• Politics
• United States
• Russia

August 4, 2025, 5:22 PM View Comments ()

U.S. President Donald Trump has given Russian President Vladimir Putin a very clear ultimatum: agree to a cease-fire in Ukraine by Aug. 8 or face harsher economic sanctions—including “secondary tariffs” of up to 100 percent for foreign buyers of Russian oil.

But since Trump’s statement, there has been little sign from the Kremlin of anything resembling meaningful movement toward ending the war. Whether the Russians are bombing prisoners or civilians queuing for humanitarian aid, Putin’s war on Ukraine is as deadly as ever.

Since Trump came to power in January, the conflict has expanded, with Russia now using Shahed drones to strike parts of the country that were previously largely untouched by the war.

With a deadline set and the war still raging, talk among Western security officials has turned to what happens if Trump backs down.

“Targeting foreign buyers [of Russian oil] is the right thing to do, but there are loads of reasons Trump wouldn’t want to do it,” said a senior NATO source, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “It could harm his trade talks with China; it could cause an oil price spike that pushes up costs on Americans. It’s the right thing to do, but you can’t do it scot-free.”

Critics of Trump point to his tendency to chicken out, especially with Putin. “This is not the first ultimatum he’s given Putin, and each time, there’s been some kind of equivocation, so I wouldn’t put too much weight on it,” said Bill Browder, an American financier and prominent Putin critic, referencing previous attempts to broker peace talks between Russia and Ukraine that Putin didn’t attend.

With Aug. 8 close and no sign of Russia pulling back from the war, officials and experts are already considering what might happen if Trump does equivocate once again when push comes to shove.

“If he does nothing, then Putin gets the green light to continue executing this war exactly as he is already with his maximum objectives unchanged,” Browder said. “That means sticking to his belief that the West will eventually tire and he can win by attrition. It doesn’t matter how many troops he loses in the process because his position in not under threat.”

Browder and others whom I spoke to pointed out that how Putin acts when a U.S. president sets ultimatums and then fails to follow through is a known factor. In 2013, then-President Barack Obama failed to follow through on his “red line” promise in Syria—and Putin escalated in response.

Obama said in 2012 that if then-Syrian dictator and Putin ally Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on citizens, then the United States would have no choice but to intervene, most likely with airstrikes to support local rebel groups attempting to overthrow Assad.

When the United States ultimately took no action following reports of chemical attacks in the ensuing years, Putin saw an opportunity and used Russia’s military might to pulverize Syria’s opponents. It crushed Assad’s opposition and created a power vacuum that was gleefully filled by extremist groups, including the Islamic State.

Broderick McDonald, a researcher at Oxford University who has done detailed field work in Syria, said that Obama’s decision not only turned the tide in Syria but also had wider implications in geopolitics.

“Obama had talked about airstrikes with European allies who supported this action. When he backed down, it had a knock-on effect, deprioritizing Syria in favor of avoiding escalation,” he said. “European allies downgraded Syria and left the door wide open for Putin to stamp his authority on the country and in the wider region.”

Much has been written by experts and journalists about how Putin used Syria as a testing ground for weapons and tactics that have since been used in Ukraine. Destroying civilian infrastructure, carpet-bombing cities and weaponizing safe routes out of conflict zones are tactics that have been used in both Syria and Ukraine.

These tactics are not simply about defeating the Ukrainian army, but also about demoralizing the population and creating the impression for Western backers that Ukraine is about to fall, making those backers believe that giving Putin a deal on his terms is inevitable.

“Political warfare is just as important, especially as they can’t defeat Ukraine as they imagined,” said a Ukrainian security source who spoke on condition of anonymity. “And of course, to push the impression that Russia is undefeatable.”

Trump has moved considerably from his initial favoritism of Russia since first taking office. He has clearly run out of patience with Putin and is seemingly happy with a setup where Ukraine gets high-level U.S.-made weaponry that European NATO allies pay for. But even the U.S. president’s recent criticisms have not stopped Putin from bombarding Ukraine.

With all eyes now on Aug. 8, there is a deep skepticism among Ukrainian experts that Trump will sufficiently punish Russia in a way that delivers a short cease-fire. Worse, many in the country fear that Trump’s rhetoric could inspire Putin to escalate further.

“Every time Trump chickens out, they bomb more civilians—the mass Shahed [drone] raids started after his weak responses,” said the Ukrainian source.

Michael Bociurkiw, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who is based in southern Ukraine, said, “I find it hard to believe Trump will punish Putin with full force. I can’t see him punishing China or India with 100 percent secondary tariffs for buying Russian oil. If he does chicken out, it turns a red line into a blurred or dotted line that Putin needn’t take seriously.” Bociurkiw added, “Unfortunately, I think that means Putin will continue to pound Ukraine with drones and missiles while making more gains on the front line.”

By giving a firm deadline, Trump has drawn a line in the sand. If, on Aug. 8, he actually tells Putin that enough is enough and surprises the world with not just more economic sanctions but also even greater military support for Ukraine, then the line might mean something. If Trump chickens out and equivocates again, then he’s telling Putin, as Obama did in 2013, that he can do whatever he wants with no repercussions.