Trump Issues 10-Day Ultimatum to Russia, Signals Possible Shift in Approach to Ukraine War

President Donald Trump has given Russia a ten-day deadline to respond to a renewed American ultimatum on Ukraine, warning of a fresh round of sanctions should Moscow fail to engage in peace negotiations.

The move marks a notable shift in tone from the U.S. administration, as Trump openly admitted doubts over the effectiveness of his warnings in influencing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In his latest remarks, Trump expressed frustration at the Kremlin’s apparent indifference to previous American demands, while reiterating that he remains committed to implementing punitive measures should Russia continue to reject diplomatic efforts aimed at ending its war against Ukraine. Despite this stance, the U.S. president acknowledged the limitations of his leverage, noting that even sweeping sanctions may fail to deter Putin.

Trump’s statement comes amid continued hostilities on the Ukrainian front and suggests a growing recognition in Washington that conventional pressure tools—economic sanctions in particular—may not yield the desired strategic outcome. The former assumption that coordinated Western sanctions could compel adversaries to change course is increasingly being challenged by the emergence of alternative global economic structures.

In recent decades, a number of countries in the Global South—chiefly China and India—have demonstrated reluctance to support Western sanctions regimes. The development of independent financial and trade systems, particularly involving China’s economy, has provided states such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea with avenues to bypass Western pressure. While sanctions continue to inflict hardship on targeted states, including a decline in living standards and fiscal pressure on government budgets, they have not halted the growth of military-industrial capabilities or curtailed ambitions to destabilise international security.

Iran serves as a case in point. Despite decades of Western sanctions, it has succeeded in developing and supplying military equipment—including drones—to Russia. These systems have played a key role in the evolution of the Ukraine conflict, effectively transforming it into a high-intensity drone war. Russia’s ability to maintain access to global energy markets, particularly through exports to China, further weakens the impact of any additional U.S. sanctions.

While some purchasers of Russian oil, such as India, may consider curbing imports to avoid friction with Washington, China is unlikely to follow suit. As a result, the Kremlin retains options for sustaining its war effort even if Trump proceeds with new measures.

The U.S. president’s latest posture nevertheless marks a departure from earlier positions. During the initial phase of his current term, Trump often sought to place equal blame on both Moscow and Kyiv for the failure of peace efforts. He publicly accused Ukraine of being obstructive and implied that President Zelenskyy lacked negotiating flexibility. On multiple occasions, Trump suggested that engagement with Putin was more straightforward than with Ukrainian officials, at times threatening to withhold military assistance to force concessions from Kyiv.

This approach was widely criticised for undermining Ukraine’s defensive posture and for appearing to legitimise Russian territorial demands. However, Trump now appears to acknowledge that leverage over Putin is far more limited than previously assumed. The president has reportedly recognised that the stalemate is less a function of Ukraine’s intransigence than of Moscow’s strategic calculation to wage a prolonged war of attrition.

The shift reflects an evolving understanding within the U.S. administration that Putin is not seeking an exit from the conflict. Rather, the Kremlin remains committed to a long-term campaign designed to exhaust Ukraine’s resources and resolve. With the failure of Russia’s initial full-scale invasion in 2022, the war has entered a drawn-out phase in which Moscow relies on industrial-scale mobilisation and support from external partners.

Some observers believe that the limitations of sanctions may prompt Washington to consider a more assertive military support strategy. This could include targeting Russia’s defence industrial base, its oil infrastructure, or command centres within Russian territory. Such measures would mark a significant escalation and carry substantial geopolitical risk, but they may also alter the calculus in Moscow.

Trump’s immediate challenge is to create the perception within the Kremlin that the costs of continuation outweigh the benefits. Whether through economic escalation or increased military assistance to Ukraine, the objective would be to force Russian leadership to reassess the feasibility of a long-term campaign.

In strategic terms, this may be the most critical task of Trump’s presidency. If the current administration can lay the groundwork for sustained Western pressure—economic, military, or both—it could enable future U.S. leaders to bring the conflict to an eventual conclusion. That process is likely to extend into the coming years, but creating the conditions for meaningful negotiations may begin now.

While the prospect of a comprehensive peace remains distant, a temporary halt in hostilities—driven by a reassessment in Moscow—could emerge as a short-term outcome. Even such a pause, if strategically imposed, would complicate Russia’s efforts to regroup for further aggression. The war launched by Russia in 2014, and reignited on a full scale in 2022, shows no signs of abating through diplomacy alone. But concerted pressure—beyond mere sanctions—may begin to reshape the Kremlin’s thinking.