Once again, those who underestimated the conflict in Ukraine and its global stakes—and by extension, underestimated the threat Russia poses to U.S. strategic objectives—have been thoroughly refuted in their rush to draw conclusions about Washington’s moves. First and foremost, the Western media were discredited after spending nearly three days (in early July) in a frenzy, sounding alarms that “the U.S. is halting arms deliveries to Ukraine” and “is preparing to withdraw”! Only to be shocked again upon discovering that Trump had gotten so angry with Putin that he “changed course”! Just like that!
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire
Of course, there’s no need to resort to idealism or personality analysis of Trump to make sense of this “total mess”! What it reflects are the retractions of certain centers within Washington, which themselves stem from the impasses faced by American imperialism in advancing its objectives in the Ukrainian conflict—impasses linked to divisions within the U.S. ruling class over how to respond to the central issue: its relative weakening in the face of its adversaries. These impasses and disagreements sometimes intersect with the biases of high-ranking officials and produce even tragicomic outcomes.
The decision to freeze the delivery of certain weapons to Ukraine—beyond the fact that it never amounted to a general freeze, as was initially reported—is now said to have been a unilateral move by Defense Secretary Pete Hesgeth, following advice from Elbridge Colby, without informing Secretary of State Mark Rubio, Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg, or even Trump himself! Regardless of what happened, the very mention (or leaked reports) of this decision triggered a “barrage of fire” from State Department officials, members of Congress, Pentagon circles, and the mainstream media, all of whom directed special criticism at Colby. That’s because Elbridge Colby, Deputy Defense Secretary for Policy and one of the architects of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, is seen (described by a Republican senator as “that guy”) by a large segment of the American establishment as overly one-sided in his analyses—overemphasizing the Chinese threat and failing to grasp the strategic importance of Europe. In fact, he is already being blamed for putting U.S. Indo-Pacific strategies at risk through the AUKUS revisions he has proposed. Naturally, Secretary Hesgeth is also indirectly under fire, as his March release of the Pentagon’s Interim National Defense Guidelines described China as “the only threat to the Department.”
The consequences of the conflict and its strategic stakes
Aside from the fact that—Meloni didn’t even need to say it publicly—arms shipments to the Kiev regime never actually stopped, it’s important to understand that the strategic apparatus of U.S. imperialism transcends individual biases and personal quirks, even when those involve high-ranking officials or the U.S. president himself. Their actions are grounded in evolving realities and the imperative to advance U.S. interests.
Within just a few days—and following some loud statements by Trump about how angry he is with Putin—there came the “reversal,” Trump-style of course. The new arms package is valued at $10 billion and includes up to 17 Patriot systems the U.S. will sell to NATO for delivery to Ukraine. Not only are the U.S. fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” they are now also fighting “to the last euro,” with their European allies on the front line.
It is hardly a coincidence, in our view, that during this phase of “ambiguity” about weapons transfers, American media resurfaced a lengthy RAND Corporation report—RAND being the think tank that has shaped U.S. policy since 1948—published in late 2024 on the war in Ukraine. Describing it as “the most destructive conflict in Europe since the 1940s,” with repercussions that “have echoed across the international system,” its first key finding states:
“Europe’s strategic orientation has shifted. The main effects of the Russian invasion have been to drive a wedge between European nations and Russia (and to some extent, China), while deepening cooperation between the United States and its European allies. If sustained, these effects would likely be the most enduring strategic cost Russia will pay for the war”
Trump’s militarist “shift” and the prolongation of deadlocks
The Trump administration, alongside their announcements of generous new arms deliveries to Kiev, made two contradictory moves—moves that simultaneously reflect the severe impasses they face in the Ukrainian conflict and its global stakes, as well as the adventurist tactics they may resort to in attempting to overcome those impasses.
First, they issued a “50-day ultimatum” to Russia to end the war—failing which they would impose 100% tariffs on products from Russia and its trading partners. The deadline, imposed under pressure and at a moment when, as we will see below, European imperialists are raising the prospect of sending troops to Ukrainian soil, represents an attempt to alter the terms of the war or engineer a compromise that would allow the U.S. and the West to reverse the course of a conflict that is not going well for Kiev—nor for themselves.
Regarding the tariffs, the scope—as confirmed by NATO’s Secretary-General after his meeting with Trump—extends to China, India, and Brazil. This aligns with Trump’s statements about the “anti-American policies of the BRICS,” whom he accuses of seeking to “disrupt the global trade balance at America’s expense.” The real aim—perhaps even more than pressuring Russia—is to change the stance of these other powers towards Moscow. Realistically speaking, India and Brazil are seen as more susceptible to pressure. With Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi informing the EU’s chief diplomat that Beijing cannot accept a Russian defeat in Ukraine, it seems unlikely that China will bow to U.S. blackmail. After all, it didn’t bend recently, when it successfully resisted American tariff threats. That said, if and when the tariff threat becomes reality, it remains unclear whether it will, for example, help win over India—or push it further away from the U.S.
Meanwhile, we also had—not once, but twice—statements about bombing Moscow! One allegedly stems from a pre-election Trump–Putin conversation (denied by the Russian side), and the other from a Trump–Zelensky call, in which, according to “leaks,” Trump asked if they could strike Moscow and St. Petersburg, and Zelensky reportedly replied: “If you give us the weapons, then yes, we can!” Clearly, these leaks—whether from actual or fabricated conversations—are intended to intimidate the other side into accepting a compromise favorable to the U.S. At the same time, they expose the extent of the adventurism being contemplated by Washington in its efforts to avoid “losing” this conflict.
To all this, Russia responded calmly, stating that it does not accept ultimatums and that it will take Trump’s statements into account and assess them in time.
Imperialist Diplomacy and War: Two Sides of the Same Coin
It was “revealed” that Trump’s anger and his aggressive rhetoric followed a July 4 phone call with Putin, during which the Russian president is said to have declared that Russia “will be finished with Ukraine in two months.” Regardless of whether those exact words were spoken, the message echoes earlier statements by Lavrov and Peskov. The former had publicly stated: “The war in Ukraine cannot end diplomatically unless our interests are secured,” and the latter added: “We would prefer to do this through diplomacy. But as long as that seems impossible, we will continue the special military operation”.
What does all this show us? That just as American imperialism cannot conceive of being defeated in this conflict, neither can Russian imperialism entertain the possibility of losing. Under these conditions, we will continue to see a spiral of escalation—into ever more dangerous and explosive deadlocks. Thus, even as we enter a new escalation, some sort of compromise is being sought in its margins—and yet, as soon as a fragile or temporary compromise seems within reach, it is blown apart, sending us headlong into the next escalation.
If one considers that the Trump–Putin phone call took place on July 4—precisely when the Western media were panicking about “the beginning of the U.S. withdrawal from Ukraine and Europe”—this also serves as a free “lesson” for all of us standing on the other side of the capitalist–imperialist system: even in the most contradictory and volatile moments, what matters are the concrete facts, the concrete analysis of the concrete situation, the actual deeds and movements of each player.
The U.S. and the West on a War Footing
In this context, it is significant that the U.S. and NATO are further upgrading their use of Alexandroupoli. Even more revealing is the preparation—according to the Financial Times—of Europe’s largest port, the Dutch port of Rotterdam (in close cooperation with the Belgian port of Antwerp), for the possible arrival of British, American, and Canadian military vehicles and the transport of war materiel. The plans include “the possibility of a conflict with Russia, allocating space for military ships and drawing up contingency plans to reroute commercial cargo in case of war.” It also matters that Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states (Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia)—all of which share borders with Russia—have launched a coordinated military buildup, including withdrawal from international treaties, the laying of mines, construction of fortifications, and large-scale arms purchases. At the same time, led by NATO, they are seeking to turn the Baltic Sea into a NATO-controlled zone—what Moscow calls “a zone of acute military confrontation,” warning that this constitutes an extremely dangerous situation.
Equally important is the fact that European imperialists—after having capitulated to the strategic blackmail of the U.S.—have for some time now been moving in a distinctly anti-Russian direction, vying for a role and a place within the Western alliance at a moment of severe crisis for second- and third-tier imperialist powers. Even when they attempt to differentiate themselves, they quickly fall back in line. An illustrative example is how little time it took for Macron—who had seemed ready to reopen a channel of dialogue with Moscow, however hesitantly—to return to the trenches. And it’s not just his statements that “Russia is a dangerous country and a major threat to Europe,” or that “Europeans will remain in Ukraine forever.” It’s also the joint reintroduction—by Macron and UK Prime Minister Starmer—of the Franco-British plan to: a) send 50,000 troops to Ukraine (Russian Foreign Intelligence puts the number at 100,000), and b) deploy warplanes to patrol Ukrainian airspace. This is a plan Russia has categorically rejected, with Lavrov declaring that “there is no possibility of compromise on this matter.” On the German front, Merz has quintupled the rearmament budget of German imperialism compared to Scholz’s 100-billion-euro decision (which remains largely unimplemented). He maintains that “the diplomatic means to resolve the Ukrainian conflict have been exhausted” and is preparing to sign an agreement with the UK that includes a mutual military assistance clause in case of a “strategic threat.” In this climate, Germany’s defense minister provocatively declared that “German troops would be ready to kill Russian soldiers in the event of a Moscow attack on a NATO member state”!
The Battlefield and Russian Movements
Throughout this period, Russian forces have been advancing in all key directions, creating “security zones,” while Russia’s Aerospace Forces have been striking almost daily—and with considerable intensity—temporary deployment points of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and foreign mercenaries, as well as numerous critical facilities and infrastructure belonging to Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, its air defenses, and its airfields. At the same time, according to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, Moscow is awaiting Kiev’s proposals for a third round of negotiations.
It’s not that the prolonged war isn’t costly for Moscow—there is steady attrition, and the problems caused by Western sanctions are real, even if Russia has thus far managed to absorb them at the lowest possible cost. Nor is it ignoring the strategic consequences of the deep rupture in Euro-Russian relations. But the war in Ukraine concerns its very identity as an imperialist power—and through this war, it openly challenges American and Western primacy, even on the battlefield. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it after attending the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro: “The West has long claimed more positions than it deserves, based on the real balance of power and the correlation of forces in the international arena.”
Therefore, without forgoing necessary tactical maneuvers, Russia remains firmly aligned with the core strategic directions it set with its invasion of Ukraine. And it shows no willingness to enter into a compromise that would require it to abandon any of those goals —though it does not rule out negotiations, both tactically and in substance. In fact, according to Lavrov again, it is bringing to the table—from a position of strength, we might say—“a new and different approach” to the Ukrainian issue, the details of which have yet to be disclosed. In any case, the Russian leadership believes that time is on its side—both on the battlefield and because it anticipates that existing rifts within the Western bloc will widen as the war continues and escalates. As Lavrov noted: “There are deeper disagreements—a form of quiet mutiny is brewing on board—as more and more countries want to be guided not by imposed ideological directives from the owner, but by their own national interests.”
In Conclusion
We are entering an even more dangerous phase of escalation in this unjust war, with a renewed extension of explosive deadlocks for the U.S. and the West. The search for a compromise remains a faint prospect — on a horizon that does not exclude adventurism of every kind.