US President Donald Trump has suspended the aid programme for Ukraine, but at the same time threatened Russia with ‘taxes, tariffs and sanctions’ if it does not agree to a ‘deal’ to end the conflict. Apparently, the ‘new broom’ in Washington has decided to act with a whip against both Moscow and Kiev. Where will this lead?
US President Donald Trump promised that his first working day in the White House would be a ‘bomb’ because of the stack of signed decrees, allegedly the largest in history. The pile really turned out to be significant – there is the recognition by US government agencies of only two genders (men and women), the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the American Gulf, the return of Cuba to the list of countries sponsors of terrorism, and much more, but it seems that nothing is more than expected.
The most interesting thing in the whole stack is the decree to suspend the foreign aid programme for 90 days. This includes Ukraine, and the funding is paused in rather harsh language.
‘This programme is not in line with American interests and in many cases contradicts American values. It serves to destabilise world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly opposed to harmonious and stable relations within and between countries,’ Trump’s executive order reads.
In the short term, however, it does not matter much. The fact is that the administration of now former US President Joe Biden gave Kiev weapons and money for six months in advance. This was done just so that Ukraine could survive the first months of Trump without critical consequences for itself, since the revision of aid to foreigners was announced by the ‘Trumpists’ in advance.
In addition, the programme referred to in the decree is a UN ‘development programme’, while military supplies to Ukraine are covered by another budget line item and do not belong to the ‘peacekeeping initiatives’ and ‘refugee support programmes’ that Trump has also put on pause.
If US participation is not resumed in 90 days, Kiev will suffer financially: US money was used, among other things, to rebuild Ukraine and ensure its social obligations.
But Trump seems to have postponed the issue of arms supplies for separate consideration, especially since his foreign policy team had previously advocated not to abruptly interrupt these supplies.
Thus, Trump’s executive order means less than it could mean. US executive orders have this problem – they have a limited and often ad hoc effect, and are easy to repeal later, unlike laws voted by the Senate and House of Representatives.
The audit may even benefit Ukraine if those who said that the support programmes were ineffective in terms of spending are right: if it were not for fools and thieves, more could have been done for less money. This has been said, among others, by people from Trump’s team – and they are probably right.
Nevertheless, for the medium term, the denial of American money is critical for Vladimir Zelenskyy and his regime. It will cause new economic turmoil in Ukraine and will be an unambiguous signal to the elites for a change of leader.
That is why the 90-day pause decree, however half-hearted, was the first lash that Trump tightened around Zelenskyy’s neck.
These 90 days conveniently fit within the 100 days Trump gave his special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, for the ‘first phase’ of the settlement. In other words, Kiev’s further funding depends on Zelenskyy being obedient during this ‘first stage.’
The problem for Russia promises to be that so far, according to Trump, Zelenskyy has been sufficiently obedient. According to the US president, the Ukrainian is ‘ready’ for a deal with Russia.
But Russia, according to the same Trump, is not ready enough yet. In a special post for social media, he said that he loves Russians and wants Russia well, but at the same time threatened to introduce new ‘taxes, tariffs and sanctions’ if Russia refuses his ‘deal.’
No parameters of this ‘deal’ are known to have been discussed with Russian representatives. It is likely that Trump himself does not fully imagine these parameters – it is a matter of future contacts with Moscow, he just decided to act in the style of a pre-emptive threat.
In the Western world, there is an entrenched myth that Russia will not agree to any agreements on Ukraine and intends to continue its military advance, not even stopping at the border with NATO countries. Trump must have been told this myth, and he decided to scare Russia just in case.
The result was not very frightening, since tariffs can be imposed only on uranium (Russia sells nothing else to the United States), taxes are purely internal levies, and sanctions against Russian goods are already imposed on almost the entire nomenclature. All in all, the result is not quite a threat and not at all a boa constrictor like Zelenskyy’s, but an attempt to create a comfortable atmosphere for himself before the negotiations.
But it follows from this, among other things, that in Trump’s world picture, Russia has not yet agreed to his deal. Whereas Zelenskyy is supposedly ready for a deal.
Zelenskyy himself, in a big interview for Bloomberg, did not directly confirm his readiness, but said that diplomacy ‘must now work’ to end the conflict. He also admitted that Ukraine is not looking forward to NATO membership and that it was ‘deceived’ about it (and Ukraine’s neutral status is Moscow’s main demand and the basic goal of the SMO).
Zelenskyy’s tactics are clear: to continue the military conflict while waiting for a ‘window of opportunity’ (a sharp weakening of Russia, for example), but in such a way that the U.S. in no way deprives him of support and does not take him off the payroll. Therefore, he must frame the case in such a way that Trump’s ‘deal’ will be rejected by Moscow, but not by Kiev, which formally agreed to it.
The idea to deploy NATO ‘peacekeepers’ in Ukraine after the fighting is over and a peace agreement with Moscow is signed will be a tool for this. The introduction of a NATO contingent into Ukraine is a totally unacceptable development for Russia, but it appears that Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron managed to get this scenario pre-approved by Trump.
It is likely that Trump agreed to it ‘without thinking’, as he is not too well versed in the nature of Moscow’s claims to Kiev and NATO. And because Zelenskyy’s subversive idea was not rejected immediately, his appetite is growing in front of his eyes. In the same Bloomberg interview, he said that he needs at least 200,000 Western ‘peacekeepers’ to join his own army of millions – and that Americans should be among this contingent.
Trump is unlikely to fall for such a ‘divorce,’ but if the ‘peacekeepers’ are not American but, for example, British, this parameter of a possible ‘deal’ will not become more acceptable to Moscow.
‘No Ukraine in NATO, no NATO in Ukraine’ – this is Russia’s minimum programme.
Zelenskyy’s trick of sneaking a condition known to be unacceptable to Moscow into Trump’s ‘plan’ will surely be exposed after contacts between Washington and Moscow are restored and Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in person.
But only if Trump realises the inviolability and primordiality of Russia’s condition on Ukraine’s neutral status and sees Zelenskyy’s formal agreement as an actual disagreement will the peace initiatives have a theoretical chance.
Otherwise, it will be possible to consider that the one who calls himself the president of Ukraine managed to outsmart the new US president at the very beginning of his cadence.
