Chapter 4: Parallel Agendas – Ukraine, NATO, and the Art of Disruption (Late 2017–Early 2018)

, , , , ,

The Bear and the Eagle

Volume 1: The Unexpected Victory (2016–2017)

Brussels – Washington – Moscow – Kyiv
October 2017 – March 2018

By the close of 2017, the strategic lines between Russia and the West had hardened. Yet amid escalating rhetoric and sanctions, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin continued to pursue distinct but intersecting agendas. One sought to disrupt the Western order from within. The other sought to unsettle it from the outside.

The theatre of contest remained the same: Ukraine, NATO, and the ideological legitimacy of the post-Cold War system.

Ukraine: The Frozen War

Three years after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the conflict in eastern Ukraine persisted. The Donetsk and Luhansk regions remained under the control of Russian-backed separatists, and despite the Minsk II agreement (2015), ceasefire violations occurred almost daily (OSCE, 2018).

The Trump administration initially remained quiet, fuelling speculation that Washington might quietly abandon Ukraine to Russian interests. But by December 2017, a turning point came.

In a reversal of Obama-era policy, the Trump administration approved the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine—defensive weapons capable of stopping Russian armour (BBC News, 2017). The move angered Moscow and surprised European diplomats, many of whom had believed Trump would appease Putin on Ukraine.

Putin responded by signing a decree to simplify the citizenship process for residents of Donbas, tightening Russia’s grip on the occupied territories (TASS, 2018). Kremlin officials framed it as a humanitarian gesture. Ukraine and the West called it creeping annexation.

Trump’s NATO Gambit

In parallel, Trump continued his campaign of public criticism against NATO. At the 2017 NATO Summit in Brussels, Trump berated allies for not spending enough on defence:

“Many countries owe vast sums of money from past years… This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.”
— Donald Trump, May 2017 (White House, 2017)

Though his rhetoric suggested disinterest in the alliance, his administration quietly increased U.S. funding for NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in Poland and the Baltic states. The 2018 defence budget allocated $6.5 billion to the European Deterrence Initiative—a signal that U.S. military planners were taking Russia seriously, even if the president’s tweets said otherwise (DoD, 2018).

To NATO officials, it was a paradox: Trump undermined the alliance rhetorically, yet reinforced it militarily.

Putin watched with a mix of satisfaction and irritation. The alliance was politically shaken, but its boots and tanks in eastern Europe were multiplying.

Cyber Shadows and Energy Wars

As Mueller’s probe gathered momentum back home, Trump’s foreign policy oscillated unpredictably. One area where policy and politics collided was energy.

In 2018, the U.S. began vocally opposing Nord Stream 2—a major Russian gas pipeline to Germany that would bypass Ukraine and consolidate Russian leverage over Europe. Trump warned:

“Germany is totally controlled by Russia… They will be getting between 60 and 70 percent of their energy from Russia.”
— Trump at NATO Summit, July 2018 (Reuters, 2018)

Merkel, visibly irritated, defended German independence. But the underlying concern was real: Europe’s dependency on Russian gas had long been seen as a strategic vulnerability. Russia supplied over 35% of the EU’s natural gas, giving Moscow a powerful economic lever (Eurostat, 2018).

Meanwhile, Russian cyber operations evolved from election interference to infrastructure probing. Reports from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed that Russian hackers had breached U.S. energy grids, nuclear facilities, and water systems in what analysts described as digital reconnaissance for future sabotage (DHS, 2018).

In Moscow, this capability was seen not merely as warfare preparation, but deterrence through infiltration.

The Helsinki Meeting in Waiting

By early 2018, the stage was being set for a second major Trump–Putin summit—to be held later in Helsinki. Yet the groundwork revealed a recurring pattern: the two leaders continued to act in parallel but not in partnership.

  • Trump pursued personal diplomacy, tweets, and disruption of global norms.
  • Putin pursued territorial consolidation, information warfare, and patient attrition.

Behind the scenes, John Bolton—appointed as National Security Advisor in March 2018—began coordinating what would become the most controversial summit of Trump’s presidency.

Strategic Divergence, Tactical Alignment

Despite the growing polarisation between the U.S. intelligence community and the White House, Russia maintained a curious optimism about Trump. Russian state channels (RT, Sputnik) continued to praise Trump’s nationalism and disdain for liberal institutions.

But the Kremlin’s strategists understood the game was bigger than Trump. They knew America’s institutional depth—its judiciary, press, and Congress—had prevented a full-scale realignment.

Still, the political damage was done: NATO was internally strained, Europe was divided over Russia policy, and the U.S. was consumed with internal investigations.

To Putin, this was a success. It wasn’t about winning a war—it was about weakening the opposition’s will to fight one.

References

Home