U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly promised he could end the Russo-Ukrainian War quickly. Yet the actions attributed to his administration point toward a more familiar Washington strategy that demands capitulation to the so-called “rules-based” order. The contradiction reinforces an old rule of politics. Watch what officials do, not simply what they say.
The clearest example is the reported expansion of CIA and Pentagon support for Ukraine’s campaign against Russian energy infrastructure. A New York Times investigation reported that the CIA and U.S. military, acting with Trump’s approval, “supercharged a Ukrainian campaign of drone strikes on Russian oil facilities and tankers.” The campaign was designed to damage the financial base of Russia’s war effort while allowing Washington to retain distance from the actual attacks.
According to the Times, American officials helped Ukraine concentrate on refinery components that could disable facilities for weeks:
“A C.I.A. expert had identified a type of coupler that was so hard to replace or repair that a refinery would remain offline for weeks.”
The same report said that Washington approved aiding attacks against vessels connected to Russia’s shadow fleet in the Black Sea and Mediterranean. The strategy reportedly aimed to impose substantial economic costs on Moscow while leaving Ukraine to operate the drones.
Other reporting supports the broader account of deep American involvement in Ukrainian long-range strikes. Reuters reported that U.S. intelligence has helped Ukraine plan attacks on Russian energy sites, including refineries far behind the battlefield. The reporting said American assistance involved route selection, altitude, timing, target vulnerability analysis, and other mission decisions. Ukraine selected the targets, according to one official, while Washington provided intelligence about weaknesses at those locations.
A separate Reuters report said the United States would provide intelligence on Russian energy infrastructure, including refineries, pipelines, and power plants. That support marks a significant escalation from the caution that defined much of Joe Biden’s administration’s approach to attacks on Russian energy targets.
The evidence indicates that CIA Director John Ratcliffe preserved an important Ukraine mission when other parts of the government moved in different directions. In March 2025, Trump temporarily halted intelligence sharing with Ukraine after his Oval Office confrontation with President Volodymyr Zelensky. Ratcliffe confirmed that Trump had “asked for a pause.” The suspension ended after Ukraine accepted a ceasefire proposal.
At the same time, reports said the CIA continued providing information about threats inside Ukraine, even as military intelligence sharing paused. The Times reported that Ratcliffe persuaded the White House to preserve the agency’s presence in Ukraine. His protection of that channel contrasts with other administration moves that reduced pressure on Moscow.
Reuters reported that several American national security agencies halted coordinated work against alleged Russian sabotage, disinformation, and cyber activity as the administration pursued talks with Moscow. Meetings involving the National Security Council and European partners reportedly stopped, while coordination among agencies declined.
The administration also imposed constraints in selected areas. Reports indicated that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered U.S. Cyber Command to suspend planning for offensive actions against Russia, though the reported directive did not apply to CIA cyber operations. A Pentagon review process also reportedly limited Ukraine’s use of American ATACMS missiles inside Russia, even while intelligence support expanded for Ukrainian drone strikes against Russian energy facilities.
That mix of escalation and restraint is not a coherent peace strategy. It is all about using leverage against Russia. Trump appears to favor tools that can impose costs on Russia while limiting Washington’s visible role and preserving room for diplomacy. In this model, Ukraine becomes the operational partner, the CIA provides intelligence and planning help, and the White House holds the prospect of talks over Moscow’s head.
Ratcliffe’s reported August 2026 visit to Moscow captures that dual role. Accounts said he met with Russian intelligence officials, not President Vladimir Putin, and delivered warnings against any attack on NATO while urging serious negotiations over Ukraine. Trump called the visit “semi-routine” and “standard business.”
Russia is unlikely to accept an agreement that freezes the conflict while Ukraine continues receiving intelligence, weapons, and strategic assistance from the United States and its NATO satrapies. Moscow has repeatedly argued that earlier ceasefire arrangements allowed Ukraine time to rebuild its military position.
Trump’s first term offers a useful comparison. Despite campaign language favoring improved ties with Moscow, his administration withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty and the INF Treaty, provided lethal aid to Ukraine, targeted Russian contractors in Syria, and signed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. His record showed that he was willing to confront Russia within the same broad framework of U.S. primacy that dominates both parties.
The second term has followed that pattern in an opaquer form. Trump promises peace, but his administration has expanded deniable support for attacks that strike at Russia’s economy and war capacity. A genuine America First policy would prioritize a negotiated settlement, reject open-ended proxy escalation, and recognize that peace requires a realistic accommodation of security interests rather than another attempt to force Russia into geopolitical submission.
Unfortunately, such a solution will not materialize under a Washington regime that still operates within a unipolar moment framework, viewing the rest of the globe as playthings to dominate and manipulate.
