🔗 Share this article

Back in January, amid the president’s campaign pledges to resolve the conflict in Ukraine in under 24 hours” remaining fresh in memory, there was genuine unease in Moscow over the US leader’s intentions. When Mr. Trump suggested that “high levels of Tariffs, Duties, and Sanctions” on Russia could be necessary, one prominent pro-war Moscow commentator wrote: “It is better to prepare for the worst. Soon, we’ll look back on the previous term with nostalgia, like a warm period.”

Unfulfilled Warnings and Missed Opportunities

How mistaken was that view? Since then, the American leader has repeatedly spoken the talk without managing to walking the walk. In May, after Vladimir Putin turned down a 30-day truce, and peace talks in Turkey went nowhere, a devastating” US penalties package did not to appear. An 8 August deadline for Mr Putin to consent to a ceasefire somehow turned into a lavish welcome in Alaska, where Mr Trump applauded a leader sought for war crimes as he disembarked from his plane. The serious consequences” threatened by Mr Trump should the Alaska talks did not lead to peace did not occur.

Encouraged Moves and Western Weaknesses

Empowered, Mr Putin has accordingly persisted to prosecute his war aims in Ukraine, and test for western weaknesses. The previous week’s incursion of Russian drones into Polish territory exposed insufficient Nato planning, as F-35 and F-16 fighter jets were quickly dispatched to counter low-cost suicide devices that cost around $10,000 each to produce. It also sent a warning of possible intensification if any future “deterrence force” deploying European troops on Ukrainian soil. Such challenge called for a robust 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 statement which reeked of insincerity, Mr Trump declared over the weekend that the US was “ready” to impose tougher sanctions on Russia, but only if certain unlikely conditions were met.

Impractical Demands and Trade Leverage

Aiming for a considerable economic prize, Washington is insisting 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 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 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 court the kind of economic response from Beijing that caused Mr Trump himself to retreat from a full-blown trade war recently.

Ominous Developments and Absence 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 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 acts.