This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.
You know when the Kremlin is worried about something – it starts talking about nuclear weapons. And so it was, just two days after Donald Trump revealed he had decided to lift his administration’s pause on the supply of US-made weapons to Ukraine, that Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, raised Russia’s nuclear doctrine. In response to a handy question from a friendly reporter as to whether Russia’s nuclear doctrine was still active, Peskov said: “Russia’s nuclear doctrine remains in effect, and thus, all its provisions continue to apply.”
By saying “all its provisions”, he was emphasising the changes made in December last year which significantly lowered the bar for Russia to use its nuclear deterrent. It states that Russia “reserves the right to employ nuclear weapons” in response to nuclear weapons or “other types of weapons of mass destruction” against itself or its allies.
Whether Putin and his team consider the sorts of weapons the US is prepared to allow Ukraine to use against Russia as weapons of mass destruction is not clear as yet. The US president specifically said that a fresh supply of Patriot systems was already en route to Ukraine from Germany. But he also hinted that other more offensive weapons could also be in the mix. And in a July 4 phone call he is reported to have asked the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, whether he could hit Moscow or St Petersburg, to which Zelensky replied: “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”
Trump is reported to have gone on to say that it was important to “make [Russians] feel the pain”.
At the beginning of the week, the US president was also keen for Russia to feel the economic pain of indirect sanctions, with 100% tariffs promised against any country buying Russia’s oil. Could this be a turning point?
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
Interesting question, says David Dunn. Dunn, professor of international relations at the University of Birmingham, says Trump’s decision – if he follows through with it – pretty much brings the US back in line with its policy under the Biden administration. Particularly now that Trump appears to have ruled out, for the time being, allowing Ukraine to use long-range offensive missiles against targets in Moscow.
As Dunn points out, there’s no sense that Trump has changed his overall tack on what he is looking for from Putin: a ceasefire, rather than, as Biden repeatedly insisted, a settlement that respects Ukrainian sovereignty and restores the land occupied illegally by Russian troops.
Meanwhile the economic pain he promised to inflict on Russia has been scheduled to begin in 50 days. This – as many commentators have been quick to point out – has irresistible echoes of his off-again, on-again tariff regime. So will these sanctions actually happen?
Read more: What Trump's decision to send more weapons to Ukraine will mean for the war
The Russian stock market certainly wasn’t that worried. Shortly after trump made his announcement, the Moscow stock exchange increased by 2.7% and the rouble strengthened. Oil markets also appear to have relaxed, suggesting traders see no imminent risks. Maybe this is another case of “Taco” (Trump always chickens out)?
Patrick O'Shea, an international relations and global governance specialist at the University of Glasgow, believes that the markets’ reaction is more than just indifference to what Trump was threatening. It was relief.
“Trump’s threat isn’t just non-credible, the positive market reaction in Russia suggests it is a gift for Moscow,” O'Shea writes. “The 50-day ultimatum is seen not as a deadline but as a reprieve, meaning nearly two months of guaranteed inaction from the US.”
What has not been widely reported in the UK is that a bipartisan bill making its way through the US congress would have been far more punitive that anything Trump is threatening. Now this has been paused pending Trump’s initiative in 50 days’ time.
Read more: Why Russia is not taking Trump's threats seriously
Back in Europe, meanwhile, Ukraine’s allies got together in Rome last weekend to discuss what will be needed to rebuild the war-torn country and how to raise the necessary funds. Stefan Wolff was watching proceedings and believes that while countries in the “coalition of the willing” are ready to open their coffers to help Ukraine get back on its feet, the funds so far pledged will not touch the sides.
Ukraine’s allies at the conference have pledged more than €10 billion (£8.7 billion). But, Wolff – an expert in international relations at the University of Birmingham who has contributed regular analysis of the war in Ukraine – points out that this sum looks minuscule alongside the World Bank’s latest assessment that Ukraine will need at least US$524 billion (£388 billion) over the next decade to fund its recovery.
There have been some fairly upbeat forecasts about Ukraine’s potential for growth. The IMF forecasts growth for Ukraine of between 2% and 3% for 2025, which is likely to grow to over 4% in 2026 and 2027. But it cautions that this will not happen without considerable overseas support. And an end to the war. Neither is certain anytime soon.
Read more: Over €10 billion has now been pledged for Ukraine's recovery. It's nowhere near enough
Maga moves – but will Trump take responsiblity?
To Washington, where the US president is having what would probably count as the worst week of his second administration so far. Large sections of his faithful Maga base are in almost open revolt at his seeming reluctance to release what have become known as the “Epstein files”. You may remember he littered his election campaign last year with dark hints about the revelations the files must surely contain about the possible involvement of the rich and powerful in child-sex exploitation. But this week he essentially said it was old news, which was “pretty boring”, adding that “I think, really, only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.”
This is not only at odds with what he spent much of 2024 saying. It also flies in the face of what his own attorney general, Pam Bondi, said in February when she said Epstein’s client list was “sitting on [her] desk right now to review”. Now of course, the justice department says there is no list. This is not what much of his base wants to hear.
Rob Dover, an intelligence specialist at the University of Hull who has researched conspiracy theories and the people who obsess about them, says this is a dangerous moment for the Trump presidency. He points to Maga unrest over Trump’s decision to bomb Iran and to resume military aid to Ukraine, both of which appear to contradict his pledge to keep the US out of foreign conflicts. Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, which has cut medicaid and other benefits to the poorest people in the US, will also inflict hurt on many is his base. Even his recent musing that he agrees with his health secretary’s questionable assertion that Coca-Cola should be made with sugar cane not corn syrup to “make America healthy again” is sure to anger corn farmers in the Midwest, another core Trump constituency.
“Maga is not a uniform group in belief or action. But if Trump loses either the loyalty of some or they refuse to flex their beliefs as they have done before, it will be politically dangerous for him,” Dover concludes.
Read more: Trump's changing stance on Epstein files is testing the loyalty of his Maga base
Trouble brewing in Bosnia
I had the great good fortune to visit Sarajevo in December last year where I spent a few days exploring, taking a walking tour of the old town and a wider tour of the whole city which took us across the notional border with the Republika Srpska, one of the two main constituent parts of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The country was created by the Dayton accord, bringing an end to the ethnic conflict in the mid-1990s that saw whole populations displaced as ethnic Serbs and Croats sought to create new pure mini-states by expelling mainly Muslim Bosniaks.
When visiting, I felt a pervading sense that the two parts of the new country sit uncomfortably next to each other – and in recent months the friction has intensified considerably. Birte Julia Gippert of the University of Liverpool, who has researched extensively the conflict in the Balkans and the attempts to bring peace to the region, explains how the situation has become so tense.
Read more: Bosnia and Herzegovina in crisis as Bosnian-Serb president rallies for secession
Why is Israel bombing Syria?
Conflict in Syria escalated again this week, with Israeli warplanes launching airstrikes against government buildings in Damascus this week. A Netanyahu government minister, Amichai Chikli, referred to Syria’s leader, Ahmed al-Shara, as “a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay”.
Mixed up in all this is sectarian fighting in southern Syria was has been going on sporadically since al-Shara took power at the end of last year. But, as Ali Mamouri of Deakin University explains, Israel wants to see the emergence of a federal Syria, which the new regime has ruled out. It also want to retain influence in the region and secure its northern border with Syria.
While a ceasefire is in place for now, Mamouri sees the situation as extremely fragile with further clashes “not only possible but highly probable”.
World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
