Donald Trump threatens economic sanctions against Russia after meeting with Zelensky, while Moscow accuses Ukraine of using civilians as shields. Analysis  on Washington’s interventionist policies.

Related:

Macron, Trump, Zelensky, and Starmer Meet at the Vatican

U.S. President Donald Trump threatened on Saturday to impose new economic restrictions on Russia if hostilities in Ukraine do not cease, following a meeting with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky in the Vatican. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump blamed former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the conflict, claiming it “never would have happened” under his leadership.

Meeting with Zelensky and Warnings to Putin

During a 15-minute conversation with Zelensky ahead of Pope Francis’s funeral, Trump described the talks as “productive” but criticized Kyiv’s “incendiary” stance on Crimea. Hours later, in a message directed at Vladimir Putin, he questioned recent Russian attacks on civilian areas.

Moscow responded to accusations of civilian attacks by stating that Ukraine deploys anti-aircraft systems in residential areas, violating international humanitarian law. Dmitry Polyansky, Deputy Head of Russia’s Mission to the United Nations, asserted that Ukrainian missile interceptions cause civilian casualties, which are then falsely attributed to Russia.

Trump threatens Russia with more sanctions
The US president has accused Moscow of “shooting missiles” into Ukraine for “no reason” over the past few days pic.twitter.com/XG3RwbNQrK

— Forbidden News (@NewsForbiddenX) April 26, 2025

Diverging Willingness to Negotiate

While Putin reiterated his openness to unconditional talks, Zelensky maintained his refusal to recognize Crimea’s annexation, obstructing Western-mediated negotiations. Trump labeled this stance “harmful to peace” but avoided committing to new arms deliveries for Ukraine.

In line with his usual rhetoric, Trump attacked outlets like The New York Times, accusing them of sabotaging peace efforts by promoting “ridiculous” Ukrainian territorial claims. This stance highlights tensions between the White House and factions of the political-military establishment advocating for escalation.

The threat of “secondary sanctions” , measures affecting third-party countries , underscores the extraterritorial reach of U.S. economic power. Meanwhile, the omission of criticism regarding Ukraine’s military deployment in civilian areas reveals a selective approach prioritizing geopolitical pressure over comprehensive diplomatic solutions.

EN ESTA NOTA: