Donald Trump’s announcement regarding the new line of US behavior in Russia’s war against Ukraine caused a noticeable reaction in the Western press. His proposed steps — a combination of indirect military support for Ukraine through allied purchases and tough economic restrictions against Russia — are being interpreted not only as a change in rhetoric, but also as an attempt to propose a new architecture of pressure. At the same time, European analysts focus attention not only on the possible influence of Washington’s ultimate position on the Kremlin, but also on what signals these statements send to NATO allies, partners of Ukraine and the entire international audience. Publications of the European mass media record not only the instruments of pressure announced by Trump, but also try to evaluate their effectiveness – both in the short term and in a broader political perspective.
The Irish Times (Ireland)
“Trump’s statement brings the United States back to the side of the West and Ukraine,” the Dublin newspaper The Irish Times believes:
“Trump’s reluctance to pay for this weaponry with US funds will go a long way to appeasing the vocal opposition within his own MAGA movement, which opposes any direct US intervention in the war. It will also secure huge orders for the US defense sector.
Europeans and other Western allies will find some comfort in the fact that with Trump’s new policy, he actually returns the United States to the framework of the common front against Russia formed by Biden, as well as to the traditional commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Alliance.
Sydsvenskan (Sweden)
The Sydsvenskan newspaper from Malmö, Sweden, believes that it is too early for Ukraine to be happy:
“It’s good if all this turns out to be true. The problem is that Trump’s mood is too unstable – it has already happened more than once that the promises made by him today are worthless tomorrow. Ukraine, in fact, does not care where the weapons come from, the main thing is that they come, and as soon as possible. At the same time, Trump can announce some kind of agreement that will be beneficial to the United States, and make new statements, according to which Russia – or anyone else who is in turn an enemy – should beware.”
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Germany)
According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Trump has not changed course:
“This can be seen at least from the fact that he wants to transfer all costs to the Europeans. In this sense, he remains the president in the spirit of “America first”. In general, Europe will have to spend even more money to support Ukraine than until now. However, this understanding has not yet reached all the ministries of finance on the continent. And Trump is not interested in the victory of Ukraine, as Biden demanded. He just wants to make peace – and receive the Nobel Prize for it. But without significant concessions from It’s hard to imagine Kyiv.”
La Stampa (Italy)
The newspaper La Stampa from Turin expresses concern about Trump’s fifty-day deadline:
“Another problem is the 50-day deadline that Trump gave Putin. In other words, America is giving the Russian army the opportunity to take full advantage of the summer and continue the offensive that began in May, in which the Kremlin has invested all its resources (according to The Economist magazine, the number of dead Russian soldiers in the last two months has reached 31,000). In September, the conclusions will be drawn up and the negotiations on a cease-fire will begin. Meanwhile, the Russian the dictator will try to capture as much Ukrainian territory as possible.”
The Guardian (UK)
London’s The Guardian emphasizes that the West must intervene more decisively:
“NATO — with or without Trump — could, as we have repeatedly written, strengthen its strategy by declaring a no-fly zone over the unoccupied territory of Ukraine and intercepting missiles and drones launched there. From a military point of view, this is absolutely obvious, and the legal and humanitarian grounds are undeniable. Russia has repeatedly violated the sovereignty of its NATO neighbors. If NATO decided, it could show Putin his place.
The defeat of Ukraine and the conclusion of agreements on Putin’s hegemonic terms would be a defeat for the entire West – a strategic failure that would mark the beginning of an era of permanent conflicts throughout Europe.”
