🔗 Share this article

Back in the start of the year, with Donald Trump’s election pledges to resolve the conflict in Ukraine in under 24 hours” still vivid in minds, there was genuine concern in Moscow over the US leader’s intentions. After Mr. Trump suggested that significant levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions” on Russia might be required, one well-known pro-war Russian commentator remarked: “It is better to prepare for the worst. Before long, we’ll reflect on the previous term with fondness, like a thaw.”

Unfulfilled Warnings and Failed Chances

Just how mistaken can you be? From then, the US president has consistently spoken the talk without coming close to following the walk. In May, when Vladimir Putin rejected a 30-day ceasefire, and negotiation talks in Turkey went nowhere, a “bone-crushing US penalties package did not to appear. An 8 August cut-off for Mr Putin to agree to a halt in fighting somehow turned into a lavish welcome in Alaska, where Mr Trump praised a figure wanted for atrocities 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 Actions and Allied Weaknesses

Empowered, Mr Putin has thus continued to prosecute his war aims in Ukraine, and test for Nato weaknesses. Last 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 low-cost kamikaze devices that cost around $10,000 each to produce. It also communicated a warning of possible escalation if any future “reassurance 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 to date refused to countenance. Instead the US president seems, once again, to prefer bullying his European allies to confronting Mr Putin. In a announcement which smacked of insincerity, Mr Trump stated over the weekend that the US was “ready” to impose stricter sanctions on Russia, but only if certain improbable conditions were met.

Impractical Demands and Economic Leverage

Eyeing a significant economic prize, Washington is demanding that the EU must boost its imports of US liquified natural gas at a rate that analysts consider unachievable. Other stipulations include the application 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 declined to sanction Moscow, imports 57% of its oil from Russia, and lies outside the EU.

Observers looking on the positive side in Brussels hope that Mr Trump’s pressure may persuade pro-Trump governments in Hungary and Slovakia to end their heavy 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 response from Beijing that caused Mr Trump himself to retreat from a full-blown trade war recently.

Concerning Developments and Lack of Action

During 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 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 bites.