🔗 Share this article

Back in January, amid the president’s election vows to end the war in Ukraine in under 24 hours” still fresh in memory, there was genuine unease in Moscow over the US leader’s plans. After Mr. Trump mused that significant levels of Tariffs, Duties, and Restrictions” on Russia could be required, one prominent pro-war Russian analyst remarked: “It is better to get ready for the worst. Soon, we’ll look back on Biden’s term with fondness, like a warm period.”

Unfulfilled Warnings and Failed Chances

Just how mistaken can you be? Since then, the US president has repeatedly talked the talk without coming close to following the walk. In May, when Vladimir Putin rejected a month-long truce, and peace talks in Turkey went nowhere, a “bone-crushing US sanctions package did not to appear. An 8 August cut-off for Mr Putin to consent to a halt in fighting inexplicably morphed into a red carpet welcome in Alaska, where Mr Trump applauded a figure sought for war crimes as he disembarked from his plane. The serious consequences” warned of by Mr Trump should the Alaska talks failed to peace never occur.

Emboldened Actions and Western Vulnerabilities

Emboldened, Mr Putin has accordingly continued to pursue his war objectives in Ukraine, and test for Nato weaknesses. The previous week’s incursion of Russian drones into Polish territory laid bare insufficient Nato planning, as F-35 and F-16 fighter jets were quickly scrambled to counter cheap suicide devices that cost around $10,000 each to produce. It also communicated a message of possible intensification if any future “reassurance force” deploying European troops on Ukrainian soil. This kind of provocation called for a strong and coordinated response, exerting the kind of pressure on the Kremlin which Mr Trump has so far refused to countenance. Instead the US president seems, once again, to prefer pressuring his European allies to targeting Mr Putin. In a announcement which reeked of insincerity, Mr Trump declared over the weekend that the US was “prepared” to impose tougher sanctions on Russia, but only if certain unlikely conditions were met.

Unrealistic Demands and Trade Leverage

Aiming for a significant economic gain, Washington is demanding that the EU must increase its imports of US LNG at a rate that analysts consider unachievable. Other demands 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 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 pro-Trump governments in Hungary and Slovakia to end their heavy dependence on Russian energy imports. That is extremely unlikely to happen, as Mr Trump and his advisers must know. Nor can the EU afford to court the kind of economic response from Beijing that caused Mr Trump himself to retreat from a full-blown trade war not long ago.

Ominous Developments and Lack of Action

Throughout this week’s state visit, it will be Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to try to press 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 gradually undermined by a president who, in this context, threatens but never bites.