
Trump's sanctions have failed to deter Russia. Now the West faces a dilemma
Russia's newly updated nuclear doctrine apparently allows Moscow to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state that is supported by a nuclear one, unsettling deterrence dynamics in Europe. Though Trump's about–turn on the Russia-Ukraine war might bring some sigh of relief in Kyiv, Moscow's counter-threats echo a Biden-era tit-for-tat escalation when Washington's no-holds-barred support for Ukraine's war efforts was met with Moscow's nuclear threats.
Last week, Russia once again pulled the nuclear weapon threat out of its sleeves, two days after US President Donald Trump — following his meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte — threatened to impose 100 per cent secondary tariffs on Moscow if it doesn't reach a deal with Kyiv in 50 days. Trump also confirmed that 'top-of-the-line' weapons, including the Patriot missile defence system and batteries, would be sent to Ukraine in an operation coordinated by NATO members.
Sanctions' toothless bite
Sanctions are meant to bite, and not just bark. They are coercive economic tools that the US and its Western allies have often used as a default policy to punish adversaries. However, do they really affect consequential changes in a country's behaviour as expected? In the case of Russia, sanctions have won tactical gains, but have failed to achieve the desired strategic goals.
US–led Western sanctions have hit Russia since 2014, when the latter annexed Crimea from Ukraine after the Maidan Square event. Though Russia has seen rising inflation, labour shortage, and devaluation of its currency, the sanctions have had too little impact to make Moscow kowtow. On the contrary, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation has kept the key rate at 21.5 per cent per annum, indicating that inflation and economic growth are relatively stable under the current circumstances. The Russian stock exchange market has also continued to grow despite Trump's warnings. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecasted Russia's growth rate in 2025 at 1.5 per cent while the Russian Economic Development Ministry has kept it at 2.5 per cent.
This month, the US Senate tabled additional sanctions on Russia, calling them a 'sledgehammer'. Sanctions on Russia will also impact countries that trade with Russia in oil, gas, uranium, and other products. Such secondary sanctions on third countries are reportedly proposed to touch 500 per cent. Some US lawmakers are even hinting at the US, together with its European allies, accessing frozen Russian assets, including the $5 billion located in the US, to dent Russia's warfighting resources and utilise the money in Ukraine's reconstruction. This would be an unprecedented move as no US president has ever taken the central bank assets of a foreign country that the US is not at war with.
However, secondary sanctions have not been too successful either, with Russia, through its 'shadow fleet', exporting energy to the other countries, including China, Turkey, UAE, Belarus, and Armenia. Moreover, partner countries of the US such as Turkey, UAE, and Armenia have not participated in sanctions, creating an enforcement gap, helping Russia maintain access to sanctioned goods and continue its economic activities.
A report, published by the Kyiv School of Economics, estimated that the shadow fleet transports about 70 per cent of Russia's seaborne exports, and in the first nine months of 2024, earned Russia an extra $8bn in oil sales. In fact, a report by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) shows how Russia has been evading sanctions by opening new overseas branches and subsidiaries of Russian financial institutions. Wars do not come cheap, and the fact that Russia has been able to sustain the war with Ukraine and foot the comprehensive military bill amidst the onslaught of the Western sanctions, speaks volumes about the latter's relative failure. Moreover, sanctions cannot completely restrict trade to sanctioned countries. First, these sanctions being largely US–led and not UN-mandated, downgrades its global legitimacy and effective enforcement. Second, many countries that trade in Russian oil through transhipment have created alternatives, helping Russia circumvent the sanctions.
Also read: Trump's Ukraine U-turn puts Russia's trade partners at risk. India caught in the middle
Trump's reputational crisis
Former Russian President and Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, taking to X, said, 'Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin. The world shuddered, expecting the consequences. Belligerent Europe was disappointed. Russia didn't care.'
Why is Moscow pooh-poohing Trump's threats? Is Trump's dealmaker credentials facing a reputational crisis? And is he 'chickening out' too often, after issuing maximalist threats? Trump's position on the Russia-Ukraine war has swung like a pendulum. And the divide between Republicans who would like a more hawkish stance against Russia and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) base supportive of less involvement in the war is sending mixed signals about Washington's resolve to stay united on a particular path. MAGA stalwart Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia congresswoman and one of Trump's most staunch allies in Washington, said, 'MAGA voted for no more US involvement in foreign wars.'
Trump's negotiating style of employing a mix of maximalist demands for compromise from Ukraine while simultaneously going soft on Russia has clearly not yielded results. It has failed to affect any change in Putin's objectives through the war: de-Nazification, de-militarisation, preventing Ukraine's NATO membership, and occupying the critical territories of Ukraine such as Donetsk and Luhansk, which are rich in rare earth minerals.
Moreover, Putin's ambiguity and delays on Trump's peace deals, and European allies standing strongly with Ukraine — particularly after Trump's verbal spat with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — has pushed Washington's new curve. Even Trump cannot rock too many boats at the same time, it seems. During his more recent meeting with Zelenskyy, on the sidelines of Pope Francis's funeral, Trump said that he wondered whether Putin was sincerely interested in ending the war in Ukraine, as he continued a bombing campaign that included targeting civilian structures. While the recent NATO Summit in the Hague, where NATO members agreed to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP in the next decade, did do good optics for Trump and Western alliance's solidarity, Trump's Moscow policy seems all over the place — from placating Putin to berating him. The leaked audio released by CNN, where Trump could be heard telling a private meeting of fundraisers last year that he once threated to 'bomb the s**t out of Moscow' to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine during his first term, is merely a blip in the radar of Trump's theatrical oeuvre. And the clip seems to have hardly caused a stir in the Kremlin.
Moreover, Putin's grip over the war narrative in Russia is overwhelming. For Russia's domestic audience, the war is not an act of aggression against a weaker country, but an unrelenting test of Russian resilience to reclaim what it considers as its own territory. Russian people see it as standing up against the US-led West and reclaiming the country's lost glory of a great power in the category of the US.
In a quirky twist of global narratives, the US and the West — and not Russia — seem to be facing more heat for having failed to resolve the war. While there is no doubt that Russia invaded Ukraine, a retelling of contemporary history in context of NATO's eastward expansion and Trump's shenanigans has put the West on a weaker footing. Facing the wrath of Trump's tariffs and his hyper-transactional style of foreign engagements, the Global South is at tenterhooks and seems hardly interested in aligning with the West, or in taking sides in the Russia-Ukraine war. For the majority of the Global South, including India, the regional wars and the geopolitical tensions among great powers are reckless irritants making a dent on political bandwidth and the scarce resources that could better be used for meeting developmental challenges. Moreover, the recent attack by the US on Iranian nuclear sites under Operation Midnight Hammer gives more confidence to Moscow in calling out America's double standards on sovereignty and military interventions. The action by the US also allows Russia to leverage the narrative to carry out attacks on Ukraine with impunity, and negotiate from a position of strength.
Therefore, the impact of fresh sanctions on Russia remains doubtful. And the 50 days of reprieve rather could be music to Putin's ears, who would continue on the current path without much Western intervention for close to two months.
Moreover, is Trump's U-turn and increasingly hawkish stance on Russia bringing him closer to the very position of his predecessor whom he once vehemently criticised? Or is it merely a stunt to divert attention from the growing storm at home over the Jeffrey Epstein files? In both cases, he is locking horns with his MAGA base. So, the ramifications are still anyone's guess.
On the other hand, even with the Russian gambit, does Trump have any cards to show? Is he offering anything substantive to Kyiv that could, on the battlefield, completely turn the tide and really bring Putin to the negotiating table on the terms of the West? Is Trump really ready to play ball with Putin, given that he is rather prone to playing safe with the Russian president?
The Russia-Ukraine war exposes a complex paradox of power, wherein, the most powerful country in the world, with all its economic and military resources, is falling severely short in coercing a much more truncated Russia to kowtow to its demands. Putin's recurrent resort to the threat of using nuclear weapons does show a counter-coercion move of the weaker power to deter a strong power. But it seems to be working in the current circumstances.
In the final analysis, the US and the West are facing a dilemma. Allowing Russia to take Ukraine and recognising the territories occupied by it will downgrade the status of the US in the international order. It will also provide an opening for China to take over Taiwan and will embolden it and Russia toward more coercive actions in their spheres of influence. Therefore, the Russia-Ukraine war is a critical front, which will have an outsized influence on the near future of America's status and influence in the international system, and on the broader questions of power and its deployment to affect regional and global outcomes.
Indrani Talukdar @TalukdarIndrani is a Fellow and Monish Tourangbam is a Senior Research Consultant at the Chintan Research Foundation (CRF), New Delhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Does Donald Trump cheat in golf? Video evidence emerges
The vistas of the US president Donald Trump's golf canvas are broadening. He opened one in Aberdeen, Scotland, on Tuesday, the last day of his five-day trip to the sprawling Scottish countryside. 'We'll play it very quickly and then I go back to D.C. and we put out fires all over the world,' Trump bumped a line that captures the essence of Trumpism, brazen and pompous, during the opening ceremony. He owns 17 golf courses around the globe, including two in Scotland, his mother's birthplace. But just as the new golf pastures he has been annexing, allegations of him cheating when navigating 18 holes across wide-open spaces are mounting by the day. A raft of celebrities including Hollywood thespian Samuel L Jackson had accused him of cheating. Now two separate videos have surfaced of him bending the rules in broad daylight. In one of the videos, released by Reuters, he is spotted discreetly adjusting the position of the ball on the fairway with his club in the Turnberry course, Scotland. In the background, an eyewitness is heard saying: 'I can't believe we've just watched the man cheating at f—ing golf,' an eyewitness is heard saying in the background. In another one, a caddie is seen stealthily dropping the ball, rather flicking it with the back of his palm, onto a favourable position. Trump is in a cart, left of the fairway. 🚨🏴⛳️ #WATCH — A caddie was seen dropping a ball for President Donald Trump during his Scotland golf trip. Did he make par? — NUCLR GOLF (@NUCLRGOLF) July 27, 2025 He claims he has a handicap of 2.8 handicap, respectable in golf circles, he has once bragged: 'I've played a lot, and I've played well… There's very few people that can beat me in golf.' He once said he holds the amateur record on his own golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida. In a story about celebrity golf handicaps, Forbes reported that his is a 4 but noted they have yet to see 'a real signed scorecard.' Those that have played with him refute. In 2016, Jackson alleged: 'We clearly saw him hit a ball into a lake at Trump National [Golf Course], and his caddie told him he found it… he just took off running and next thing we know he says 'I got it Mr. Trump!''. Trump retorted: 'I don't cheat at golf but Samuel L. Jackson cheats—with his game he has no choice.' 'Donald Trump is the worst cheat ever and he doesn't care who knows,' said author of the 2019 book 'Commander in Cheat,' Rick Reilly. ':At Winged Foot, where Trump is a member, the caddies got so used to seeing him kick his ball back on to the fairway they came up with a nickname for him: Pele,' Reilly wrote in the book. Rockstar Alice Cooper was more tongue in cheek. 'The worst celebrity golf cheat? I wish I could tell you that. It would be a shocker. I played golf with Donald Trump one time. That's all I'm going to say,' he said in a 2012 interview with Q Magazine. Actor Anthony Anderson drips sarcasm. 'Trump is a great golfer. I'm not going to say Trump cheats, he told Late Night With Seth Meyers in 2016. 'His caddie cheats for him.' Suzann Pettersen, the former Europe Solheim Cup captain, who played with Trump in his first term, reflects on her experience. 'He cheats like hell … so I don't quite know how he is in business,' she said. 'They say that if you cheat at golf, you cheat at business. I'm pretty sure he pays his caddie well, since no matter how far into the woods he hits the ball, it's in the middle of the fairway when we get there.' Worse, it is costing the taxpayers a fortune too. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) estimated that Trump visited his properties an astounding 547 times during his first term in official capacity. It included 328 visits to Trump's various golf courses.


Business Standard
14 minutes ago
- Business Standard
China's Shanghai Composite index rise 0.33%
Asian stocks ended Tuesday's session on a mixed note as investors looked past the U.S.-EU trade deal and awaited the outcome of ongoing U.S.-China talks in Stockholm. As the August 1 deadline nears, U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that most trading partners that do not negotiate separate trade deals would soon face tariffs of 15 percent to 20 percent on their exports to the United States and that some 200 countries would be notified soon of their new "world tariff" rate. Investors also braced for big tech earnings, key U.S. economic indicators and upcoming Fed and BoJ rate decisions. The dollar gained strength, and gold was steady below $3,315 per ounce while crude oil futures steadied at around 10-day highs as Trump shortened the deadline for Russia oil sanctions. China's Shanghai Composite index rose 0.33 percent to 3,609.71, reversing an early slide after Trump said he may visit China at Chinese President Xi Jinping's invitation, which Trump said had been extended.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
14 minutes ago
- First Post
Boast and backlash: Counting Trump's ceasefire claims and India's unyielding denials
The latest denial came from the Indian government during the Lok Sabha debate on Operation Sindoor, firmly rejecting any US role in the India-Pakistan ceasefire and countering Donald Trump's repeated claims of brokering peace read more Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, during the Lok Sabha debate on Operation Sindoor on Monday, firmly dismissed suggestions that New Delhi's military pause against Pakistan was influenced by foreign pressure, calling such claims 'completely incorrect and baseless.' Without naming US President Donald Trump directly, Singh said military operations had ceased only after Indian forces had achieved their 'overall politico-military objectives.' He added that the decision followed a request from Pakistan's Director-General of Military Operations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The objective of Operation Sindoor was to destroy the terror nurseries raised by Pakistan over the years,' Singh said, referencing the campaign launched after the Pahalgam terror attack. Singh's remarks come in the wake of a flurry of claims by Trump, who — between May 10 and July 28 — publicly took credit at least 20 times for brokering a ceasefire between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Every time Trump said he helped stop the conflict, India denied it. After Rajnath Singh, Jaishankar, during a debate on Operation Sindoor on Monday, also vehemently asserted that Washington did not play any role in ending the India-Pakistan conflict in May and said there was no phone call between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Trump during those crucial weeks. 'I want to make two things very clear- one, at no stage, in any conversation with the United States, was there any linkage with trade and what was going on,' he said. 'Secondly, there was no talk between the Prime Minister and President Trump from the April 22 (on the day of Pahalgam attack) when President (Donald) Trump called up to convey his sympathy, and on June 17, when he called up the prime minister in Canada to explain why he could not meet,' Jaishankar added. On June 17, Prime Minister Narendra Modi clarified to President Trump in a phone call that the United States had no role in brokering the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, and that there had been no talks about a US-India trade deal during the tensions. PM Modi also turned down Trump's invitation to stop in Washington, D.C., on his return from the G7 Summit in Canada, citing a prior commitment to visit Croatia on June 18. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Shedding light on the 35-minute conversation, which came at Trump's request, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said, 'PM Modi clearly told President Trump that during the entire course of events, at no point, and at no level, was there any discussion about a US-India trade deal or about US mediation between India and Pakistan.' This was the first conversation between the two leaders since India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, and came hours ahead of a meeting between Pakistan's Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Trump. 'The Prime Minister said the talks regarding cessation of military action were held directly between India and Pakistan under the existing channels established between both militaries. It was done at Pakistan's request,' Misri further said. Trump was the first to announce the India-Pakistan ceasefire on social media, claiming credit for brokering the deal. He continued to repeat this claim in the following weeks, even as India consistently denied that the US had played any role in the agreement. Here's a list of statements by the US President on the India-Pakistan conflict so far: 10 May: 'After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE." 11 May: 'I am proud that the USA was able to help you arrive at this historic and heroic decision. While not even discussed, I am going to increase trade substantially with both of these great nations. Additionally, I will work with you both to see if, after a 'thousand years,' a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir.' 12 May: 'We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war.' 13 May: '…My administration successfully brokered a historic ceasefire to stop the escalating violence between India and Pakistan. I used trade to a large extent… And they both have very powerful leaders, strong leaders.' 14 May: 'We convinced them… Let's go and make trade deals. If we can make trade deals, we like that much better than nuclear weapons.' 15 May: 'We talked to them about trade. Let's do trade instead of war. Pakistan was very happy with that and India was very happy with that… They've been fighting for about a 1000 years. I said I could settle that up.' 17 May: 'Those are major nuclear powers… It was getting deeper and more missiles. Everyone was stronger. Where the next one 's going to be, you know what? The N word. I think they were very close… I said we're going to talk about trade. We're going to do a lot of trade.' 22 May: 'If you take a look at what we just did with Pakistan and India — we settled that whole thing. I settled it through trade. We're doing a big deal with India. We're doing a big deal with Pakistan.' 30 May: 'We stopped India and Pakistan from fighting. I believe that could have turned out into a nuclear disaster. We talk trade… We can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons.' 31 May: 'We were able to stop potentially a nuclear war through trade as opposed through bullets. You know, normally they do it through bullets. We do it through trade. We had a very nasty potential war going on between Pakistan and India.' 06 June: 'We solved a big problem, a nuclear problem potentially with India and Pakistan. I talked about trade and said, we are not doing trade if you guys are going to be throwing bombs at each other. They both stopped.' 18 June: 'Two very smart people decided not to keep going with that war; that could have been a nuclear war.' 21 June: 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan.' 25 June: 'India and Pakistan…I ended that with a series of phone calls on trade. I said if you're going to go fighting each other, we're not doing any trade deal. They said: I want to do the trade deal. We stopped the nuclear war." 27 June: 'India and Pakistan. That was going to be maybe nuclear… I said to Scott and Howard: cancel all deals with India and Pakistan. They're not trading with us because they're in a war.' 08 July: 'Very, very big one was India and Pakistan. We stopped that over trade. We said that we are not going to be dealing with you at all if you are gonna fight. They were maybe at a nuclear stage.' 15 July: 'India and Pakistan would have been a nuclear war within another week. I said, we ' re not going to talk to you about trade unless you get this thing settled. And they did.' 19 July: 'Planes were being shot out of there. I think five jets were shot down, actually. These are two serious nuclear countries. India and Pakistan were going at it… and we got it solved through trade. We said: you guys want to make a trade deal. We're not making a trade deal if you're going to be throwing around weapons, and maybe nuclear weapons.' 26 July: 'It (Cambodia-Thailand conflict) very much reminds me of the conflict between Pakistan and India, which was brought to a successful halt.' 28 July: 'We do a lot of trade with Thailand and Cambodia. Yet I'm reading that they're killing each other… I say this should be an easy one for me because I settled India and Pakistan… If I can use trade to do that, then it's my honour." With inputs from agencies