It’s been 176 days since the new U.S. president took office, and Russia isn’t just continuing its war—it’s not even bothering to pretend it’s negotiating in good faith in Istanbul. On Monday, July 14, President Donald Trump finally delivered the major announcement he had promised the previous week. During a White House meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the world saw—for the first time in months—a decisive move aimed at pressuring the party responsible for prolonging the war: Russia.
This is, without a doubt, the direct “achievement” of the Kremlin’s leader, who, following the U.S. presidential election, engaged in a subtle game—one that always had a shelf life. Even the president of the world’s most powerful nation cannot afford to appear indecisive or weak for long, especially when measured against the legacy of past American presidents in the long history of U.S.-Russia relations.
Donald Trump is now openly voicing his frustration with Vladimir Putin. “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin,” he said last week, adding that during their conversations—which have become fairly frequent—Putin “is very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.” This time, Trump even offered a glimpse into his conversations at home: “I come home and tell the First Lady: ‘You know, I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a great conversation.’ She says: ‘Really? They just shelled another city.’”
And while, according to the U.S. president, Putin has managed to mislead many of his predecessors—though not him—Trump also noted that, over the past few months, there have been four instances where it seemed a deal had been nearly struck. It’s yet another reminder of how difficult it is to understand the so-called “mysterious Russian soul.”
What was promised?
Ukraine is set to receive up to 17 Patriot systems—though it remains unclear how many actual launchers that includes—transferred from third countries that will then wait for replacements with new equipment. Alongside this, Ukraine is expected to receive hundreds of missiles and artillery shells. Ukrainian veteran Yevhen Malik cautions that it’s too early to celebrate, pointing out that the challenge lies not only in the launchers but also in the number of missiles, which are still produced in limited quantities in the U.S. Washington also has commitments to supply missiles to other allies, making the true scale of aid difficult to determine.
According to Axios, the aid packages could total as much as $10 billion. The plan is for deliveries to be routed through a mechanism in which NATO buys from the U.S., Ukraine receives the weapons, and Europe covers the costs. This represents only the first phase. Notably, even with an additional $5 billion in interest from frozen Russian assets—which could also be used to purchase U.S.-made weapons—and the inclusion of other types of arms, those “17 Patriots” might effectively mean just three batteries, each costing roughly a billion dollars without the missiles.
Following a NATO initiative, President Trump announced that the U.S. will reach out to Germany to send “the first batches of missiles.” He added that some Patriot missile systems would be delivered to Ukraine “very soon — within a matter of days.” Trump emphasised that the costs would be covered by NATO members, not the United States. Likely participants include Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and possibly the U.K.—though not France for now, which remains focused on promoting its own defence industry. While NATO officially coordinates the effort, in practice it operates more like a “coalition of the willing.” Meanwhile, $3.8 billion from the aid package under President Biden’s presidential drawdown authority remains unused.
Perhaps the most striking announcement was the promise to impose secondary tariffs of at least 100% on countries that continue buying energy from Russia—if no peace deal is reached within 50 days. That deadline refers to a conversation with Putin 10 days ago, when he claimed he would need 60 days to seize several more Ukrainian regions. Let’s not forget the brazen statements from Vladimir Medinsky in Istanbul, suggesting Ukraine could cede four regions now (before the summer offensive) or risk losing six. It now appears Moscow believed it had a green light to complete its offensive. But it’s already clear the Russian summer campaign has failed—once again, Russia has overestimated itself.
Of course, much has been made of the symbolism behind the sanctions’ introduction date—September 2, marking the anniversary of the end of World War II. There’s also the painful reality for some European countries struggling to wean themselves off Russian energy, as well as the challenges these secondary sanctions will pose for the U.S.—both economically and in its relations with China and India. But the core issue remains: a Russia unwilling to negotiate can only be brought to the bargaining table through a genuine weakening of its economy. This has been the key message Ukrainians have been stressing since 2022.
When asked about the Senate initiative proposing 500% tariffs on Russian goods and comparable secondary sanctions, Trump said that beyond a certain point, the exact percentage becomes largely symbolic. In his view, even a 100% tariff represents a powerful enough tool to deliver a significant economic blow to Moscow.
The “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025” has been at the forefront of Washington’s attention for weeks, rallying support from both parties. The legislation’s author, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, has put forward the most sweeping economic restrictions on Russia in the history of bilateral relations. A key component is the introduction of 500% secondary sanctions on countries and companies that continue to do business with Moscow despite its aggression.
Meanwhile, an alternative version of the bill is being drafted in the House of Representatives, potentially aligning with the Senate’s initiative. Its passage is meant to be more than just a response to Kremlin actions — it’s intended as a clear signal that the US is ready to act strategically, decisively, and on a global scale.
Following the recent military operation against Iran that reshaped perceptions of American power in the Middle East, a new sanctions package targeting Russia could reinforce the US’s position as a leading force among its allies in both Europe and Asia.
Still, behind the scenes in Washington, there was talk as early as last month that this initiative had little chance of success — and might be more of a scare tactic than a serious effort. Time will tell.
Europe’s role
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte deserves special recognition for the role he’s playing. At the last NATO summit, he created a warm and accommodating atmosphere for President Trump, and yesterday’s briefing felt like a masterclass in high-level diplomacy. Rutte managed to offer praise without veering into flattery, seamlessly weaving compliments into a dialogue between equal allies.
His appearance on Fox News as an advocate for Ukraine was also significant, particularly in reaching the anti-Ukraine or isolationist wing of the Republican Party. He emphasised what he called the wisdom of President Trump, who, according to Rutte, has a clear plan and is acting from a position of strength. Rutte explained that the sanctions haven’t been imposed immediately as part of a deliberate strategy — giving countries like China, India, and Brazil time to call the Kremlin and pressure Putin. In other words, it’s not a delay in punishment, but a window for diplomatic leverage.
Trump has indeed pushed European countries to increase their defence spending and bolstered the interests of U.S. arms manufacturers. In that context, $10 billion is a relatively small price to pay to help preserve transatlantic cooperation — or at least maintain the appearance that everything is under control. This is especially true amid growing talk that Russia, emboldened by the weakness of others, might try to test NATO’s Article 5.
What’s next?
Russia reacted almost immediately: Maria Zakharova rushed to defend Medinsky, and Dmitry Peskov repeated the familiar line about “readiness for negotiations”—but overall, the tone remained fairly restrained.
Global reactions have been mixed. Some see this as a dramatic shift in the U.S. approach to Russia—a tectonic change in policy. Others view it as a return to the hesitant, half-hearted strategy typical of the Biden administration: a stalling tactic based on wishful thinking that things will somehow sort themselves out. Critics also question Washington’s reliability, urging caution until concrete actions are taken. Some even invoke the acronym TACO—“Trump always chickens out.” Analyst Andreas Umland added that Trump is essentially buying time for Putin.
Lesia Orobets, founder of the NGO Price of Freedom, commented on the developments: “Churchill once said that the United States always makes the right decision—after trying all the wrong ones first. I just hope they’ve finally run out of wrong decisions.”
Russia will probably try to pressure Europe using its usual tools of hybrid warfare and corruption, but that won’t sway the group of countries that have already made up their minds. Given the long absence of any strategic gains on the battlefield, it would make sense for the Kremlin to shift toward meaningful dialogue. However, listening to reason has never been a Russian tradition.
