Trump's ultimatum to Putin: what difference will it make?
US President Donald Trump has adopted a harsher tone vis-à-vis Russia. He announced on Monday that Ukraine is to be equipped with Nato-financed US weapons, including Patriot missiles, and that if an agreement to end the war wasn't reached within 50 days, Washington will impose punitive tariffs of up to 100 percent on Russia and its trading partners. Europe's press takes a look at the potential impact of this new rhetoric.
Back to the common front
Trump's announcement puts the US firmly back on the side of the West and Ukraine, The Irish Times explains:
“His insistence that the US will not pay for the weapons will do much to quieten the vocal opposition within his Maga movement to any direct US engagement in the war - and also provide a huge business opportunity for the country's defence industry. ... Europeans and other Western allies will take comfort from the reality that Trump's new policy appears to return the US to the common front against Russia that Joe Biden had forged, and to the US traditional commitment to Nato.”
Let's hope he keeps his promises
Ukraine still won't be able to relax after Trump's announcement, Sydsvenskan points out:
“It will be positive news if this turns out to be true in practice. The problem is that Trump's erratic behaviour has shown that his promises of today are not worth much the next day. ... For Ukraine, it basically doesn't matter where new weapons come from as long as they are forthcoming and are delivered as soon as possible. At the same time Trump can brag about a deal that benefits the US and make new statements about how Russia - or whoever he happens to have designated as the enemy of the day - needs to watch out.”
America First remains the order of the day
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung sees no major change in Trump's thinking:
“This is evident from the fact that he wants to pass on the cost of weapons to the Europeans. He remains the 'America First' president. Which means that Europe will likely have to pay even more for Kyiv than it has done so far. Not all the continent's finance ministers have realised this yet. And Trump is not interested in Ukraine 'winning', as Biden had demanded. What he wants is a peace deal and a Nobel Prize for securing it. But without significant concessions from Kyiv it's hard to imagine he'll get either.”
Russia's offensive can continue unhindered
The extended deadline gives Putin carte blanche to continue the killing, La Stampa fears:
“Another problem is the 50-day deadline Trump has set for Putin. ... In other words, America will allow the Russian army to take full advantage of the summer to continue the offensive that has been underway since May, in which the Kremlin is investing all its resources (The Economist estimates that 31,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the last two months). In September the situation will be assessed and negotiations for a ceasefire will resume. The Russian dictator's goal is to occupy as much Ukrainian territory as possible in the time he has left.”
Hold out until Beijing turns its back on Moscow
The 50-day deadline could make sense if Trump is counting on Russia's dependence on China playing a key role, political scientist Abbas Gallyamov reflects on Facebook:
“Trump's 50-day deadline will expire on 2 September. At that point, Putin will be in China. ... If Putin does not break through the Ukrainian defences by the beginning of September, China may conclude that he will not be able to hold out much longer and that it is therefore better to focus on peace rather than war. It will then support Trump's plan or even attempt to seize the initiative itself by submitting its own peace proposals. Perhaps that is precisely what Trump is counting on. And to prevent Putin from accidentally breaking through the Ukrainian defences, Trump has decided to encourage Kyiv by supplying it with weapons.”
Only Nato intervention can stop Putin
The Western defence alliance should actively intervene in the war, argues The Guardian:
“With or without Trump, Nato could take a tougher line, as repeatedly urged here, by imposing air exclusion zones over unoccupied Ukraine and targeting incoming missiles and drones. The military position is clearcut, the legal and humanitarian case is unassailable. Russia frequently infringes the sovereignty of Nato neighbours. Putin's attempts at nuclear blackmail, which so unnerved Joe Biden, are contemptible. If it only had the balls, Nato could put him back in his box. … Defeat for Ukraine and a settlement on Putin's hegemonic terms would be a defeat for the west as a whole - a strategic failure presaging an era of permanent, widening conflict across all of Europe.”