Sanctions lifted: how Trump’s change of course not to pressure Russia is disrupting the expected peace in Ukraine
Donald Trump has always been unpredictable and inconsistent in his decisions, rhetoric and assessments of war. He promised peace between Russia and Ukraine “within 24 hours” and at the same time repeatedly made it clear that he did not consider Kyiv’s support a strategic priority for the US. Now his actions are beginning to confirm what was previously voiced in passing. After talking with Putin, Trump abandoned plans to increase sanctions pressure on Moscow. It’s not just about slowing down new restrictions, but about a fundamental change of course: Washington is no longer interested in being the center of international efforts to pressure the Kremlin.
Against the background of new initiatives in the EU regarding the strengthening of sanctions, the United States is showing readiness to reduce its participation in this process, at least in the form in which it existed from 2022. The argument in response to critics is the desire to expand economic opportunities for American business. But the actual meaning of the changes is much deeper – the Trump administration is signaling that diplomatic participation in the settlement of the war is losing its priority. Instead of the role of peacekeeper, the US can choose the role of an outside observer with clearly articulated commercial interests.
Another unexpected decision by Trump
Despite previous threats to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation, after a telephone conversation with Putin, US President Donald Trump said that the United States would no longer put pressure on Moscow and Kyiv to end the war. As The New York Times reports, Trump believes that it is Russia and Ukraine that should find a way to peace, and thus actually announced his intention to withdraw from peace talks.
According to US officials, Trump also reneged on his own promises to join the European campaign of increased sanctions pressure on the Kremlin.
“If Trump does not change course, Putin will get exactly what he wanted: an end to American pressure and a split between the United States and its European allies.” – NYT quotes sources in the administration.
At the same time, one of the White House officials noted that the new sanctions could harm American business, and the president seeks to maximize economic opportunities for the United States.
Despite assurances that current sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 remain in place, Trump has clearly demonstrated a shift in priorities. Frustrated by slow progress and Putin’s unwillingness to make concessions, he announced his intention to withdraw the US from the negotiation process and focus on business deals with Russia. That is, in fact, he moved on to the realization of the goal, which a number of European leaders call real — the normalization of Washington’s relations with Moscow.
It is no secret that Trump wants to open access to the Russian energy sector and rare earth metals market for American companies. At the same time, the American side formally insists that none of the agreements will be concluded without a peace agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. At the same time, Putin well understands Trump’s business interest, and that is why the conversation between the two leaders mainly concerned the prospects of economic cooperation. Against this background, Europe is moving towards new sanctions, while the US, on the contrary, is showing its readiness to distance itself from Ukraine and seek a new format for relations with Russia. This rift between allies is exactly the scenario the Kremlin has been striving for for the past 20 years.
It should be noted that Trump’s words that it is Russia and Ukraine that should independently decide the terms of peace were heard after he himself claimed that only he and Putin are capable of reaching an agreement. So, after the conversation with Putin, Trump abandoned not only the rhetoric of sanctions, but also the involvement of the United States in the search for a solution.
In social networks, Trump wrote:
“Terms for ending the war should be negotiated between the two sides, as it should be. Because only they know the details.”
He then unequivocally hinted at the goal of resuming full-scale cooperation with Moscow:
“Russia has a huge opportunity to create many jobs and wealth. Her potential is limitless.”
Donald Trump’s decision to actually withdraw from the negotiation process regarding Ukraine and abandon further sanctions pressure on Russia represents a fundamental change in the foreign policy course of the United States. This is not just a political maneuver, but another demonstrative paradigm shift. America no longer positions itself as the leader of the Western anti-Putin front, but on the contrary, as a player ready to compromise with the Russian Federation in order not to lose economic benefits.
Reasons for Trump’s decision
Donald Trump’s decision not to introduce new sanctions against Russia, despite previously stated threats, has several clear and profoundly pragmatic reasons. It is not an emotional reaction or a temporary zigzag — it is a thoughtful political and economic choice that unfolds in three main planes: strategic, economic and tactical.
Trump consistently declares that the war between Russia and Ukraine is none of America’s business. The formula “this is not our war” is not just a rhetorical phrase, but the basis of his foreign policy doctrine. He demonstrates a reluctance to involve the United States in protracted international conflicts, especially those in which there is no direct US military or energy interest. It is from this logic that the rejection of sanctions follows: they would automatically involve Washington in a tough phase of confrontation, for which the Trump administration is not ready. Instead, the observer role of the mediator was chosen.
In addition, Trump believes that new tough sanctions, especially such as 500% tariffs or extraterritorial restrictions, will be interpreted in the Kremlin as an act of economic warfare. The possibility that Moscow will respond symmetrically or even asymmetrically, in particular by destabilizing energy markets or a cyber attack, is seen in Washington as too risky. It is worth noting that these fears are simultaneously echoed in the words of Trump and Rubio, they believe that the sanctions will become a trigger for a direct conflict with the Russian Federation, so they do not want to “bring it to that”.
At the same time, Trump does not hide his interest in resuming economic cooperation with Russia. It is primarily about energy (oil, gas, LNG), titanium market, rare earth metals. Any new restriction now would block the path to these future arrangements, even though the US officially says it will not start any deals until a peace settlement. For Trump, as a businessman and politician, the scenario in which he opens these markets to American capital as a “peacemaker” and not as a leader of the sanctions front looks much more attractive.
Also, Trump directly says that the introduction of sanctions against the Russian Federation will make its further negotiations with Ukraine impossible. In this case, it is a tactical pause: Washington hopes that without new restrictions, Moscow will not withdraw from contacts, and that such a soft position will create the illusion of a “window of opportunity.” This does not mean a complete rejection of sanctions in the future – only a postponement of their application until the situation finally loses the potential for compromise. From a diplomatic point of view, this is a way to keep the channel even if it doesn’t produce results.
Along with this, Trump bets on the position of a “president of peace” — someone who does not drag the country into war, does not spend billions on “foreign” conflicts, and does not provoke new global instability. The tough sanctions policy, which he believes could lead to new phases of confrontation, runs counter to the image of a strong but pragmatic president. Tying himself into a long-term confrontation with Russia means for him the loss of electoral support from those who want to “deal with America, not Ukraine.”
The waiver of sanctions is accompanied by another line — the gradual transfer of responsibility to Ukraine. If pressuring Russia is risky, pressuring Kyiv is safe and effective. Reducing support, reducing the amount of aid, soft rhetoric towards the Kremlin is a way to put Kyiv in front of the fact: either you agree on the proposed terms, or you are left without a Western shoulder. Sanctions in such a strategy are not just unnecessary, they interfere with the main plan.
Finally, there is another, deeper reason: the Trump administration tends to believe that sanctions have not worked. Russia adapted, bypassed many restrictions, and found new markets. And if there are no results, then there is no point in continuing the path that has exhausted itself. Trump, as a typical transactional politician, simply removes from the agenda a tool that does not provide short-term benefits.
The threat of introducing 500% tariffs on Russian exports — the harshest possible measure — was initially viewed in Washington not as a real economic step, but as a method of informational and psychological pressure. It was an attempt to force Putin to at least partially back down or agree to a temporary ceasefire without resorting to an open ultimatum. However, when it became clear that the Kremlin is not responding, and the very fact of sanctions does not change Moscow’s negotiating behavior, this scenario was curtailed.
Consequences of Trump’s decision and possible further options for his actions
Trump’s decision not to introduce sanctions against the Russian Federation has several consequences. First, the US president openly demonstrates that Ukraine is not a priority for his administration. If Biden’s approach was based on a strategic partnership with Kyiv and the protection of Euro-Atlantic principles, Trump sees Ukraine rather as an obstacle to settling matters with Russia.
Secondly, the dismantling of the sanctioning unity of the West creates exactly the division that the Kremlin sought. Europe will remain in a situation of independent pressure on Moscow, but without a global leader. This reduces the effectiveness of any new restrictions and encourages the Russian Federation to seek economic and diplomatic opportunities through America.
Thirdly, the rhetoric about “business with Russia” at the time of the active phase of the war is a signal to international corporations: the moral dilemma has been removed. If the White House no longer insists on moral responsibility for trade with an aggressor country, then only market rules will apply. This is a dangerous precedent that legalizes a comfort zone for business in the context of a crime against a sovereign state.
Finally, US diplomatic withdrawal removes a key arbiter from the game. If until now it was the American administration that coordinated international efforts, arms supplies, and economic support to Ukraine, now it is giving the initiative to others — players who are less determined or more dependent on internal crises.
The worst thing in this situation is its strategic transparency. Moscow received a clear signal: the war may not end, because the biggest political player no longer insists on stopping it. Moreover, he is preparing to turn it into a platform for economic cooperation. Therefore, the change in Trump’s rhetoric is not just a diplomatic move, but a geopolitical tectonic shift. And it unfolds not in the future, but now.
In fact, Trump concluded for himself: it is useless to threaten the Russian Federation, and the use of sanctions is too risky for his own country. As a result, instead of escalating sanctions pressure, the US administration was left with three political options, each of which illustrates the rejection of the principle of pressure.
The first is to force Ukraine to make concessions, which is a pressure not on the attacker, but on the victim in order to reach a quick agreement at any cost. Since Trump considers sanctions against the Russian Federation too dangerous and limited in their impact, he can instead use the entire arsenal of influence on Kyiv — from cutting aid to direct political demands. Such a course opens the way to an agreement on the terms of the Kremlin, but with the signature of Ukraine.
The second option is to completely withdraw from the negotiation process and stop any systemic interference in the affairs of Ukraine. This will mean the end of American military and political support for Kyiv, as well as a de facto transition to an isolated course in which Trump will deal exclusively with relations with Moscow on a bilateral basis, without taking into account the context of the war.
The third option is to maintain minimal support for Ukraine without increasing sanctions and escalating diplomatic actions. This option is a “passive front holding” scenario: the US does not blockade Kyiv, but also does not create additional pressure on Putin, leaving a status quo that could last for years.
Each of these scenarios has one thing in common: none of them involves sanctioning pressure as a means of influence. This means that the USA has finally gone beyond the paradigm of coercion against Russia, and from now on the only strategy of the White House is to avoid risks and build a new architecture of relations with Moscow – without blackmail, punishments and the participation of Ukraine as a full-fledged subject.
So, Donald Trump’s refusal to impose sanctions against Russia once again clearly demonstrated his fundamental inconsistency as a political leader. A person who only a month ago publicly promised the Kremlin “harsh consequences” in case of refusing peace, today makes statements about the “value of dialogue” and calls not to “provoke” Moscow. This is not the first time that Trump has changed course without explanation, demonstrating that for him foreign policy is only a tool in the game for his own business interests. At the same time, Ukraine in this coordinate system is neither a partner nor an ally, but a bargaining chip that can be used or pushed aside, depending on what is more profitable at a particular moment.
The rhetoric of “this is not our war” only masks the real motivation: Trump’s desire to restore economic ties with Russia. He is interested in opening American companies’ access to resources, energy, and logistics, not on peace terms, but as part of a new big deal, which he dreams of signing with Putin as a “dealing president.” At the same time, pressure on Russia, aid to Ukraine, and sanctions discipline — all this recedes into the background if they interfere with agreements with Moscow.
Ukraine’s prospects in this case are alarming and do not contain optimism. The waiver of sanctions means that Moscow will not feel any new pressure. The war will not stop, but on the contrary will gain new momentum, because Putin has received confirmation: Washington is no longer ready to restrain him by force. At the same time, the peace that Ukrainians were counting on is postponed indefinitely. Negotiations, which could become a tool for reaching a compromise, turn into a process without an end and any guarantees. That is, Ukraine remains one on one with the enemy and European allies, whose support is becoming more and more conditional.
This is the new reality: a world in which the US no longer tries to confront Russia, but only negotiates with it, but already openly, without backroom deals. And in this world, Trump is no longer making efforts for peace, he is simply profitably solving his interests, where there is no place for Ukraine.
