US President Donald Trump has once again signalled the possibility of sanctions against the Russian Federation, stating that such measures could be considered if Russian President Vladimir Putin “fails to do his job”.
This marks the second time in recent weeks that Trump has publicly addressed the potential for punitive economic action, following his conversation with Finnish President Alexander Stubb.
Despite these warnings, Trump has thus far been reluctant to adopt a sanctions-first approach. Instead, he has reiterated his belief that President Putin is capable of fulfilling what Trump has described as his part of a prospective agreement aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. “I want him to make a deal so we can stop the killing of Russian soldiers, Ukrainian soldiers, and others,” Trump said. Notably, he listed Russian casualties first when outlining his hopes for a ceasefire.
Trump indicated that he is not inclined to impose secondary tariffs on Russian oil exports but would consider doing so if he concludes that Putin is not meeting his responsibilities. The statement suggests that, at present, Trump does not believe Russia has failed to meet its obligations, although there is no evidence that the Kremlin is preparing to sign even a limited ceasefire agreement such as the proposed 30-day halt in hostilities recently promoted by Washington during consultations in Jeddah.
The US President also issued a cautionary message to the Ukrainian side, indicating that Kyiv too must adhere to the terms of any agreement. Trump expressed dissatisfaction with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, alleging that the Ukrainian government is seeking to revise previously discussed arrangements concerning rare earth minerals. The White House has reportedly presented a version of the deal that differs significantly from what Trump and Zelenskyy were expected to sign during their controversial meeting in the Oval Office in an earlier phase of his presidency.
While Trump’s comments reflect an effort to position himself as a broker in efforts to end the conflict, the absence of any tangible progress in recent US-Russian discussions suggests that diplomatic channels remain blocked. Officials from both Washington and Moscow have indicated that a recent meeting in Riyadh between American representatives and retired Russian officials yielded no results.
On the same day as Trump’s remarks, the White House sought to clarify its position in response to comments made by President Putin during a meeting with Russian naval officers in Arkhangelsk. Putin had proposed what he termed “external governance” for Ukraine, a concept that the US administration swiftly rejected. A White House spokesperson stated that Ukraine is a constitutional democracy governed by its elected leadership—a message unlikely to be well received in Moscow.
Despite Trump’s past assertions that NATO expansion was the primary trigger for the war, US officials did not echo this reasoning. Analysts point out that the suggestion of “external governance” is more consistent with Moscow’s strategic objective of bringing Ukraine into its sphere of influence. Trump’s continued emphasis on NATO as the root cause may indicate a limited understanding of Russia’s broader territorial ambitions in Ukraine.
Following his announcement of a planned conversation with President Putin later this week, no formal preparations for such contact have been confirmed by either side. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that Moscow would be open to a discussion should the White House initiate it, but confirmed that no such arrangements are currently underway.
Observers note that the lack of progress in US-Russia communications may serve Moscow’s interests by allowing it to delay any concrete negotiations. Putin may calculate that it is possible to extend the current diplomatic impasse throughout Trump’s term, particularly in the absence of coordinated international pressure.
Trump’s rhetoric on sanctions has drawn attention, but analysts suggest that sanctions alone are unlikely to produce immediate changes in Russian policy. The economic measures introduced under his predecessor, President Joe Biden, were designed to apply long-term pressure. While these policies have had a cumulative effect, their impact is gradual.
Of greater concern to Kyiv is Trump’s failure to mention any expansion of military or financial assistance to Ukraine. From a strategic standpoint, support for Ukraine’s defence capability is viewed by experts as a more immediate and consequential factor in shaping the course of the war than the threat of future sanctions.
With no substantive new initiatives or aid packages announced, questions remain as to what leverage the US President actually possesses in compelling Moscow to alter its stance. Trump’s repeated shifts in tone—alternately critical of Putin and Zelenskyy—have led to uncertainty over the administration’s strategy. As it stands, there is no indication of a broader diplomatic framework or operational plan to resolve the war.
In the absence of concrete actions such as expanded sanctions, arms deliveries, or high-level diplomatic engagement, recent statements from the White House have done little to change the status quo. The broader international community continues to monitor developments, but with both Russian and American officials acknowledging the limited outcomes of recent discussions, prospects for a negotiated settlement remain unclear.
Read also:
Trump’s Ceasefire Plans for Ukraine Stall Amid Russian Conditions
