Signals and Consequences: How US Policy Shaped Russian Strategy and Negotiation Leverage in Ukraine, 2014-2025

Disclaimer: These opinion pieces represent the authors’ personal views and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of Norwich University or PAWC.

This article argues that U.S. policy decisions across four administrations — ranging from Obama’s restrained response to Crimea, Trump’s inconsistent aid posture, Biden’s industrialized support during full‑scale war, and Trump’s current ceasefire diplomacy — collectively informed Russian strategy by signaling thresholds of American commitment. These signals shaped both the timing and scope of Russian gains and determined Moscow’s leverage in negotiations, demonstrating that U.S. choices were not merely reactive but constitutive of the strategic environment in which Russia advanced.

Methodologically, this article treats U.S. policy as a signaling system. Rather than evaluating each administration in isolation, it examines how cumulative choices shaped Russian expectations over time. This approach highlights the continuity of strategic effects across partisan divides and clarifies how adversaries interpret American thresholds. By analyzing policy as a sequence of signals rather than as discrete events, the article demonstrates how restraint, inconsistency, escalation, and accommodation collectively created a coherent strategic environment that Moscow learned to navigate and exploit.

Why Putin Invaded, and What He Gained Initially

The Russo-Ukrainian war did not erupt suddenly in 2022; it was the culmination of a decade of contested sovereignty, Western signaling, and Russian opportunism. Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was driven by a blend of imperial ambition, fear of Western integration, and the perception of U.S. restraint. Analysts note that Putin sought to restore Russia’s great-power status, fracture NATO unity, and subordinate Ukraine’s sovereignty by force. Russia’s initial gains in 2014, including the rapid annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of Donetsk and Luhansk, established the strategic baseline for the decade that followed.

Russian strategic culture further shaped how Moscow interpreted U.S. actions. Rooted in a historical pattern of coercive diplomacy, opportunistic expansion, and acute sensitivity to perceived encirclement, Russian decision-makers consistently evaluated American behavior through the lens of resolve and risk tolerance. The Kremlin’s worldview holds that great powers test one another’s limits and that adversaries reveal their true intentions through action rather than rhetoric. This cultural framework magnified the impact of U.S. restraint in 2014, the inconsistency of the Trump years, and the calibrated escalation under Biden. Each signal was filtered through a tradition that prizes strategic patience, incremental advantage, and the exploitation of Western political divisions.

The Obama Administration — Reset, Restraint, and Crimea

When Barack Obama took office in 2009, his administration sought to “reset” relations with Russia, emphasizing cooperation on arms control, counterterrorism, and Iran sanctions. The logic was pragmatic: Washington believed Moscow could be a partner on select global issues, even if disagreements persisted elsewhere. Yet this reset quickly collided with Russia’s revisionist ambitions. By 2014, the collapse of the Yanukovych government in Ukraine and the subsequent Euromaidan Revolution presented Putin with both a threat and an opportunity. The threat was the loss of a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv and the prospect of Ukraine’s deeper integration with the West. The opportunity was to seize territory, destabilize Ukraine, and test the limits of U.S. and NATO resolve.

The annexation of Crimea in March 2014 was the most dramatic rupture in post-Cold War European security. Russian forces without insignia occupied the peninsula, held a referendum under military control, and declared Crimea part of the Russian Federation. Strategically, the move secured Russia’s Black Sea Fleet base at Sevastopol, expanded its maritime reach, and provided a potent nationalist message. Domestically, Putin’s approval ratings soared, while internationally, Russia demonstrated its willingness to redraw borders by force. The simultaneous eruption of conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk, fueled by Russian arms and advisors, entrenched Moscow’s presence in eastern Ukraine. By 2015, the Donbas war had killed thousands and created a frozen conflict that Russia could manipulate at will.

The Obama administration responded with sanctions and diplomatic isolation but avoided lethal aid, a choice that shaped the strategic environment without directly confronting Russia. From a historiographical perspective, scholars debate whether Obama’s restraint was a sign of prudence or weakness. Some argue that avoiding escalation preserved NATO unity and prevented direct war with Russia. Others contend that withholding lethal aid undermined deterrence, signaling to Moscow that revisionism was tolerable. In either case, the Obama years set a precedent: U.S. policy choices — sanctions without arms — created an environment in which Russia could seize territory, absorb costs, and retain leverage in negotiations. This precedent became the foundation for Russia’s later strategy and bargaining position.

Alliance dynamics amplified the effects of U.S. policy. NATO’s internal divisions — particularly between eastern members demanding firmer deterrence and western members prioritizing de‑escalation — made American signals disproportionately influential. When Washington hesitated, European capitals tended to follow; when Washington escalated, the cohesion of the alliance strengthened. This asymmetry meant that U.S. choices not only shaped Russian expectations but also structured the collective Western response. Moscow understood this dynamic and consistently sought to exploit transatlantic fractures, using energy leverage, disinformation, and diplomatic pressure to widen gaps within the alliance. As a result, U.S. policy served as both a strategic signal to Russia and a coordinating mechanism for the broader Western coalition.

The First Trump Administration — Volatile Support and Uneven Deterrence

Donald Trump’s first administration marked a sharp departure from Obama’s cautious restraint, yet it was equally defined by inconsistency. On the one hand, the administration approved lethal arms sales to Ukraine in 2017, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, a step the Obama administration had avoided. This decision was widely interpreted as a tougher stance against Russia, signaling that Washington was willing to raise the costs of Moscow’s aggression. Congress reinforced this posture by expanding the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, ensuring that Kyiv received both lethal and non-lethal support.

Yet this harder line was undermined by volatility. In 2019, the White House placed a hold on $250 million in congressionally appropriated military aid, sparking bipartisan outrage. The delay, which coincided with Trump’s request that President Volodymyr Zelensky investigate domestic political rivals, became central to the first impeachment proceedings. The aid was eventually released, but the episode revealed deep contradictions: while Congress and the Pentagon supported robust assistance, the president’s personal decisions introduced uncertainty into U.S. policy. Analysts argue that this inconsistency weakened deterrence by signaling to Moscow that U.S. support for Ukraine could be politicized and interrupted.

From Russia’s perspective, the Trump years offered both challenges and opportunities. Providing lethal aid raised battlefield costs, but the 2019 aid hold and Trump’s ambivalent rhetoric suggested limits to U.S. resolve. Moscow entrenched its control over Crimea and the Donbas, confident that Washington’s signals were mixed and that Europe remained divided.

Negotiation leverage tilted in favor of Russia: Kyiv’s dependence on Western support was clear, but the reliability of that support remained uncertain.

In either case, the first Trump administration reinforced the central thesis of this article: U.S. policy choices — whether escalation or inconsistency — shaped Russia’s strategy and its leverage in negotiations. These contradictions created uncertainty about U.S. resolve, which shaped how Moscow assessed American commitment during this period.

The Biden Administration — Full-Scale War and Industrialized Support

Joe Biden’s presidency was defined by the outbreak of Europe’s largest war since World War II. On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, deploying nearly 200,000 troops across multiple fronts. The Kremlin’s objectives were sweeping: regime change in Kyiv, territorial expansion, and the neutralization of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Although Russia failed to capture the capital, it consolidated control over large swaths of the south and east, later declaring the annexation of four oblasts. By late 2024, Moscow controlled nearly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory, underscoring the scale of the challenge facing Washington and its allies.

The Biden administration responded with unprecedented support. Between 2021 and early 2025, the United States committed more than $66.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, including air defense systems, artillery, armored vehicles, and precision munitions. This aid dwarfed previous commitments and marked the first time since the Marshall Plan that a European country became the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. The assistance was delivered through Presidential Drawdown Authority packages, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and Foreign Military Sales, ensuring both immediate battlefield impact and long-term sustainment.

A significant turning point came in November 2024, when Biden authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles to strike targets inside Russia. This policy reversal lifted longstanding restrictions, enabling Kyiv to hit Russian bases and supply lines beyond the border. The decision was prompted in part by Russia’s deep strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure and the deployment of North Korean troops to support Russian forces. Analysts noted that the move risked escalation but also enhanced Ukraine’s deterrent capacity, complicating Moscow’s logistics and potentially reshaping negotiation dynamics.

Biden’s support sustained Ukraine’s resistance while managing escalation risks, a dynamic explored further in the concluding synthesis.

The Current Trump Administration — Ceasefire Diplomacy and Leverage Recalibration

Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025 ushered in a new phase in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, marked by an emphasis on ceasefire diplomacy. Within weeks, the administration unveiled a 28-point draft settlement plan that proposed sweeping concessions to Russia. The plan included recognition of Russia’s territorial gains, codification of Ukrainian neutrality in law, limits on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces, and staged sanctions relief tied to reconstruction financing. While presented as a pathway to peace, the proposal was widely criticized in Kyiv and across Europe as overly favorable to Moscow.

Putin’s response was uncompromising. He reiterated maximalist demands: recognition of Russia’s annexations, permanent constraints on Ukraine’s military, and a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO. In December 2025, he warned that Russia would extend its “buffer security zone” into Ukrainian territory if negotiations failed, underscoring his confidence in battlefield momentum. These demands reflected not only Russia’s territorial ambitions but also its perception that Western unity was fraying and that U.S. policy had shifted toward accommodation.

For the Trump administration, the ceasefire initiative was framed as pragmatic realism: ending the war through negotiation rather than indefinite aid flows. Yet critics argued that the plan undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty and rewarded aggression. European partners expressed alarm, fearing that concessions would embolden Russia and destabilize NATO’s eastern flank. The debate exposed a fundamental tension: whether U.S. policy should prioritize an immediate cessation of hostilities or long-term deterrence against revisionism. Russia interpreted the U.S. shift toward ceasefire diplomacy as evidence of Western fatigue, reinforcing its maximalist negotiating posture.

U.S. Policy as Constitutive of Russian Gains and Leverage

Across four administrations, U.S. policy shaped the strategic environment in which Russia advanced. Restraint, inconsistency, escalation, and accommodation each produced signals that Moscow interpreted and exploited. The lesson is clear: deterrence is not abstract but communicative, and adversaries calibrate their strategies to American thresholds. Future policy must therefore prioritize coherent signaling and sustained commitment, recognizing that U.S. choices do not merely respond to crises — they structure them. Whether this is feasible under the current, sharply divided political environment is unlikely.

The decade from 2014 to 2025 demonstrates that deterrence is not merely a matter of military capability, but of coherent, and sustained signaling. Future U.S. policy must therefore prioritize continuity across administrations, ensuring that shifts in political leadership do not create exploitable gaps in strategic messaging. This requires institutional mechanisms that integrate military assistance, diplomatic communication, and alliance coordination into a unified framework. When these elements diverge, adversaries detect inconsistency and adjust their strategies accordingly.

A central lesson of the period is the importance of early clarity. Ambiguity in the face of aggression — whether intended as restraint or caution — can incentivize opportunism by leaving adversaries uncertain about U.S. thresholds. Clear red lines, backed by credible enforcement mechanisms, reduce the risk of miscalculation and strengthen deterrence. At the same time, clarity must be paired with flexibility: rigid commitments can escalate crises unnecessarily, while adaptable frameworks allow policymakers to calibrate responses without signaling indecision.

Equally important is integrating economic, informational, and military tools into a coherent signaling strategy. Sanctions alone proved insufficient to change Russian behavior, but when combined with military assistance, alliance cohesion, and diplomatic pressure, they created more durable leverage. Future policy should therefore emphasize multi‑domain coordination rather than reliance on any single instrument.

Finally, U.S. policymakers must recognize that adversaries interpret not only what Washington does but also how consistently it does so. Sustained commitment — rather than episodic surges of attention — remains the most effective way to shape adversary expectations and preserve strategic stability.

For scholars and policymakers, the implications are profound. The U.S. experience in Ukraine underscores the need for coherent signaling, sustained commitment, and strategic clarity. Future policy must recognize that adversaries calibrate their strategies not only to battlefield realities but also to the thresholds and contradictions of American decision-making. In Ukraine, those decisions shaped the war’s course and the leverage Russia now brings to the negotiating table.

Dr. James M. Deitch was born in Philadelphia and raised in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. During his Marine Corps career, he deployed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Norway, and aboard the USS Saratoga. Deitch holds a master’s degree in military history from Norwich University and a doctoral degree in intellectual history from Liberty University. His published works can be found in USNI’s Proceedings, Total War Magazine, Concealed Carry Magazine, Real Clear Defense, and the Journal of the American Revolution.

Keir Giles, Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia to Confront the West (London: Chatham House, 2019). Angela Stent, Putin’s World: Russia Against the West and With the Rest (New York: Twelve, 2019). Michael Kofman and Andrea Kendall-Taylor, “The Myth of Russian Decline,” Foreign Affairs 100, no. 4 (2021): 108–121.

Jack Snyder, The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1977). Andrew Monaghan, Power in Modern Russia: Strategy and Mobilization (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017). Keir Giles, Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia to Confront the West (London: Chatham House, 2019).

Barack Obama, interview by Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine,” The Atlantic, April 2016. Steven Pifer, “Obama’s Ukraine Policy: A Balance of Interests,” Brookings Institution, 2015. John Herbst and Steven Pifer, “Preserving Ukraine’s Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do,” Brookings Institution, 2014. Daniel R. DePetris, “Obama’s Ukraine Policy Failed to Deter Russia,” The Hill, March 2017. Michael Kofman and Matthew Rojansky, “A Closer Look at Russia’s ‘Hybrid War,’” Wilson Center, 2015.

Davis Jr., “EXPLAINER: Why Did Russia Invade Ukraine?” U.S. News & World Report, February 20, 2025.

Caitlin Emma and Connor O’Brien, “Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia,” Politico, August 28, 2019. Jeffrey Smith, “Timeline: How Trump Withheld Ukraine Aid,” Center for Public Integrity, December 13, 2019.

“Russia’s November Advance in Ukraine Largest Since March 2022 – AFP Analysis,” The Moscow Times, December 2, 2024.

U.S. Department of Defense, “Biden Administration Announces Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine,” January 9, 2025.

“What Biden’s Decision to Allow Ukraine to Use Longer-Range U.S. Weapons Means for the War,” PBS NewsHour, November 18, 2024.

Institute for the Study of War, “Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 14, 2025,” Institute for the Study of War, December 14, 2025.

Mark F. Cancian and Maria Snegovaya, The Unfinished Plan for Peace in Ukraine: Provision by Provision (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 24, 2025).

Sarah Shamim, “Trump’s 28-Point Ukraine Plan in Full: What It Means, Could It Work?” Al Jazeera, November 21, 2025.

Cancian and Snegovaya, The Unfinished Plan for Peace in Ukraine: Provision by Provision (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 24, 2025).

“Trump’s 28-Point Ukraine Plan in Full: What It Means, Could It Work?”

Cancian and Snegovaya, The Unfinished Plan for Peace in Ukraine.

Institute for the Study of War, “Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 14, 2025.”