In the wake of the Israel-Hamas hostage exchange deal orchestrated by the Trump administration that has brought the war in Gaza to a tenuous end, President Donald Trump is looking to capitalize on the momentum by engineering a potential peace deal between Russia and Ukraine to end Vladimir Putin’s brutal war on the eastern European nation.

On Wednesday, a White House official told Politico that the president is “optimistic” about achieving peace in Ukraine as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky prepares to meet with Trump in the White House on Friday. According to Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., the two heads of state will discuss the possibility of American Tomahawk missiles being supplied to Kyiv as well as other air defense measures, along with possible cooperation on energy and drone production.

The administration official went on to observe that “the war hasn’t been going well for Russia, whose economy is in shambles and who continue to lose thousands of lives to gain ‘virtually no land.’ If they were smart, they would more urgently pursue a deal to end the war which has done significant damage to Russia’s reputation, stop the killing, and get their country back on the right track.”

Still, Putin has shown little sign of budging and has continued to press the war on Ukraine even after a face-to-face Alaskan summit in August with Trump, after which the president suggested that Putin was willing to meet with Zelensky. But the meeting never happened, and the war has ground on for over two and a half years. At least 135,000 Russian soldiers and 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed, while almost 15,000 Ukrainian civilians have perished from Russian missile and drone attacks.

Foreign policy experts like Dr. A.J. Nolte of Regent University say that with Putin refusing to negotiate, Trump will likely rely on the same strategy that eventually ended the Israeli-Hamas hostage standoff.

“[N]ow we have a situation where Putin has made it clear he’s not going to play ball with Trump’s plans,” he noted during “Washington Watch” Tuesday. “We all thought it was kind of bluster when Trump said, ‘I want to start tariffing the people that are trading with Russia as a means of ending the conflict,’ but that actually fits with Trump’s strategic approach. If Putin is not going to play ball, look for him to try to find leverage points with the people that are propping up the Russian economy to try to put pressure on them so that they will push Putin into accepting a deal. I think that is very consistent with the strategy he just deployed in the Middle East. We’ll see if it works as well in Russia and Ukraine.”

In early August, Trump implemented a 25% tariff on imported goods from India, the world’s leading importer of Russian oil, specifically citing their energy purchases as one of the reasons for the levy. The president imposed a second 25% tariff on the Asian country several weeks later. Trump has also threatened to impose additional duties on Chinese imports as a penalty for their Russian oil purchases, but it remains to be seen whether or not the president will follow through as he is expected to meet with President Xi Jinping later this month at a gathering of Asia-Pacific leaders in South Korea.

Meanwhile, experts like Lt. Col. (Ret.) Bob Maginnis, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, say that a combination of calibrated escalations, sanctions, and geopolitical pressure is the best course of action to press Russia to end the war.

“Rather than public unilateral threats, the U.S. should structure the decision so that the deployment of long-range assets like Tomahawk missiles is tied to specific Russian behavior, such as renewed strikes on Ukrainian critical infrastructure or border incursions,” he told The Washington Stand. “The U.S. should also support Ukraine’s indigenous long-range capability such as their FP-5 “Flamingo” missile (with a claimed range of about 3,000 kilometers). This will help to scale such systems and reduces dependence on U.S. direct arms.”

Maginnis continued, “The U.S. should also prioritize intelligence sharing and target guidance for energy/transport infrastructure strikes. Already, the U.S. has begun giving Ukraine data on Russian energy infrastructure vulnerabilities. Amplifying that — so Ukraine can conduct deeper, more precise strikes — raises the cost to Russia’s revenue base.”

Maginnis further emphasized that the administration should intensify economic and sanctions pressure on Russia. “The U.S. should deepen secondary sanctions on consumer states. Push Europe, India, China to reduce Russian energy imports more aggressively, with sanctions or tariffs on third parties trading in Russian oil/gas. This squeezes Russia’s access to foreign exchange.”

“Target financial intermediaries and money laundering networks,” he added. “Go beyond targeting Russian elites; disrupt the global networks that enable Russia to convert energy earnings into usable spending.” Maginnis also argued for energy alternatives and solidarity in Europe. “Provide incentives and assistance so that European states can replace or reduce Russian energy dependence faster — e.g. LNG supplies, infrastructure investment — to reduce Moscow’s leverage over Europe.”

Finally, Maginnis contended that the U.S. should broaden diplomatic and geopolitical pressure on Putin’s regime. “The U.S. should intensify its diplomatic campaign to isolate Russia economically, politically, and morally. Mobilize multilateral institutions to impose further costs (UNGA resolutions, asset seizures) and encourage Ukraine’s neighbors and states in Eurasia to limit Russia’s soft power, supply routes, and logistic support. This will disrupt corridors and transit that benefit Russia’s war effort.”