Atlantic Solitaire: why Trump threatens to shorten the deadline for an ultimatum to Russia

London expects to convince Washington to accelerate the supply of weapons to Kiev, including Patriot complexes, as well as to achieve the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles, experts interviewed by Izvestia believe. At the same time, the United States' ability to quickly send new air defense systems to Ukraine is significantly limited by logistics and a shortage of supplies. Against this background, Donald Trump threatened to shorten the time allotted to them earlier to reach peace agreements between Moscow and Kiev. At a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland, he said that the 50-day ultimatum could be reduced to 10-12. The Russian Federation takes such threats into account, but it proceeds from national interests.

Trump's Ultimatum 2.0

At a meeting with Keir Starmer on July 28, Donald Trump announced his intention to shorten the deadline he had set earlier — 50 days — to reach agreements on the Ukrainian settlement. The American president said that he treats Russia with love and would not like to resort to restrictions. But, according to him, the window for concluding a peace agreement can be compressed to 10-12 days. Thus, Washington is increasing pressure on Moscow, reinforcing the ultimatum with threats to impose one hundred percent tariffs on all imports from the Russian Federation, as well as secondary sanctions against countries that continue to purchase Russian oil and gas.

However, in Moscow, Trump's statements were received with restraint. Bogdan Bezpalko, a member of the Council on Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation, told Izvestia that such signals have not caused a stir in Russia for a long time.

— Moscow treats this calmly, the ultimatum itself was not taken seriously, either with a period of 50 days or 10-12. We are already used to such statements and do not accept them. This ultimatum does not add anything fundamentally new, it is designed either for a domestic American audience or for European politicians who perceive any anti—Russian actions with a bang," the expert explained.

According to him, Moscow could theoretically consider diplomatic or economic measures in response, but the imposition of such harsh sanctions alone would lead to negative consequences, primarily for the United States.

— One hundred percent tariffs are, in fact, the destruction of logistics and the global economy. There will be no need to introduce any special measures in response: the chain reaction will begin automatically and will primarily affect the Americans themselves," Bezpalko stressed.

Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the Federation Council's International Affairs Committee, noted that Trump's ultimatum was groundless.

— For some reason, Mr. Trump believes that he is an arbitrator and can issue ultimatums. But the fact is that ultimatums are usually presented to the losing side, which Russia is not. On the contrary, we are winning in a special military operation. Our position is a winning one. And why on earth should we immediately cease fire to satisfy Ukraine and its allies? — he asked a question in an interview with Izvestia.

According to him, Moscow does not intend to succumb to pressure, and the threat of new economic measures, including the imposition of secondary sanctions, is more likely to hit the United States itself.

— We will overcome both these new sanctions and the tariffs that Trump is threatening. Of course, he understands that his country will suffer no less than others. The imposition of secondary sanctions against countries such as China and India will cause enormous damage to the American economy. None of these countries will agree to buy oil and gas more expensive than from Russia," Jabarov said.

He also noted that the UK continues to "intrigue and draw the Americans into its combinations," but Russia will continue to go its own way. On his social media page, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev also commented on Trump's threats. According to him, ultimatums addressed to Moscow only bring the war closer — in this case, potentially "a war with one's own country."

Earlier, the head of the Federation Council's International Affairs committee, Grigory Karasin, told Izvestia that Moscow would take note of the ultimatum, but would proceed solely from national interests.

Trump and Starmer meeting

According to press reports, Starmer intended at the meeting to convince Trump to accelerate the implementation of the already agreed arms supply scheme to Ukraine through European allies. First of all, we are talking about Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems, which, according to Trump himself, Ukraine "urgently needs."

As previously reported, NATO countries have agreed on a mechanism under which the United States supplies weapons to its European partners, who, in turn, transfer them to the Ukrainian side. However, despite the loud statements, the promised Patriot has not yet been shipped. The situation is particularly acute in Germany, where, according to one Western diplomat, they are still waiting for activity from the American side, writes Politico magazine.

Berlin is extremely annoyed that the White House continues to refuse to transfer at least some of the more than 60 Patriot complexes at the disposal of the United States. Despite extensive lobbying, Trump, according to media reports, is "deaf to the arguments of the allies."

According to Tigran Meloyan, an analyst at the HSE Center for Mediterranean Studies, the issue of supplying American weapons to Ukraine is certainly among the topics being discussed between London and Washington. However, the key factor remains the scheme in which European allies purchase weapons from the United States and then transfer them to Kiev.

"This approach fits into the logic of Trump's previous statements," the expert said in an interview with Izvestia. — If NATO wants assistance to Ukraine to continue, it must be paid from the European pocket.

Patriot and ATACMS supplies to Ukraine

At the same time, the ability of the United States to quickly transfer new Patriot complexes to Ukraine is significantly limited, both in terms of logistics and due to small reserves, said Alexei Podberezkin, director of the MGIMO Center for Military and Political Studies.

"This is exactly the case when everything is quite transparent: the United States has only about 17 of its Patriot batteries, and the production of new ones is extremely slow — a maximum of one or two complexes per year," the expert explained to Izvestia. — Japan produces them under license. The rest of the partners do not release the system, and no one has ever bought them in reserve: it is an expensive pleasure. One complex can cost up to $2 billion, not counting missiles.

According to him, the Americans will follow the path of purchasing existing complexes from allies who are part of the anti-Russian coalition. However, this path is fraught with serious difficulties.

— Even if Germany conditionally gives up its three batteries, it will be extremely difficult to assemble two or three more installations. In addition, they will not be delivered immediately: each complex requires technical training and operator training," Podberezkin stressed. — This is not a box that can be simply loaded onto an airplane.

Alternatively, London may raise the issue of buying other types of weapons from the United States, such as high-precision long-range missiles such as the ATACMS army missiles.

— The UK does not have such missiles, but the United States has them, and quite a lot of them have been produced: according to the first generation, we are talking about about a thousand units. London can buy back these munitions and transfer them to Ukraine," the expert added.

At the same time, according to Meloyan, Britain is likely to focus not only on anti-aircraft missile systems.

"The main focus is shifting to Patriot air defense systems, radar systems, artillery, UAV interception and electronic jamming systems," he said.

Discussion of the Gas situation and tariff deals

There were also economic topics. One of the priorities for London was the discussion of US duties on British steel. Currently, products from the United Kingdom are subject to a 25% rate, although the global rate introduced by Trump is 50%. During the visit, the transition to a quota system was discussed, which will allow British exporters to avoid even these 25%.

According to the White House, the discussion concerns "clarifying the terms of a historic trade deal" presented by Trump on May 8. At that time, it was about reducing duties on cars and aerospace products, but the issue of steel remained in limbo.

On July 27, Donald Trump and the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, reached a trade deal, according to which duty rates of 15% will now apply to almost all exports from the EU to the United States. In addition, the European Union has committed to purchase LNG, nuclear fuel and weapons from the United States.

Former Italian Deputy Minister of Economic Development Michele Geraci, in an interview with Izvestia, harshly criticized the agreements reached, saying that this was not an equal deal, but a set of unilateral conditions dictated by Washington.

"This is not an agreement, but a list of demands that the United States imposes on the European Union," Geraci said. — Higher import duties, up to 15% on most goods, and even up to 50% on steel. Then the European Union is forced to buy gas from the United States at a higher price than it could buy from Russia. This creates jobs in America, but destroys them in Europe.

Special attention was paid to the situation in the Gaza Strip during the negotiations. The parties discussed possible measures to provide humanitarian assistance. On the eve of his visit to Scotland, Keir Starmer found himself under increasing pressure not only from the opposition, but also from his own colleagues.

According to the British press, Starmer earlier recalled ministers from parliamentary recess for an extraordinary cabinet meeting amid growing calls for recognition of Palestine as an independent state, following the example of Spain, Ireland and Norway. By the way, on July 24, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that the Fifth Republic would officially recognize Palestine at a meeting of the UN General Assembly in September.

Despite his repeated criticism of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, which Starmer previously called "unacceptable," he has so far refused to accept recognition of Palestinian statehood. London says this step is possible only within the framework of a comprehensive peace process, and it requires "the right time."

However, within the Labor Party, many consider such caution dictated by foreign policy calculations. According to senior party sources in the Financial Times, Starmer is deliberately delaying recognition in order to maintain political synchronicity with the United States and not complicate the dialogue with the Trump administration.