In January, with Donald Trump’s campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours” still fresh in memory, there was genuine unease in Moscow about the U.S. president’s intentions. When Trump suggested that “high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions” on Russia might be necessary, a prominent pro-war commentator in Moscow wrote: “It’s better to prepare for the worst. Soon, we’ll look back on Biden’s term with nostalgia, like a thaw.”
How wrong that turned out to be. Since then, the U.S. president has repeatedly talked tough without taking meaningful action. In May, when Vladimir Putin rejected a 30-day ceasefire and peace talks in Turkey stalled, a promised “bone-crushing” U.S. sanctions package never materialized. An August 8 deadline for Putin to agree to a ceasefire somehow turned into a red-carpet welcome in Alaska, where Trump applauded the Russian leader—wanted for war crimes—as he stepped off his plane. The “severe consequences” Trump threatened if the Alaska talks failed to produce peace never came.
Emboldened, Putin has continued to pursue his war aims in Ukraine and test Western weaknesses. Last week’s incursion of Russian drones into Polish territory exposed flaws in NATO planning, as expensive fighter jets were scrambled to counter cheap kamikaze drones costing around $10,000 each. The move also signaled a warning against any future deployment of European troops on Ukrainian soil. This provocation called for a strong, unified response to pressure the Kremlin—something Trump has so far refused to do. Instead, the U.S. president seems to prefer bullying European allies over confronting Putin. In a statement that reeked of bad faith, Trump declared over the weekend that the U.S. was “ready” to impose tougher sanctions on Russia, but only under highly unlikely conditions.
Eager for economic gains, Washington is insisting the EU increase imports of U.S. liquefied natural gas at a rate analysts consider unachievable. Other demands include EU tariffs of 50–100% on China, Russia’s key ally, and a full halt to Russian oil imports by all NATO members—including Turkey, which is not in the EU, refuses to sanction Moscow, and gets 57% of its oil from Russia.
Optimists in Brussels hope Trump’s pressure might push Hungary and Slovakia—governments friendly to his MAGA movement—to reduce their reliance on Russian energy. That is highly unlikely, as Trump and his advisers surely know. The EU also cannot risk the kind of economic retaliation from Beijing that recently forced Trump himself to back away from a full trade war.
This week, during his state visit, it will be Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to press Trump for decisive action. But from the unproductive Alaska talks to his latest diversionary tactics with the EU, Trump keeps finding reasons not to get tough on Russia. Last week’s drone incursion into Poland marked an ominous escalation. Ukraine’s prospects, and broader European security, are being steadily undermined by a president who, in this case, barks but never bites.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about The Guardians view on Donald Trumps Ukraine strategy designed to be clear and helpful
General Beginner Questions
Q What is the main point of The Guardians view on Trumps Ukraine strategy
A The main point is that while President Trump used strong tough language in support of Ukraine his actual policies and actions often undermined that support making his strategy ineffective and contradictory
Q What does talking tough but doing little mean in this context
A It means publicly expressing strong support for Ukraine against Russian aggression while simultaneously taking actionsor failing to take actionsthat weakened Ukraines position and strengthened Russias
Q Can you give a simple example of this contradiction
A Yes A clear example is publicly selling antitank missiles to Ukraine while privately allegedly withholding vital military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political rival which directly helped Russia
Q Why does The Guardian think this approach is a problem
A Because it creates uncertainty among US allies emboldens adversaries like Russia and ultimately harms Ukraines ability to defend itself by making US support seem unreliable and conditional on domestic politics
Advanced Detailed Questions
Q How did Trumps rhetoric on Ukraine differ from his administrations official policy
A Officially US policy under Trump maintained support for Ukraine including providing lethal aid However his personal rhetoric often praised Vladimir Putin questioned the value of NATO and suggested Russias annexation of Crimea might be legitimate which contradicted the official stance
Q What was the impact of Trumps alleged withholding of aid to Ukraine
A Beyond the domestic impeachment it signaled to both Ukraine and Russia that US security assistance was not guaranteed and could be used as a bargaining chip for personal political gain This damaged trust and Ukraines strategic planning during an active conflict
Q How does The Guardians view fit into a broader criticism of Trumps foreign policy
A The Guardian frames this as a prime example of Trumps transactional foreign policy where traditional alliances and strategic interests are secondary to personal deals and domestic political wins This approach they argue weakens Americas global standing and credibility
