Three weeks ago, the U.S. and Ukraine reached an agreement for a 30-day ceasefire, but Russia rejected it and presented its own demands.
On April 4, Russia launched ballistic missiles and drones at a residential area in Kryvyi Rih, killing 19 people, including nine children, and injuring 75 others, according to local authorities. In the days that followed, Russian missile strikes hit major Ukrainian cities far from the front lines, causing further civilian casualties.
Despite international pressure, Russia has repeatedly shown it has no interest in halting its attacks. One of U.S. President Donald Trump's key priorities is ending the bloodshed, but Russia's continued aggression has left him "angry." He has threatened to impose sanctions on Moscow in response to the ongoing violence.
Experts suggest that the U.S. could leverage its position to pressure Russia by increasing military aid to Ukraine, enforcing existing sanctions more rigorously, or imposing additional tariffs on countries buying Russian oil. However, Trump has yet to take significant action.
Instead, Trump has imposed only minor sanctions on Russian businesses, stopping short of any real pressure. His focus has largely been on pushing Ukraine to make concessions and encouraging Russia to accept a ceasefire deal at any cost.
Jenny Mathers, a lecturer in international politics at Aberystwyth University, stated that Trump's administration has allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to dictate the terms of the ceasefire negotiations. "There have been vague threats from Trump, but no substantial actions that would have pressured Russia to stop its operations," Mathers said.
Richard Betts, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, noted that while Trump has potential leverage over Russia, his unpredictability and inconsistency make it unclear when or how he might use it. He added that minor Russian concessions could be enough to ease Trump's demands, given his apparent favorability toward Russia.
The U.S. and Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire on March 11, but Russia refused to participate. A partial agreement to halt attacks on energy infrastructure and fighting in the Black Sea was reached on March 25, but Russia blocked it, demanding the lifting of some sanctions before agreeing to a ceasefire. Both sides have accused each other of violating the terms of the agreement.
Trump expressed frustration with Russia's continued demands, including a proposal for a "transitional government" in Ukraine, and warned that he would impose tariffs on Russian oil if Moscow did not negotiate in good faith. He reiterated this stance on March 31, threatening to impose secondary tariffs on Russian oil exports if the war did not end.
On April 1, a bipartisan group of 50 U.S. senators introduced a bill that would impose sanctions on countries buying Russian oil if Russia refused to negotiate a lasting peace with Ukraine. Despite these threats, it remains to be seen whether Trump will take action.
While Trump’s threats signal growing irritation with Russia's intransigence, experts are skeptical that such measures will be implemented. Economists warn that imposing tariffs on Russian oil could lead to significant economic consequences, both globally and for the U.S. However, some analysts believe that secondary tariffs could be a powerful tool to cripple Russia's oil exports, although the risks of an energy crisis and higher oil prices make this plan complicated.
Trump has also been hesitant to use his full leverage. Experts suggest he could increase sanctions or military aid to Ukraine, or pressure Russia by targeting its shadow fleet of oil tankers. While some actions have been taken, such as the non-renewal of an exemption for Russian banks to access U.S. payment systems, these measures have been limited in their scope and impact.
Trump’s approach has largely been characterized by a willingness to make concessions to Russia. In exchange for partial ceasefire agreements, the U.S. offered to ease sanctions on Russia, including restoring access to global markets for Russian agricultural exports and reducing maritime insurance costs. This strategy of concessions has been criticized as advantageous to Putin, without achieving the desired ceasefire or long-term peace.
Trump’s handling of the situation also raised concerns when he suspended military aid to Ukraine in early March following a disagreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The aid was later resumed, but this suspension highlighted tensions within the U.S. approach to the conflict.
Despite some progress in terms of sanctions and negotiations, many experts argue that the U.S. has not exerted the necessary pressure on Russia to bring about a meaningful resolution.
Comments
Post a Comment