It is not simply that Trump enters his ninth decade on his June 14 birthday, bringing the inevitable questions about health and stamina. Beyond the subjective matter of fitness for office lies the more objective reality that all presidencies come to an end, and as that end approaches, presidential power tends to diminish. Given Trump’s icy relationship with Ukraine and his warmth toward Vladimir Putin, it is somewhat paradoxical that Trump’s lame-duck status could increase risks for Ukraine and make 2027 a decisive year in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Regardless of mid-term results, the end of the Trump administration will be in sight by January 2027. With Trump’s persistently high negatives and other fin de régime factors – cabinet resignations, 2028 political manoeuvring, and ongoing speculation about health – even some loyalists may contribute to this process by distancing themselves from the administration. Positioning oneself as an independent Republican rather than a pure Trump loyalist may become increasingly attractive: MAGA-adjacent rather than fully MAGA.
A parallel factor is Vladimir Putin, though his status is less obvious. Putin turns 74 in October, and unlike Trump, he faces no midterms or institutional accountability. Not formally a Lame Duck, yet the 26 years since he became president is approaching Stalin’s 29 years as USSR leader and more than any Russian emperor since Nicholas I (1825-1855). Putin’s carefully managed public appearances, reluctance to participate in unscripted events, and sensitivity surrounding Victory Day celebrations suggest a leader conscious of discontent and vulnerabilities as the political and economic costs of the war accumulate.
Putin knows he is unlikely ever to encounter a more sympathetic American president than Trump. Trump, in turn, likely recognises that no future president will have the same rapport with a Russian leader that he enjoys with Putin. By 2027, both men may conclude that it is time to strike a deal – one that could lock in Russian battlefield gains while presenting the agreement as a triumph of statesmanship and peace-making. Any resolution that is a victory for Putin would also be a validation of Trump’s pro-Putin policies.
Such a settlement could involve recognising Russian control over occupied territory, reversing sanctions, unfreezing assets, ignoring Russian war responsibility, and pressuring Ukraine and Europe to accept a ceasefire on unfavourable terms. Putin would likely frame such an agreement in flattering terms tailored to Trump’s political instincts: a historic peace achieved through Trump’s leadership and vision. Peace in our time.
There would be strong pressure on both Europe and Ukraine to accept such a deal, particularly from voices in the United States that attach greater value to the immediate headline of “Peace” than the more arduous task of actually establishing the conditions for peace.
For Ukraine, Europe, and ultimately the United States, this would carry serious risks. Rewarding territorial aggression would weaken longstanding norms against conquest and send a destabilising signal to revisionist powers elsewhere in the world. Moreover, undermining NATO cohesion and democratic cooperation would benefit authoritarian states far beyond Russia. The war needs to end, but not in a manner that benefits aggression.
Fortunately, Europe and Ukraine retain important policy tools to resist this misguided peace effort:
- Ukraine will need sustained European economic and military support to withstand U.S. pressure.
- Ukraine can demonstrate Russia’s ongoing vulnerabilities through continued long-range strikes and asymmetric operations designed to undermine perceptions of Russian strength.
- European leaders can reinforce political solidarity with Ukraine through sustained high-level visits to Kyiv and other visible demonstrations of support.
- Europe also needs a more effective public diplomacy strategy in the United States, particularly aimed at persuading the growing “MAGA-adjacent” constituency that continued support for Ukraine serves broader Western interests.
Putin is highly skilled in several respects, with perhaps his greatest skill being his ability to appeal to Trump’s vanity. Trump, for his part, possesses political strengths of his own, including an acute sense of personal importance and an instinct for dramatic diplomacy. Together, these traits could produce a dangerous combination for Ukraine and for America’s standing in the world.
The curtain eventually falls on everyone in public life. The challenge for the West is to ensure that it does not fall on Ukraine as well.
Frank Lavin, a retired diplomat and former White House aide, has volunteered on two ambulance missions in Ukraine.