The deadline Donald Trump set for Vladimir Putin to reach an agreement on ending the Russian Ukrainian war remains one of the most talked about topics arising from the American president’s latest statements. And indeed—why exactly 50 days rather than 20 or 7?
Some believe that, in this way, Trump is giving Putin the opportunity to seize even more Ukrainian territory. Yet it is quite clear that, given the pace of the Russian army’s advance in recent years, 50 days is insufficient even to reach the administrative borders of the annexed regions of Ukraine.
Others link the 50 days to the ultimatum Trump once presented to Iran. Back then the period was 60 days, and few believed anything serious would happen once the deadline passed. But on the 61st day a 12 day Israeli Iranian war began, during which the United States struck the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. This may have served as a signal: the period looks long, but after it expires Trump might act more decisively than before the ultimatum.
In reality, the deadline may have a much more prosaic explanation: it is tied to the fact that Trump must decide on a further tactic in the Russian Ukrainian war. It is obvious that he wants to end the war—at least at the level of a cease fire—and to do so without new decisions, above all financial ones. His strategic task, therefore, is to persuade Putin to cease fire before the aid package approved by Congress during Joe Biden’s presidency runs out. Only a few billion dollars remain from that package, and they will likely be spent over the next 50 days.
Had Putin agreed to a cease fire, Trump could have avoided approving new military aid, instead demanding that Moscow and Kyiv intensify negotiations. But Putin clearly has no intention of responding to the American president’s initiatives.
Trump has in fact made virtually every concession Putin demanded: he agreed to discuss recognition of Russia’s status over the occupied territories—primarily Crimea—despite the fact that this would undermine the foundations of international law and reward the aggressor. He forced Ukraine to participate in a sham negotiation process initiated by the Kremlin solely to thwart the ultimatum by European leaders (co ordinated with Trump) that envisioned a cease fire as early as 12 May. He even suspended military aid to Ukraine before his most recent phone call with Putin—though he later insisted he had not known of his defense secretary’s decision.
Yet Putin remained unyielding and ignored the American president’s efforts, limiting himself to customary compliments addressed to Trump. Eventually even Trump noticed this, remarking that pleasant conversations with the Russian leader always ended with new shelling of Ukrainian cities.
Now, if the war is not ended, Trump will have to make decisions—both on new sanctions against Russia (which he would clearly prefer to ease) and on fresh military aid to Ukraine. At present this aid is tied to a mechanism of European financing of American weapons, but in an escalation the United States would have to become involved directly. That is precisely why Putin is being given these 50 days—the period during which Biden’s aid is still arriving—so that the Russian president finally realizes he cannot occupy all of Ukraine, even though that is the true aim of his war, and thus ceases fire.
If Putin again shows no willingness to compromise, Trump will have to intensify pressure on Russia and its economic partners and provide Ukraine with more weapons—now not for negotiations but for quickly ending the war through pressure. Thus, the 50 days are less about escalation on the Ukrainian front and more about potential escalation between the United States and Russia. After all, Putin does not seem like someone who can easily abandon his maniacal desire to destroy Ukraine.
About Author:
