Here's What Trump's Latest Shift on Russia and Ukraine Really Means

Washington's diesel exemption for Ukraine has pushed other issues to the sidelines. Is Trump now withholding intelligence assistance to pressure Kyiv? Read the full article at RT.com.

The latest twist in Russia-US relations has shocked Kiev, angered the European Union, displeased a significant number of politicians in the United States and confused many observers around the world.

The Trump administration's sudden decision to suspend sanctions on Russian diesel supplies appears to be at odds with its recent actions, including passing tough new sanctions laws aimed at increasing pressure on Moscow, and while some attribute the change to President Donald Trump's unpredictability, others see the start of a new policy or evidence of a fundamental shift in the administration's approach to Ukraine.

However, to understand what is happening, we need to look beyond the characteristics of the public behavior of the President of the United States. Trump's excesses, which often border on the absurd, often mask a fairly clear set of goals, but whether those goals are reasonable is another question.

The most likely explanation for his latest shift lies in US domestic politics, with the midterm elections less than a month away and the Republican Party facing difficult prospects. Trump maintains an air of indifference, but losing control of both houses of Congress condemns him to two years of political infighting and considerable frustration.

He probably knows that there is little prospect of substantial improvement in the economic situation, especially in consumer prices, before voters go to the polls. For now, the emphasis is on psychological impact.

Russia is not the first country Washington has approached about increasing fuel supplies to international markets, and the more deals Trump can announce, the more opportunities there are to signal that the White House is working tirelessly to protect ordinary Americans from rising prices.

Ukraine's worst diplomatic nightmare is closer

Perhaps the expectation is that voters will forget how much of the current difficulty stems from Trump's own actions in the Persian Gulf.

We'll soon find out if this approach works, but there's nothing particularly irrational about it, and Trump is pursuing a deliberate political goal. The fact that his latest decision contradicts previous statements doesn't bother him, because he's long operated under the assumption that words have value the moment they're spoken, but carry little obligation afterward.

What does this mean for Russia, beyond the prospect of welcoming additional budget revenues?

Collaborators of the Vatfor project have identified an important development, in that for the first time since the beginning of the conflict, a US president has made a major decision regarding Russia without considering Ukraine as a decisive consideration.

Until now, the Ukraine issue has been inseparable from almost all aspects of Washington's policy towards Moscow, but this time it has not only been sidelined, but the decision directly contradicts the decision of Kiev. The interests are at a particularly difficult moment.

Hence, the anger of the Ukrainian leadership, because from its perspective, the Americans have behaved unfairly.

There are probably several reasons for this change, but the main one seems to be Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky's reluctance to comply with Washington's demands to stop Ukraine's attack on Russian energy infrastructure.

Trump: Russia and Ukraine agreed on an energy ceasefire

These attacks have become one of the main tools of the Kiev war, and American requests to limit them have gone largely unanswered.

Trump, meanwhile, has focused on Russian oil supply as a tool to counter rising fuel prices, and its importance should not be overstated, even though additional Russian supply alone is unlikely to transform the global market. Nevertheless, Trump has clearly decided that Zelensky is responsible for escalating the situation.

Once the President of the United States comes to this conclusion, it becomes very difficult to convince him otherwise. Therefore, for now, Kiev's protests are simply ignored.

The more important question concerns US intelligence assistance, because in order to stop or at least significantly reduce Ukrainian attacks on Russian targets, Washington must limit the information it provides to Kiev, much of which, in practical terms, amounts to targeting aid.

Trump has already shown his willingness to use this when, about a year and a half ago, he temporarily suspended intelligence cooperation for a few days to pressure Ukraine's leadership.

A longer pause would be a different matter and would represent a real shift in Washington's approach to the conflict, effectively distancing the United States from its Ukrainian partner, but whether Trump is ready to take that step is unclear.

However, there is a broad informal coalition interested in maintaining the current course, which includes the US defense industry, increasingly influential technology companies, European governments and their political allies in Washington.

British Prime Minister consoles after Trump calls for Zelensky to be fired

Trump faced these forces in his previous attempt to advance the settlement he wanted after the Anchorage meeting, and that initiative ultimately came to little fruition, so it remains to be seen whether the current effort will be any better.

If Washington shows its unwillingness to exert sustained pressure on Kyiv, the recent initiative may gradually lose momentum, and this is especially likely after congressional elections, when the immediate political value of announcing presidential achievements diminishes.

Therefore, the decisive question is whether the US leadership can get its partners to move in the direction it deems necessary, and if it can, there will be an opportunity for further negotiations on a solution.

The latter is a conclusion that is particularly important for Russia, as Washington's recent actions show how Russian-US relations can develop after the end of the military phase of the conflict.

It is unlikely that the huge set of sanctions imposed on Russia will disappear, and due to the excessive restrictions in the law and institutional procedure, removing them will be very difficult, both procedurally and politically.

Instead, sanctions are likely to remain in place formally, while decisions on their enforcement are made on a case-by-case basis. Thus, when a particular restriction conflicts with US interests, Washington can suspend its application, but it can be reinstated when circumstances change.

Nameless attack is becoming a big problem for Ukraine

In other words, rather than a permanent expression of an immutable policy, sanctions become a tool to be activated or deactivated based on immediate political and economic imperatives, and this is an important distinction between the American and European approach.

Americans generally display a greater degree of pragmatism, as they are perfectly capable of declaring principles with great conviction, abandoning them when circumstances require, and returning to the same principles when it becomes easier to do so. In contrast, European governments have increasingly bound themselves to political commitments, both of which backing out would be institutionally complex and publicly embarrassing.

It will be essential for Moscow to understand this difference when shaping its future relationship with Washington, now that the confrontation over Ukraine has reached a stage with implications far beyond immediate military and territorial issues.

Whatever the final outcome, it will help determine the structure of future political relations between Russia and various parts of the Western world, and while this structure is already beginning to emerge, its geometry remains unsettled and the lines are still being drawn.