webangah News Agency, International Desk, Hassan Shokoohi Nasab: In recent weeks, significant political developments have unfolded internationally with a striking shift in U.S. President Donald Trump’s stance-one that directly targets Russia and it’s President Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine issue.
Trump,who once promised to resolve the Ukraine war within 24 hours,after six months in office without fulfilling that electoral promise,recently launched an unprecedented verbal attack on the Kremlin.He shortened his previously set 50-day peace deadline down to just 10 days. This hardline position came with threats of severe economic sanctions and instantly sparked contrasting reactions from Kyiv and Moscow.
In Kyiv, this move was warmly welcomed; officials there interpreted it as a sign of U.S. seriousness in containing Russia and called it “a defining moment on the path to ending the war.” conversely,Dmitry Medvedev,deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council,labeled Trump’s stance as “provocative and warmongering,” warning such ultimatums might lead to “a hazardous path toward direct confrontation with America.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stressed that Russia’s special military operation would continue. Moscow remains committed to pursuing peace talks while ensuring its own interests are safeguarded during negotiations.
the sharply opposing reactions reveal both the depth of current tensions and potential geopolitical consequences stemming from Trump’s decision. This sudden tonal shift by a leader who previously sought to avoid direct involvement in Ukraine raises critical questions: What drove Trump toward such a tough approach against Russia? What are his ultimate goals by imposing this deadline? And if peace is not achieved by then, what course will he take? Will Putin alter his stance during this period? And how will Moscow respond after the deadline expires?
Decoding Trump’s Clear Shift Toward Ukraine
Trump’s recent pivot towards Ukraine marks one of his most significant foreign policy reversals in recent weeks. Until recently he spoke dismissively about Eastern European conflicts and repeatedly indicated willingness to reduce Washington’s commitments regarding Ukraine. At Geneva meetings and elsewhere he ridiculed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s attire; thier White House meeting ended in heated public exchanges.
Yet surprisingly over these past weeks we’ve witnessed a complete turnaround in Trump’s tone toward Russia. He has called Putin “crazy” and even asked Zelenskyy whether he was willing to bomb Moscow! Initially setting a 50-day deadline for stopping hostilities-and shortly afterward reducing it tenfold due to dissatisfaction with progress-this dramatic shift appears less motivated by sympathy for Kyiv than by complex strategic calculations inside the White House.
first is Trump’s challenge upon winning re-election: restoring America’s global credibility after years of distancing from European allies amid increased Russian influence eastward requires projecting strength through non-military means like deadlines for peace.
Second is domestic pressure within an American public fatigued by prolonged conflict-with parts of Trump’s voter base pushing for rapid resolution not out of support for Kyiv but due to economic war weariness. The imposed ultimatum positions him as uniquely capable of ending this crisis-a message repeated before but now paired with more tangible actions.
Lastly,Trump’s personality-driven media strategy plays a role; he aims to control crisis narratives through tough rhetoric more akin to political theater than principled policy-making-holding on exclusively to any peace initiative even if no agreement materializes.
Trump’s Possible Scenarios To Weaken Russia After The Deadline
The key question now that Trump has shortened his peace deadline is what options Washington may pursue shoudl negotiations fail meaningfully regarding Ukraine within that timeframe?
Counters expectations of direct military threats show that throughout his second term Trump seems reluctant for full-scale combat engagement despite limited military actions used indirectly so far.
This suggests reliance rather on heavy economic sanctions combined with diplomatic pressure supplemented by proxy military measures aimed at squeezing Moscow strategically without overt warfare involvement.
The most likely immediate tool involves expanded secondary sanctions beyond current limits focused largely on Russian oil and gas exports-the Kremlin’s core revenue streams remain relatively intact.
A leaked draft Treasury proposal indicates plans targeting any country or financial institution assisting Russian energy exports via secondary sanctions lists as punishment mechanisms.”
– Reassessed diplomatic isolation efforts include suspending Russian membership or influence within key international organizations such as G20,
a reduction or blocking access related authorities may have regarding IMF resources moreover spearheading anti-Kremlin coalitions politically present possible paths.
– Even though non-military these tools aim explicitly at undermining Putin’s government legitimacy globally.”
– Among most controversial steps could be extensive increased weapons supplies enabling greater offensive capacity deep inside Russian territory.
A leaked phone call reveals conversation where US president bluntly asked Zelenskyy “Can you hit Moscow?” Zelenskyy’s affirmative answer citing proper arms suggests provision plans may include longer-range missiles (such as Tomahawks), armed drones, and multiple rocket launcher systems exceeding ranges above 300 km.”
These measures possibly disrupt Russian defense postures indirectly forcing either violent counterescalation or renewed negotiation moves initiated under duress-all allowing US maximum leverage without firing shots itself.
The Media Aspect Is Important:
trump understands American public exhaustion over conflict costs well – thus shaping combined operations designed cost-effectively showcase maximum propaganda gain & political muscle demonstrating phrases like “We offered chances they refused,” or “We sought peace yet they chose war” prepare grounds legitimizing subsequent actions.Moscow Responses – Displays Of Strength To Retaliation
Trump’s reduction from 50 days down tomore urgent equalities constitutes perhaps harshest decade-spanning direct presidential warning perceived towards Kremlin. moscow response unlikely immediate emotional reaction but rather layered methodical counter-strategy designed specifically neutralize ultimatum impact revealed already tactically attuned behavior battlefield-wise plus diplomatically observed trends.”
Before deadline lapses expect Kremlin carefully calibrated power demonstrations avoiding outright clash:
- Punitive precision strikes targeting critical Ukrainian infrastructure;
- Larger scale exercises along Western borders signaling preparedness;
- Tactical symbolic NATO weapons warnings;
- Tightened alliances militarily involving Belarus – aligned states antagonistic towards Washington collectively form containment network tactical plans aiming convince global opinion framing Trump’s ultimatum less solution than ignition detonating fresh escalation phase whereby US plays incendiary rather than mediator role.)
If time expires followed by practical moves-in particular arming Ukrainians capable bombing interior regions deep into RF territory – consequence translates into necessity & justification acceptable Moscow-wide confrontational posture extending beyond Ukrainian battlefields impacting all zones dealing blows American interests directly including:
- Broad retaliatory attacks devastating key civilian-economic facilities nationwide;
- NATO bases operating eastern Europe suffering operational threats;
- Cunning cyber warfare disabling Western economies;
;
- Sustained aspect nuclear deterrent rhetoric resurging aimed preserving vital strategic posture subject risk controlling new Cold War era evolving quickly aggressive unstable timescales.
From kremlin perspective implementation signals dawn new Cold War branding far more confrontational rapidly escalating scenario defying prior conventional wisdom circulating Washington .Rather than passivity current reality signifies readiness rooted reliable allied networks ongoing long-term rivalry ahead posing major complications trump decision springing devices demonstrate stopgap tightrope acts translate fully fledged costly proxy contest twenty-first century top tier power struggles unfolding worldwide order change.
