Estonian military analyst: Trump can’t walk away from Ukraine — here’s why

An Estonian military analyst says Donald Trump may talk tough about pulling the plug on Ukraine, but reality—and U.S. interests—won’t let him.

Teet Kalmus, one of Estonia’s top military bloggers, argues that as long as Russia’s war with Ukraine remains contained within Ukrainian borders, NATO nations stay safer. But if Ukraine had fallen quickly? Then, Kalmus says, the chances of open military conflict between Russia and NATO would have skyrocketed.

And that’s just the geopolitical side of things.

According to Kalmus, Trump also has to face down a harsh economic truth: the U.S. weapons industry is booming thanks to the war—and that’s not something any president can just walk away from.

Missile launchers like HIMARS and air-defense systems like the Patriot have proven their worth on the battlefield, leading to years' worth of new orders. But more than that, the Ukraine war has triggered what Kalmus calls a “drone revolution”—rapid military innovation that’s changing how wars are fought.

“The United States must be at the center of this military evolution,” Kalmus writes. “That’s the only way to stay ahead of Russia and China, who are modernizing their armed forces based on what they’re learning in Ukraine.”

American weapons like the HIMARS and Switchblade 600 drones have already been upgraded thanks to direct wartime feedback. That kind of battlefield lab is something the Pentagon can't replicate in peacetime. If the U.S. disengages now, Kalmus warns, it risks falling behind technologically—especially to China.

And Russia knows this.

Kalmus says the Kremlin is banking on Trump keeping up the tough talk about deals with Moscow, dragging out any possible negotiations for as long as possible. That would let Russian forces keep fighting while Washington dithers.

But here’s the kicker: Russia has almost nothing to offer the U.S. economically. Even before the full-scale invasion, trade between the two countries was small. Today, it’s barely a blip—around $3 billion annually, peanuts for global superpowers.

“Trump may frame it as a business opportunity,” Kalmus notes, “but in reality, there’s no big deal to be made with Russia.”

That’s why, despite his rhetoric, the president likely won’t risk the long-term interests of America’s powerful defense sector. Kalmus believes Trump’s talk is more posturing than policy—a calculated move to apply soft pressure on Russia.

Still, the clock is ticking. Kalmus suggests the fastest route to a ceasefire isn’t through empty negotiations, but through hard-hitting sanctions—especially on buyers of Russian energy.

“That’s the language Putin understands,” Kalmus writes.

Bottom line? Trump may want to walk away from Ukraine, but Kalmus says the cost—to America’s military edge, to NATO’s security, and to U.S. industry—is just too high.