
Why Putin thinks Trump's Russia tariffs are a bluff
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, never one to miss an opportunity for diplomatic sarcasm, openly sneered at Trump's intervention on Tuesday. 'We want to understand what exactly is behind this statement. Fifty days. It used to be 24 hours, and then it became 100 days. Russia has gone through all this and now wants to understand what the US president's motives are,' he said.
Russian officials have pledged to continue 'achieving the aims of the special military operation – the Kremlin's Orwellian euphemism for what the rest of us call the invasion of Ukraine. Putin himself has yet to comment, but then again, he's never been one to appreciate being lectured by anyone, least of all an American president. 'If and when President Putin considers it necessary, he will certainly respond,' Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. This defiance might appear to be typical Russian bravado, but a closer examination suggests Moscow's confidence may be rather more calculated than theatrical.
Trump's volte-face has been spectacular. After months of courting Putin and pressuring Ukraine to accept what amounted to capitulation, the President abruptly changed course on Monday. Fed up with Putin's intransigence, Trump promised to resume arms supplies to Ukraine and threatened to impose 100 per cent import tariffs on goods from any country trading with Russia.
On paper, this threat is enormous. Russian oil exports, the lifeblood of Putin's war machine, would be in the crosshairs. Such sanctions could deprive Moscow's already strained budget of roughly a quarter of its revenues and remove five million barrels per day from global markets. Yet oil prices barely flinched. The markets, it seems, share Moscow's scepticism – and with good reason.
The fundamental problem is that neither the Kremlin nor the stock market's trading desks appear to understand how these tariffs would actually work. This is hardly surprising, given that the idea seems to have been conceived more as a political gesture than a practical policy.
Trump's track record with deadlines provides little comfort for those hoping he'll follow through. He has previously presented Putin with ultimatums that proved to be more bluster than bite, while simultaneously bombing Iran, but only after issuing warnings shortly beforehand. In March, he signed an executive order imposing 25 per cent tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil – tariffs that have yet to materialise.
The fifty-day deadline itself presents Putin with both opportunity and incentive. It's sufficient time to pursue his summer offensive – the most successful, if costliest, since 2023. Rather than seeking immediate peace, Putin might well decide to go all in, intensifying his bombardment of Ukrainian cities while gnawing at Ukrainian defences. By September, he could be better positioned to offer a ceasefire from a position of strength, or perhaps to persuade his American counterpart that he needs just a little more time to complete his objectives.
Should Trump's tariffs actually materialise, they would devastate America's relationships with some rather important countries. China, India, and Turkey – Russia's primary oil customers – would face prohibitive trade barriers. The notion that America could simply cease trading with China, which is what the 100 per cent tariffs would result in, defies economic reality, as it became clear in the wake of Trump's trade war earlier this year. Similarly, alienating India at a time when Washington needs Delhi's support against Beijing seems strategically myopic. The issue of Turkey would also present an absurd scenario: sanctioning a Nato ally whose cooperation is essential for American interests in Syria and the Caucasus.
Perhaps most tellingly, removing five million barrels of Russian oil from global markets would trigger precisely the kind of price surge that Trump has spent years promising to avoid. With no spare production capacity to replace Russian crude in the short to medium term, American motorists would face soaring fuel costs just as inflation begins to bite harder. For a president who campaigned on economic competence, this would look like a self-damaging strategy.
Ironically, Trump's threat has already delivered Putin an unexpected gift: it has effectively neutered congressional efforts to impose more serious sanctions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced on Monday that he would postpone advancing a bipartisan sanctions package that boasted 85 Senate co-sponsors.
The senators' bill would have imposed even more severe, but equally prohibitive, tariffs – 500 per cent rather than 100 per cent. More importantly, though, it would have codified existing sanctions within a congressional framework, preventing future presidents from simply lifting them by declining to extend emergency powers. The bill also included provisions to exclude countries supporting Ukraine from the sanctions, potentially redirecting Russian oil flows and forcing Moscow to sell below the agreed price cap.
Instead, the Senate has put the legislation on ice and seems unlikely to revisit it soon. Putin could hardly have asked for a better outcome.
As theatre director Konstantin Stanislavsky once famously told his unconvincing actors, 'I don't believe you.' The markets appear to share this assessment. Trump's tariffs threat represents a change in rhetoric rather than substance.
Moscow's mockery, therefore, may be justified. Putin has called Trump's bluff before and emerged victorious. With economic reality, political constraints, and America's own strategic interests all working in his favour, the Russian president may well have calculated that he can afford to laugh at yet another American ultimatum.
The question isn't whether Putin will blink – it's whether Trump's threats will prove any more substantial than his previous deadlines. Moscow's confidence suggests they know the answer.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
Macro Matters: Trump-controlled Fed would 'hurt the economy'
President Trump's attacks on the Fed's independence are escalating, and are spurred by his desire to dramatically lower benchmark interest rates. Gregory Daco from EY Parthenon told Reuters if monetary policy were to ease significantly it would risk 'inflation de-anchoring to the upside' and be a big hit to consumers and businesses.


North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Japanese PM's coalition loses majority in upper house election
Mr Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner Komeito needed to win 50 seats on top of the 75 seats they already had to reach the goal. With just one more seat to be decided, the coalition had 47 seats. The loss is another blow to Mr Ishiba's coalition, making it a minority in both houses following its October defeat in the lower house election, and worsening Japan's political instability. It was the first time the LDP had lost a majority in both houses of parliament since the party's foundation in 1955. Despite the loss, Mr Ishiba expressed determination to stay on to tackle challenges such as US tariff threats, but he could face calls from within his party to step down or find another coalition partner. 'I will fulfil my responsibility as head of the number one party and work for the country,' he said. Mr Ishiba had set the bar low, wanting a simple majority of 125 seats, which meant his LDP and its Buddhist-backed junior coalition partner Komeito needed to win 50 to add to the 75 seats they already had. Exit poll results released seconds after the ballots closed on Sunday night mostly showed a major setback for Mr Ishiba's coalition. The LDP alone won 39 seats, better than most exit poll projections of 32, and still the number one party in the parliament, known as the Diet. 'It's a tough situation. I take it humbly and sincerely,' Mr Ishiba told a live interview with NHK. He said the poor showing was because his government's measures to combat price increases had yet to reach many people. The poor performance in the election will not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file a no-confidence motion against a leader, but it will certainly deepen uncertainty over his fate and Japan's political stability. Mr Ishiba could face calls from within the LDP party to step down or find another coalition partner. Soaring prices, lagging incomes and burdensome social security payments are the top issues for frustrated, cash-strapped voters. Stricter measures targeting foreign residents and visitors also emerged as a key issue, with a surging right-wing populist party leading the campaign. Sunday's vote comes after Mr Ishiba's coalition lost a majority in the October lower house election, stung by past corruption scandals, and his government has since been forced into making concessions to the opposition to get legislation through parliament. It has been unable to quickly deliver effective measures to mitigate rising prices, including Japan's traditional staple of rice, and dwindling wages. US president Donald Trump has added to the pressure, complaining about a lack of progress in trade negotiations and the lack of sales of US vehicles and American-grown rice to Japan despite a shortfall in domestic stocks of the grain. A 25% tariff due to take effect on August 1 has been another blow for Mr Ishiba. Mr Ishiba resisted any compromise before the election, but the prospect for a breakthrough after the election is just as unclear because the minority government would have difficulty forming a consensus with the opposition. Frustrated voters were rapidly turning to emerging populist parties. But the eight main opposition groups were too fractured to forge a common platform as a united front and gain voter support as a viable alternative.


South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Japanese PM's coalition loses majority in upper house election
Mr Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party and its junior coalition partner Komeito needed to win 50 seats on top of the 75 seats they already had to reach the goal. With just one more seat to be decided, the coalition had 47 seats. The loss is another blow to Mr Ishiba's coalition, making it a minority in both houses following its October defeat in the lower house election, and worsening Japan's political instability. It was the first time the LDP had lost a majority in both houses of parliament since the party's foundation in 1955. Despite the loss, Mr Ishiba expressed determination to stay on to tackle challenges such as US tariff threats, but he could face calls from within his party to step down or find another coalition partner. 'I will fulfil my responsibility as head of the number one party and work for the country,' he said. Mr Ishiba had set the bar low, wanting a simple majority of 125 seats, which meant his LDP and its Buddhist-backed junior coalition partner Komeito needed to win 50 to add to the 75 seats they already had. Exit poll results released seconds after the ballots closed on Sunday night mostly showed a major setback for Mr Ishiba's coalition. The LDP alone won 39 seats, better than most exit poll projections of 32, and still the number one party in the parliament, known as the Diet. 'It's a tough situation. I take it humbly and sincerely,' Mr Ishiba told a live interview with NHK. He said the poor showing was because his government's measures to combat price increases had yet to reach many people. The poor performance in the election will not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file a no-confidence motion against a leader, but it will certainly deepen uncertainty over his fate and Japan's political stability. Mr Ishiba could face calls from within the LDP party to step down or find another coalition partner. Soaring prices, lagging incomes and burdensome social security payments are the top issues for frustrated, cash-strapped voters. Stricter measures targeting foreign residents and visitors also emerged as a key issue, with a surging right-wing populist party leading the campaign. Sunday's vote comes after Mr Ishiba's coalition lost a majority in the October lower house election, stung by past corruption scandals, and his government has since been forced into making concessions to the opposition to get legislation through parliament. It has been unable to quickly deliver effective measures to mitigate rising prices, including Japan's traditional staple of rice, and dwindling wages. US president Donald Trump has added to the pressure, complaining about a lack of progress in trade negotiations and the lack of sales of US vehicles and American-grown rice to Japan despite a shortfall in domestic stocks of the grain. A 25% tariff due to take effect on August 1 has been another blow for Mr Ishiba. Mr Ishiba resisted any compromise before the election, but the prospect for a breakthrough after the election is just as unclear because the minority government would have difficulty forming a consensus with the opposition. Frustrated voters were rapidly turning to emerging populist parties. But the eight main opposition groups were too fractured to forge a common platform as a united front and gain voter support as a viable alternative.