Did the US return to Ukraine?

After US President Donald Trump threatened to stop military assistance to Ukraine a few months ago, he seems to have changed his mind.

Initially, the new US administration proceeded from the fact that its pro-Russian rhetoric, signals and diplomacy would provoke a response in Moscow and open the way to the termination of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Now Trump and his assistants seem to have begun to understand that this approach not only leads to a dead end, but also brings the opposite effect. In recent months, Russia’s aircraft in Ukrainian cities, towns and villages have not only weakened but also intensified.

Advertising:

Most Americans, including many members of the Republican Party, Republican voters and even MAGA supporters are still supporting Ukraine. Trump may now be aware that the political expenditures of his pro -Russian approach are becoming too high.

Trump’s recent turn is rather a concern to Anti -Putin and pro -Ukrainian moods that prevail in the United States than the result of a change in Russian foreign policy assessment in the White House.

On July 14, Trump has publicly threatened Moscow’s trade partners with secondary sanctions if the Kremlin does not agree to the fastest ceasefire in Ukraine. Can it mean a turn in Trump’s policy on Russia? Most likely, not. Or not even at all.

So far, these are similar official statements by Trump and his administration only a hint of indefinite future actions. To put it mildly, most oral and even some written statements of Trump should be treated with some skepticism.

The reaction in Ukraine to the new rhetoric Washington was ambiguous. Ukrainian commentators recognize that Trump has now spoken in a different tone – after a few months of public flirting with Vladimir Putin. However, most Ukrainians still express skepticism about how stable such an imaginary change in Washington’s attitude.

As Trump first put Putin ultimatum, the case may develop further. If the Kremlin does not agree to the truce within 50 days, the US must enter a 100 % penalty duty on goods imported from Russia.

Although this plan is much more specific than previous statements, Washington, in fact, began a difficult game. The pressure on Moscow that Trump wants to create should not come directly from the US. It should be done by third countries, such as China, India and Brazil, which buy oil and/or other goods in Russia.

It is unclear whether these and other countries will be subject to US pressure and how much. Is the US 100 percent tariffs enough for India to stop trade with Russia?

If Trump’s plan does not lead to a significant reduction in foreign trade with Russia by non -wicked countries, and Washington will indeed impose a duty on countries that continue to conclude agreements with Moscow, they will take appropriate measures to import from the United States. Are ordinary Americans ready to suffer for Ukraine?

Trump’s plan does not look thoughtful and may have never been intended for implementation. It would be more effective to threaten Russia’s trading partners with very high duties, such as 500%, as the US Senate suggested. So they would understand that they need to break with Russia.

What will be the end result of Trump’s confusing approach to attempts to stop Russia’s aggression is not yet clear.

In the short term, new US sanctions can have an effect opposite to their intentions. Trump’s statement is likely to lead to increased Russian attacks on Ukraine in the coming weeks.

Oddly enough, the Kremlin has now been given a quasi -fashiophic period during which it can continue bombing without immediate economic consequences. The 50-day period set by Washington is suspected that Putin is consciously given another opportunity to occupy more territory and achieve military success before restoring negotiations.

If Trump’s plan still works, the loss of non -watery trading partners can really harm Putin’s military car. If China, India and other countries are threatened with US sanctions, it will be a problem for the Kremlin.

Today, the main, though not the only, weakness of many direct international sanctions against Russia is that Moscow is still capable of turning to alternative markets, foreign buyers and intermediaries, as well as non -wedge transport routes. Thus, the Russian Federation compensates for the consequences of the punitive measures of the West. If Trump’s tariffs come into force, these bypass can be more difficult for Moscow.

In addition to the tariff ultimatum, Washington also announced “mass” supplies of American weapons to Ukraine. It is mainly (but not only) about the famous mobile anti -aircraft missile systems “Patriot”. Several European countries, including Germany, have to buy them in the United States and then transfer to Ukraine.

It is also a complex scheme, but it is more realistic than Washington’s plans to impose secondary sanctions. Here, the third party is the Western partners of the United States, not non -wedding governments that are less likely to cooperate or even hostile.

Patriot systems have proven efficiency as a means of intercepting various major rockets of Russia. Therefore, in Kiev, they are highly demand, and it is hoped that Ukrainian air defense will soon have more such systems. How many other US weapons will come to Ukraine now, perhaps, depends largely on (mostly Western) European buyers. Moreover, the German government has decided no longer to provide detailed preliminary information on weapons.

The unorthodox of sanctions and Trump support schemes is explained by the fact that they are based on the concern of the US President by domestic, not international affairs. In particular, the fact that the US head has approved the supply of weapons to Ukraine for a fee is part of the policy of “America first”, not a new geopolitical strategy. Worse, its transactional approach to security issues undermines authority and trust in the US as an international partner.

In the context of delaying US military assistance, Ukraine should mention an instructive prehistory.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the United States actively participated in the strategic disarmament of Ukraine. Following the narrow national interests in the field of security, Washington not only put pressure on Kiev in order to force him to pass nuclear warheads inherited from the USSR.

The agreement of the time promoted by the United States is mainly related to the infamous Budapest Memorandum on Security Guarantees in 1994, also concerned the delivery systems of these warheads. Ukraine had to get rid of the bombers of the Soviet era, CR. Latin missiles and various rockets, that is, ordinary weapons that would be very useful today.

These and other international agreements of previous US administrations are now for Trump and that is empty. Today, Washington instead is trying to benefit from the sad situation of Kiev and the growing fears of Europe.

The fact that Trump insists that US military assistance to Ukraine in its fight for survival should be paid for more than betrayal. In 1994, Ukrainians seriously treated the Americans in safe, which Washington gave them in exchange for the disarmament of Ukraine.

The new Trump administration strategy is also contrary to the logic of the global regime of non -proliferation of nuclear weapons. In particular, it contradicts the particular responsibility of five official nuclear states – the US, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France for preserving international order.

The transactional approach, which Trump professes to protect the fundamental rules of interstate relations after 1945 (such as the inviolability of borders and inadmissibility of genocide), weakens the international system that the United States itself has once created and from which they have won for 80 years.

At first glance, it may seem that from America it is intricately forced to pay others for the fact that Ukraine daily weakens the ancient enemy of the United States. However, compared to the general defense budget of the states, the cost of recent free military assistance to Ukraine was low.

On the contrary, the devastating effects of American weapons in the hands of Ukraine for the Russian army and economy were high. They constantly reduced Moscow’s ability to attack the NATO member state, which the US would be obliged to support under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty of 1949. The Trump Administration is now voluntarily refusing this strategic agreement and in a strange way ignores its favorable consequences for the US national security.

In any case, Trump’s recent turn about Putin is still worth greeting. The question is whether Washington really intends and, if so, whether he is ready to adhere to his new statements.

So far, the Trump administration has not abandoned its short -sighted view of the US national interests and willing to determine them with populist, if not demagogical slogans.

The new administration still ignores the consequences of the USA’s position on the Russian-Ukrainian war for the world order, the stability and legitimacy of which should worry Americans no less than most other peoples.

Dr. Andreas Umland-Analyst Stockholm Center of Eastern European Research (Sceeus) for Swedish Institute of International Relations (Ui)

A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.