PNN – Tensions between Washington and Moscow have reached a peak as Trump’s deadline for Russia has been reduced from 50 days to 10. What scenarios are likely for both sides at the end of the deadline?
In recent weeks, important political developments have taken place in the international arena, with a significant shift in the positions of US President Donald Trump; a shift that has directly targeted Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin himself on the issue of Ukraine.
Trump, who had promised a 24-hour resolution to the Ukraine war, after 6 months in office and disappointment in the fulfillment of this election promise, recently attacked the Kremlin in an unprecedented tone and reduced the deadline he had previously set for peace, from 50 days, to 10 days. This harsh stance, accompanied by the threat of severe economic sanctions, immediately prompted conflicting reactions from Kiev and Moscow.
In Kiev, the decision was warmly welcomed, with Kiev officials seeing it as a sign of America’s seriousness in containing Russia and calling it “a defining moment on the path to ending the war.” In contrast, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, called Trump’s position “provocative and belligerent” and warned that such ultimatums could pave the way for entering “a dangerous path and direct confrontation with the United States.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also emphasized: Russia’s special military operations continue. Moscow remains committed to the peace process to resolve the war and ensure that Russia’s interests are safeguarded during the negotiations.
Read more:
Tensions escalate between Trump and Putin; Starmer speaks with US President.
Decoding Trump’s apparent pivot to Ukraine
Trump’s recent shift toward Ukraine is one of the most significant shifts in American foreign policy in recent weeks. Until recently, Trump had spoken with apparent reluctance about the conflicts in Eastern Europe and had repeatedly expressed his desire to reduce Washington’s commitments in the Ukraine case. Even on the sidelines of the Geneva meeting and other occasions, he mocked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s dressing style, and their meeting at the White House in front of the media turned into a fierce verbal argument.
But surprisingly, in recent weeks we have witnessed a complete turnaround in Trump’s tone and approach towards Russia. Not only did he call Putin “crazy,” he asked Zelensky if he was willing to bomb Moscow! He set a 50-day deadline to stop the war, and then, a few days ago, dissatisfied with the progress, reduced it to 10 days. This sudden turn of events, according to many analysts, is not the result of sympathy for Kiev, but rather the result of several strategic and expedient considerations within the White House.
First, Trump faces the challenge of rebuilding America’s global credibility in his second term. After years of distancing himself from European allies and increasing Russian influence in the East, he now needs to project a powerful and innovative image of himself in the geopolitical arena. Setting a deadline for peace, without entering the battlefield, is a way to demonstrate power, without direct military costs.
Second, a wave of dissatisfaction has formed within the US domestic space regarding the prolongation of the Ukrainian war, and part of Trump’s vote base also wants a quick end to the crisis; not out of a position of support for Kiev, but out of fatigue from the economic consequences of the war. By issuing the deadline, Trump is actually trying to show that he is the only one who can end this war; a slogan he has repeated before, but this time he has linked it to more tangible actions.
Finally, the influence of Trump’s personality and propaganda cannot be ignored. He has always tried to rewrite the narrative of crises in his favor. His entry into the Ukraine crisis with threatening language is more like a propaganda move than a principled approach. He wants to keep the peace initiative to himself, even if it never comes to fruition.
Trump’s scenarios for hitting Russia after the deadline expires
Given Trump’s announcement of a reduction in the peace deadline, the key question now is what options the White House will put on the table if tangible progress is not made in the Ukraine talks?
Contrary to initial perceptions of a direct military threat, the evidence suggests that Trump is not inclined to engage in direct war in his second term, although he has used military means to a limited extent. Instead, Trump intends to use heavy economic, diplomatic, and proxy military leverage to pressure Moscow.
The first and most likely tool is to impose secondary sanctions beyond the current framework. These sanctions would likely focus specifically on Russia’s oil and gas exports, where the Kremlin’s main sources of revenue still remain. Leaked drafts of US Treasury Department meetings show that the Trump administration intends to put any country, bank or intermediary company that cooperates in Russian energy exports on a secondary sanctions list.
The second important step is to expand pressure diplomacy and exclude Russia from international institutions or weaken its position in global forums. Possible scenarios include suspending Russia’s membership in the G20, restricting its access to IMF resources, or leading an anti-Kremlin political coalition. Although these measures are not military in nature, Trump intends to use these tools to purposefully undermine the international legitimacy of the Putin government.
Another important point is the media dimension of these actions. Trump understands well that the American public is tired of war and its costs. Therefore, he is considering a set of actions that will bring maximum media exposure and political power at a low cost. Phrases like “We gave them a chance, but they didn’t take it” or “We offered peace, but they chose war” are part of the scenario that Trump prepares to justify his next move.
Russia’s Possible Reactions: From a Show of Authority to a Retaliatory Response
Trump’s reduction of the deadline for ending the Ukraine war is the most direct warning to the Kremlin by an American president in the past decade. In such a situation, Russia’s reaction will not be an immediate and emotional response, but rather part of a multi-layered strategy to neutralize this ultimatum; a strategy whose signs can already be traced on the battlefield and diplomatic positions.
Until the deadline approaches, the Kremlin will likely avoid direct confrontation but will engage in carefully calculated displays of force. More targeted attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, large-scale exercises on the western border, symbolic threats against NATO weapons, and intensified military cooperation with Belarus and countries unfriendly to Washington are all part of this threat-containment tactic. At this stage, Moscow is trying to convince world public opinion that Trump’s ultimatum is not a solution to peace, but rather a spark for a new phase of tension, where the United States, instead of mediating, plays the role of instigator of the crisis.
But if the deadline expires and Trump takes action—especially if he implements the plan to equip Ukraine with weapons that can target deep inside Russia—the equation will change dramatically. In such a scenario, Russia will see confrontation not only as inevitable but also legitimate, not just on the Ukrainian front but in all areas where it could harm American interests. Massive retaliatory attacks against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, the operational threat to NATO bases in Eastern Europe, targeted cyber-warfare against the Western economy, and most importantly, the return of nuclear threat rhetoric—even if at the level of deterrence—are tools that the Kremlin will use to maintain its strategic deterrence.