🔗 Share this article

Returning in the start of the year, amid Donald Trump’s campaign pledges to resolve the war in Ukraine in under 24 hours” remaining vivid in memory, there was real unease in Moscow over Trump’s plans. When Mr. Trump mused that “high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Restrictions” on Russia might be necessary, one well-known hawkish Moscow commentator wrote: “It is better to get ready for the worst. Before long, we’ll reflect on Biden’s term with fondness, like a thaw.”

Unfulfilled Warnings and Failed Opportunities

Just how wrong can you be? From then, the US president has repeatedly spoken a big game without managing to following the walk. In May, when Vladimir Putin rejected a month-long truce, and negotiation talks in Turkey went nowhere, a “bone-crushing US sanctions package failed to appear. An early August deadline for Mr Putin to agree to a halt in fighting somehow turned into a lavish welcome in Alaska, where Mr Trump applauded a figure wanted for war crimes as he stepped off from his plane. The serious consequences” warned of by Mr Trump if the Alaska talks did not lead to peace never occur.

Emboldened Moves and Allied Weaknesses

Emboldened, Mr Putin has thus continued to pursue his war objectives in Ukraine, and probe for western weaknesses. The previous week’s incursion of Russian drones into Polish territory exposed inadequate Nato planning, as F-35 and F-16 fighter jets were hastily dispatched to counter cheap suicide devices that cost around $ten thousand each to produce. It also communicated a message of possible escalation in the event of any future “deterrence force” deploying European troops on Ukrainian soil. This kind of provocation called for a robust and coordinated response, applying the kind of pressure on the Kremlin which Mr Trump has so far refused to consider. Instead the US president appears, yet again, to prefer pressuring his European allies to targeting Mr Putin. In a statement which smacked of bad faith, Mr Trump declared over the weekend that the US was “ready” to impose tougher sanctions on Russia, but only if certain improbable conditions were met.

Impractical Requirements and Economic Pressures

Aiming for a significant economic gain, Washington is insisting that the EU must increase its imports of US liquified natural gas at a rate that analysts judge unachievable. Other stipulations 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 bright side in Brussels hope that Mr Trump’s pressure may persuade 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 court the kind of economic retaliation from Beijing that caused Mr Trump himself to retreat from a full-blown trade war recently.

Concerning Events and Absence of Action

Throughout this week’s state visit, it will be Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to try to pin Mr Trump down on concrete action. But from the unproductive Alaska talks to his latest diversionary tactics with the EU, Mr Trump keeps finding reasons not to get tough on Russia. Last week’s drone incursion in Poland represented an worrying raising of the ante. Ukraine’s prospects, and wider European security interests, are being steadily undermined by a president who, in this context, threatens but never acts.