When President Donald Trump returned to office, he was laboring under a fundamental misconception about the war in Ukraine.

Trump seemed convinced that he could get Russia to stop fighting—as long as he kept Ukraine out of NATO and froze the battle lines, letting Russia keep the territory it already occupied. But that was never going to be enough for Vladimir Putin. He had other demands: strict limits on the size of Ukraine’s military, an end to its security cooperation with the West, and no European troops in the country. Moscow wanted a neutered Ukraine, not a neutral one.

Last week in Istanbul, Russian and Ukrainian officials held public talks for the first time since 2022, agreeing to exchange 1,000 prisoners each and to continue negotiating the technical details of a potential cease-fire. Some observers saw this as progress, but the underlying dynamics have not changed: Russia’s maximalist demands make a near-term settlement virtually impossible.

The next move will fall to Trump, who threatened last month to “take a pass” if the two sides don’t reach a deal. No one knows exactly what that means. Perhaps Trump will turn on Putin and increase support for Ukraine, but every indication suggests that’s unlikely. Two courses of action seem more plausible. First, Trump might decide to cut off military aid to Ukraine, which could finally tilt the war in Russia’s favor. Alternatively, he might maintain U.S. support but step back from peace talks until Russia indicates that it’s ready to compromise. This would subject Putin to a series of dilemmas as he tries to sustain a war that is costing him mightily.

Russia, Ukraine, and Ukraine’s European allies all know that a settlement is unlikely, at least in the near future. In the meantime, their main diplomatic goal is simple: Win over Trump. He wants a quick resolution, so Ukraine and Russia are each trying to convince him that the other side is the one prolonging the conflict. Whoever succeeds could shape his response to the failure of negotiations and reap significant benefits on the battlefield.

Read: Trump’s plan to sell out Ukraine to Russia

Initially, Trump saw Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, not Putin, as the stubborn one. Zelensky insisted on ironclad security guarantees from the United States, which Trump was unwilling to give. Meanwhile, Putin seemed to be striking up a friendship with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy.

The dynamic reversed soon after the Oval Office confrontation between Trump and Zelensky in February, which led the United States to temporarily withhold assistance. This catastrophe forced Kyiv to shift tack. Eleven days later, following advice from the United Kingdom, Ukraine shrewdly agreed to an unconditional 30-day cease-fire in talks with U.S. officials. Trump wanted an end to the war; now Zelensky could say that he did too.

Putin, however, would almost certainly never accept an unconditional cease-fire, which would leave significant issues unresolved, such as territorial disputes and Ukraine’s security guarantees. Russia would benefit in some ways—the country would get to keep the areas it currently controls—but Ukraine would be able to rearm without limits and admit European troops, both outcomes that Putin has balked at because he seeks Ukraine’s subjugation.

By agreeing to a cease-fire, Zelensky flipped the negotiation: Now Putin would be the one demanding conditions and denying Trump his peace deal. It seemed to work. Earlier this month, Vice President J. D. Vance said that Russia was “asking for too much,” even after the Trump administration proposed a plan that favored Putin. When Trump was asked about Vance’s statement, he said, “It’s possible he’s right.”

Perhaps sensing that he was losing leverage, Putin called for last week’s talks in Istanbul, where Russia and Ukraine had negotiated early in the war. Back then, the two sides had converged on a number of issues but were deeply divided on others; Russia, for example, wanted an effective veto over security guarantees and international assistance for Ukraine if war broke out again. This time, Putin was evidently hoping to persuade the United States to accept that same condition and put pressure on Ukraine.

Then Zelensky made another savvy move. Rather than rejecting the invitation, he said he would show up personally and meet Putin face-to-face. Zelensky knew that Putin was extremely unlikely to go, and indeed he didn’t. By calling the Russian leader’s bluff, Zelensky gave Trump another indication that Putin wasn’t serious about negotiating a cease-fire.

Still, Moscow could ultimately be rewarded for refusing to compromise. The basic diplomatic problem for the U.S. is persuading Putin to accept something he has fiercely opposed: a free and independent Ukraine that can defend itself and deter a future attack. Instead of continuing to try to solve that problem, Trump may simply end America’s intelligence cooperation, cut off its weapons supply, and perhaps even refuse to sell arms. Ukraine would face crucial shortages and rising casualties, while Russian forces would likely eke out more small gains that will add up over time.

Fortunately for Zelensky, however, Ukraine does not rely on the U.S. as much as it did in the first three years of the war. President Joe Biden’s decision to accelerate weapon transfers in the final months of his administration has given the Ukrainians most of what they need to fight for the rest of the year. And even though Trump clearly has no desire to renew aid for Ukraine, the country has cranked up its own defense industrial base with help from allies—especially its capacity to produce large quantities of drones, which have largely supplanted artillery on the front.

But if America continues to support Ukraine, Russia could have trouble generating enough manpower to sustain the invasion into next year. During its offensive of the past nine months, Russia has won only small slivers of territory and paid an enormous cost for them. The country has sustained more than 1,500 casualties a day, and nearly 800,000 since the start of the war, according to one U.S. military estimate last month. Putin is not a reasonable person, but he does sometimes adjust to battlefield realities. If his losses continue at this rate, he may have to order a larger mobilization, which he has been keen to avoid, or compromise at the negotiating table.

Read: Why Trump is giving Putin everything he wants

Judging by recent comments from Witkoff, Trump doesn’t seem to grasp that negotiations will succeed only if Russia feels pressure on the front lines. Neoconservatives believe that “war is the only way to solve things,” the president’s envoy said earlier this month. But Trump “believes that his force of personality—the way he is going to respond to situations—can bend people to do things in a much better way for the interests of the United States government, and I believe in that too.” Putin is far too determined to be swayed by mere personality.

There is a realistic way forward, though, that benefits both Trump and Ukraine. It will take a helping hand from Europe. The goal is simple: Show Putin that, as long as he sticks to his maximalist demands, he won’t make any significant territorial gains and will continue paying a huge price on the battlefield.

Although some of America’s military support is irreplaceable—particularly its intelligence cooperation, air-defense missiles, mid-range rockets, and heavy vehicles—Europe has the capacity to take on most of the burden of backing Ukraine. Given that Trump almost certainly won’t ask Congress to fund additional aid, leaders close to him, especially British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, could broker a compromise whereby the U.S. provides Ukraine only the kinds of assistance that Europe can’t—granted that Putin, not Zelensky, remains the primary obstacle to peace. The Europeans could also offer to pay the U.S. for its weapons and equipment, perhaps by tapping Russia’s sovereign assets.

This compromise would allow Trump to tell Americans that he has significantly reduced aid for Ukraine but has not abandoned it; even better, he could say that Europeans are footing the bill. This would help facilitate a deal with Russia by showing Moscow that victory is not possible. Ending this war quickly will require convincing Putin that it could go on indefinitely. As long as Trump denies this and flirts with ending U.S. support for Ukraine while letting Russia off the hook, the deal he’s desperate to close will continue to elude him.

Declared brain-dead in February, Adriana Smith remains on life support in Georgia against her family’s wishes—revealing the chilling consequences of abortion bans that override bodily autonomy, even in death.

Three months ago, 30-year-old Adriana Smith was declared brain-dead. But a hospital in Georgia is keeping her “alive” on life support, against her family’s wishes, because of the state’s strict abortion ban.

Smith, a registered nurse in metro Atlanta, was nine weeks pregnant in early February when she started suffering from intense headaches. Smith initially sought treatment at Northside Hospital but was released that same day after being given medication. According to Adriana Smith’s mother April Newkirk, “They didn’t do any tests. No CT scan. If they had done that or kept her overnight, they would have caught it. It could have been prevented.”

The next morning, Smith’s boyfriend found her unresponsive and gasping for air. Smith was taken to Emory Decatur, then transferred to Emory University Hospital, where she worked. Doctors found multiple blood clots in her brain and determined Smith to be brain-dead, the legal and medical standard for death in the United States. But because she was pregnant, Georgia’s antiabortion laws have created a legal gray area: Emory staff say they are legally required to keep her breathing until the fetus reaches viability.

Last week, Smith was moved again, this time to Emory Midtown, which doctors told the family is better equipped for obstetric care. 

In what universe does a hospital in Georgia … believe that they can take ownership of Adriana Smith’s body?

Michele Goodwin, “Fifteen Minutes of Feminism: Dead, Pregnant and Imprisoned in Georgia—The Adriana Smith Case“

Abortion is currently illegal in Georgia after six weeks. And even though ending Smith’s life support would not be an abortion, hospital staff say they plan to keep Smith’s dead body on life-support machines until the fetus reaches a gestational age when it can survive outside the womb.

When she died, Adriana Smith was already a mother to one young son. Doctors told Newkirk and her boyfriend that, legally, they aren’t allowed to consider other options while Smith is technically pregnant, even though her family wishes she could be allowed to die in peace.

“She’s been breathing through machines for more than 90 days,” Smith’s mother Newkirk said. “It’s torture for me. I see my daughter breathing, but she’s not there. And her son—I bring him to see her.”

Meanwhile, the fetus is not healthy. Doctors told Smith’s family that the baby has fluid on his brain and might not be able to see, walk or survive once he’s born. “This decision should’ve been left to us. Now we’re left wondering what kind of life he’ll have—and we’re going to be the ones raising him,” said Newkirk. Smith’s family is already facing mounting medical bills as the hospital keeps her body on life support for weeks and weeks.

In an emergency episode of Ms.’ On the Issues With Michele Goodwin: 15 Minutes of Feminism podcast on Friday, host Michele Goodwin said the state of Georgia is treating Smith’s body as an “incubator,” which brings up 13th Amendment questions.

“One can’t help but think about a throughline from that period of time where Black women were forced into involuntary reproductive servitude for the benefit of other people and not for them,” said Goodwin. “Certainly, Adriana will experience … no benefit from what her body has been put through and what the state hopes to accomplish.”

Goodwin also pointed out the similarities between Smith’s case and that of Marlise Muñoz, who died in 2014, but the state of Texas forcibly kept her on a ventilator because she was pregnant, for weeks while her body decomposed, despite the wishes of her parents and husband.

These cases, Goodwin argued, represent “disparate treatment at the end of life involving a person who happens to be pregnant.” If a man died at one of these hospitals, it’s hard to imagine that the hospital would force his body to stay on life support against his family’s wishes, she mused.

Adriana Smith should be here with her 5-year-old son. Her severe headaches were dismissed and at 9 weeks pregnant she was declared brain dead, the result of blood clots. … Emory hospital says the Georgia abortion ban requires she stay on life support until delivery, though it has been nearly 3 months. Horrifying. Devastating. Unacceptable.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.)

This harrowing case is the latest result of Georgia’s strict abortion ban, which led to the deaths of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller in 2023. Neither women were allowed a life-saving abortion, despite going through a medical emergency. Many other women, including Josseli Barnica, Porsha Ngumezi and 18-year-old Neveah Crain in Texas, have died as a result of other state’s draconian abortion bans.

Georgia state legislators have defended the hospital’s actions to keep Smith’s body on life support. State Sen. Ed Setzler (R-Ga.)—who sponsored Georgia’s six-week abortion ban in 2019—told PBS, “I think it is completely appropriate that the hospital do what they can to save the life of the child. I think this is an unusual circumstance, but I think it highlights the value of innocent human life. I think the hospital is acting appropriately.”

Other lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates are sounding alarms about the tragic case.

“Adriana’s story is gut-wrenching,” said Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.). “It’s also a painful reminder of the consequences when politicians refuse to trust us to make our own medical decisions.” 

Monica Simpson, executive director of reproductive justice organization SisterSong, said “[Smith’s] family deserves the right to have decision-making power about her medical decisions. Instead, they have endured 90 days of retraumatization, expensive medical costs, and the cruelty of being unable to resolve and move toward healing.” SisterSong is the lead plaintiff in the current lawsuit SisterSong v. State of Georgia challenging Georgia’s six-week abortion ban.

“Black women must be trusted when it comes to our healthcare decisions,” Simpson said in her statement. “After the devastating and preventable deaths of multiple Black women, the message still rings clear: our lives are on the line, and our human right to bodily autonomy has been violated.”

“I think every woman should have the right to make their own decision,” Smith’s mother, April Newkirk, said. “And if not, then their partner or their parents.”

Listen to Ms.’ emergency episode of On the Issues With Michele Goodwin: “Dead, Pregnant and Imprisoned in Georgia—The Adriana Smith Case.”

Economist Noah Smith delves into the myth of the “hollowed out” middle class, the folly of protectionism, and more. He and Mona differ on Trump’s handling of Covid and . . . American chocolate.

Leave a comment

Watch, listen or leave a comment. Ad-free editions are exclusively available for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to the audio edition.