From Izvestia, July 11, 2025, p. 3. Complete text:
Russia and the US are continuing their dialogue at the interdepartmental level. On the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur on July 10, negotiations were held between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This is their second meeting this year: The first took place in February in Riyadh. Commenting on the results of the conversation, Rubio commented that, although issues unrelated to Ukraine were discussed, the resolution of the armed conflict was the number one topic. The secretary of state emphasized that Donald Trump is “disappointed and frustrated that there’s not been more flexibility on the Russian side.” However, this is not the only time the Americans’ rhetoric has been pointedly critical of Russia recently.
The day before, the American television channel CNN published audio recordings from 2024 that were allegedly made during Donald Trump’s election campaign. They portray Trump recounting to his donors conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in which he threatened to “bomb [the hell out of] Moscow and Beijing.”
On the evening of July 3, a sixth telephone conversation took place between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. The US president later said he was unhappy with the way it had gone and that it was not leading to concrete decisions on Ukraine. Recently, information also appeared that Trump is unhappy with the suspension of arms supplies to the UAF by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump said on July 8 that he would resume deliveries of defensive weapons to Kiev.
He also did not rule out considering a Senate bill to impose additional sanctions against Russia. This tangle of events has one common context: Trump’s current position on the situation in Ukraine.
We can begin to sort out this tangle with the most relevant event at the moment – the publication of audio recordings of Trump’s conversations with his donors. Yes, the statement there sounds loud and menacing, yet there are some “buts.” First, the recording must be taken with a grain of salt, since it was a meeting with donors, and during it Trump clearly needed to show himself to be a leader capable of speaking from a position of strength to competitors in the international arena.
This is exactly how the Kremlin treated this report. For instance, Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov stated, “We don’t know whether this is fake or not. There are a lot of fakes – more than true information.” Secondly, the news is not such a sensation if we look at the publication of the American newspaper The Washington Post from May 2024, where information about these statements by Trump was published (at that time, however, the audio recordings were not released). This could also be seen as entering data in Trump’s asset column during the election campaign. But it is worth keeping in mind that the publication of these recordings, even if they are fabricated, appeared precisely now, when the US president’s attitude toward the conflict in Ukraine is clearly beginning to change.
This change was expected. Initially, several options for Trump’s behavior within the conflict were considered. The first would have been to force the parties to reach a truce and an agreement on the results of the conflict. The second would have been, in the event of an understanding of the impossibility of achieving reconciliation between the parties in a relatively short time, to distance himself from the crisis. The third option would have been to continue the political line of the previous [US president Joe] Biden administration.
Now we can say that Trump is beginning to distance himself from resolving the conflict. This is demonstrated by the resumption of arms supplies to Kiev, limited and defensive for now, and the public expression of dissatisfaction with the negotiation process between Russia and Ukraine. At the same time, Trump is not yet pushing for support for Kiev or more aggressive rhetoric toward Moscow, as he plans to maintain his role as a mediator between the parties.
Meanwhile, the US president is speaking increasingly loudly and frequently about his readiness to introduce additional anti-Russian sanctions. This threat, in his (and most likely the entire administration’s) opinion, should encourage Moscow to more actively develop the negotiation process with Kiev, since the restrictions will imply that the US will impose import duties in the amount of 500% on goods imported from those countries that purchase oil, oil products, natural gas and uranium from Russia. However, there are a few caveats here. The senators are not ready to pass the bill without the approval of the US president. Also, the imposition of sanctions, according to European Commission [President] Ursula von der Leyen, requires coordinated actions with the EU. Furthermore, Trump himself admitted in June that US [tariff] measures are damaging Washington.
Taken together, these events signal the American president’s readiness to distance himself somewhat from the situation around Ukraine. In that case, Washington will continue to support it, but not at the same level as it did under the Biden administration. At the same time, Trump will need to save face and prevent his own “Afghanistan,” as happened with his predecessor [see Vol. 73, No. 33‑34, pp. 3‑7]. At the same time, the US president will not exert increased pressure on Moscow, since he will focus on other issues of American policy. He and his administration have repeatedly called Asia the US’s highest priority.
Ultimately, it cannot be said that Trump has taken an unequivocally anti-Russian position in recent days. Threats against Moscow are necessary to maintain the image of a strong leader both within the country and abroad, and to attempt to advance the negotiation process between Russia and Ukraine. However, Trump is now beginning to show signs of fatigue or a loss of interest in a process that he cannot resolve quickly.