President Trump’s Ukraine Strategy: Talking Strong While Achieving Minimal Isn’t Effective
Returning in the start of the year, with Donald Trump’s election pledges to resolve the conflict in Ukraine “within 24 hours” remaining vivid in minds, there was real concern in the Russian capital over the US leader’s intentions. When Mr. Trump mused that significant levels of Tariffs, Tariffs, and Sanctions” on Russia might be required, one well-known hawkish Russian commentator remarked: “It is better to get ready for the worst. Soon, we’ll look back on the previous term with fondness, like a thaw.”
Unfulfilled Threats and Missed Opportunities
How wrong was that view? From then, the US president has repeatedly spoken a big game without coming close to walking the walk. In May, after Vladimir Putin turned down a month-long ceasefire, and peace talks in Turkey stalled, a “bone-crushing US penalties package failed to materialise. An early August cut-off for Mr Putin to agree to a ceasefire somehow turned into a red carpet welcome in Alaska, where Mr Trump praised a figure wanted for war crimes as he stepped off from his plane. The “severe consequences” threatened by Mr Trump if the Alaska talks did not lead to peace never happened.
Emboldened Moves and Western Vulnerabilities
Emboldened, Mr Putin has accordingly continued to prosecute his war aims in Ukraine, and test for western weaknesses. Last week’s intrusion of Russian drones into Polish territory laid bare insufficient Nato planning, as F-35 and F-16 fighter jets were hastily scrambled to counter cheap kamikaze devices that are priced around $10,000 each to produce. It also sent a warning of possible escalation in the event of any future “deterrence force” deploying European troops on Ukrainian soil. Such provocation called for a strong and coordinated response, applying the kind of pressure on the Kremlin which Mr Trump has so far refused to countenance. Instead the US president appears, once again, to prefer pressuring his European allies to confronting Mr Putin. In a statement which reeked of insincerity, Mr Trump stated over the weekend that the US was “prepared” to impose tougher sanctions on Russia, but only if certain improbable conditions were met.
Impractical Demands and Trade Leverage
Eyeing a significant economic gain, Washington is demanding that the EU must boost its imports of US liquified natural gas at a rate that analysts consider undoable. Other demands include the imposition by the EU of 50%-100% tariffs on Russia’s most important ally, China, and an end to all imports of Russian oil by Nato members. This includes Turkey, which has refused to sanction Moscow, imports 57% of its oil from Russia, and lies outside the EU.
Those looking on the positive side in Brussels believe that Mr Trump’s pressure may convince Maga-friendly governments in Hungary and Slovakia to end their deep dependence on Russian energy imports. That is highly unlikely to happen, as Mr Trump and his advisers must know. Nor can the EU afford to risk the kind of economic retaliation from Beijing that caused Mr Trump himself to retreat from a full-blown trade war not long ago.
Ominous Developments and Absence of Movement
Throughout this week’s state visit, it will be Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to try to pin Mr Trump down on decisive action. But from the fruitless Alaska talks to his latest distracting tactics with the EU, Mr Trump keeps finding reasons not to get tough on Russia. Last week’s drone incursion in Poland represented an ominous upping of the ante. Ukraine’s prospects, and wider European security interests, are being steadily undermined by a president who, in this context, barks but never bites.
