbalance and the oneness of decision in the administration. This situation was reflected in a state of mutual wariness between the administration and the federal institutions, which led to a clear slowdown in performance and coordination, and the appearance of negative effects internally and externally.

As for the relationship with Russia–Putin, Moscow enjoys strong support from some of those close to the White House, foremost among them Tulsi Gabbard, who is known for her positions opposing U.S. policies toward China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya.

Alongside her stand Witkoff and Vance—the former an old friend of Trump, the latter the vice president of the United States. Both belong to the current of the neoconservatives, and they do not hide their sympathy for Russia; indeed, some figures of this current see in Russia a bastion of the civilization of the “white race” in the face of the East and China.

Conversely, Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who was supposed to lead the negotiating efforts on the major files, foremost among them the peace process between Russia and Ukraine—was marginalized, while the file was assigned to Witkoff. But it soon became clear that Witkoff was dragging his feet on the sensitive files, from Gaza to Iran and Ukraine, and that he lacked the knowledge necessary to manage them. Therefore, Trump decided to confine his role to the Russian file only, and he himself took on the task of communicating with President Putin.

Trump, who believed he was offering Putin what no other American president could offer, thought that he had succeeded in twisting Ukraine’s arm and neutralizing the European position that is apprehensive of Moscow. He addressed the world with the confidence of a leader who can deliver, speaking of the approach of achieving peace—not only through social media, but in his meetings with international leaders—believing that his method is the key to success in international relations.

During the months of May and June, Trump conducted five lengthy phone calls with Putin, and he was convinced that the concessions he had extracted from Ukraine and Europe would open the door to understanding with Russia. But on the day following each call, Moscow launched intensive attacks with hundreds of missiles and drones on Ukrainian territory, which brought the negotiations to the brink of collapse.

Amid that, a figure close to Trump emerged, born on the other side of the Iron Curtain—in Czechia—with a historically negative view of Russia, completely different from her supporters in the White House. This figure is not an expert in international relations, but she is listened to; and more importantly, Trump does not seem willing to sideline her. She is his wife, Melania, who saw that Putin was playing with her husband’s good faith.

Then came the sixth call, which cemented in Trump the impression that Putin was not acting with the same sensitivity, and it ended with great anger, pushing Trump to give Putin a fifty-day deadline to end the war. However, Trump returned, a few days ago, to shorten the deadline, saying: “The message was clear from the beginning,” adding: “Vladimir Putin would say nice things on the phone and then do exactly the opposite!”

On the day following the meeting with Trump, Dmitry Medvedev threatened to use what is known as the “Dead Hand,” the Russian doomsday nuclear doctrine that is launched automatically if the state is exposed to an imminent danger. A series of escalatory measures followed; Trump canceled the deadline and began taking steps against the Russian economy, targeting the energy sector and the shadow fleets that are used to export oil to India and China.

He also announced the deployment of two submarines equipped with nuclear warheads off the Russian coasts, to which Moscow responded by canceling its unilateral commitment not to deploy intermediate- and short-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Nor did the matter stop there; Trump revealed his intention to impose customs duties ranging between 50 and 100% on all imports from Russia, and others at the same rate on any entity or individual who deals commercially with Moscow.

Some American strategists see that Putin will not stop the war, and will not feel secure, unless Russia regains the strategic position that the Soviet Union once had. They infer this from Moscow’s willingness to negotiate over four out of five main items, excluding the Ukrainian war, which raises a central European question: Where should the red line for Russia be drawn?

This deep European apprehension has launched a broad transformation to rebuild the slackened European unity and to structure the strategic and military position. France and Britain rushed to the forefront of the Atlantic military scene, awaiting Germany and Sweden to catch up with them to fortify the continent. The European fear of Moscow’s intentions was clearly manifested when the three Baltic states, along with Poland, announced their withdrawal from the land-mine ban treaty and began building complex fortifications that include 600 military emplacements and minefields along their borders with Ukraine and Russia.

Trump’s sharp reaction expresses a deep wound to his pride, and he will not accept appearing deceived before his Republican colleagues—whose voices have risen in protest against the course of the negotiations—nor before the international leaders lying in wait.

The international scene is moving quickly toward escalation, amid unprecedented European mobilization and a heated debate inside the White House about the repercussions of what is happening. And as events accelerate, the questioning intensifies regarding the conflict raging in the corridors of American power and in the depths of President Trump’s mind.

The central question remains: Is there a mediator capable of bringing the Russian and American sides down from the tree? And who will win the game of “cat and mouse” inside the White House? It seems that this war will be prolonged, and that the Russian–Ukrainian conflict will remain the central ring that determines the tempo of the entire international order