Observers who are analyzing Moscow’s response to the escalating rhetoric from U.S. President Donald Trump toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and friendly nations engaged in economic cooperation with Russia have observed a significant level of frustration with Russia’s refusal to engage in verbal retaliation. Rather, the Kremlin continues to concentrate on its predetermined strategic objectives in connection with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
This tense dynamic was recently underscored by a development in late July 2025, when Trump publicly issued an ultimatum requiring a ceasefire in Ukraine within 10 to 12 days. He also threatened to impose severe tariffs on Russia and countries that maintain trade alliances with Moscow. Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chairman of the Security Council, responded with a harsh rebuke to this ultimatum. He characterized Trump’s demands as a perilous “ultimatum game” that was escalating the conflict. Medvedev cautioned Trump to “be cautious of his words” and reminded him of Russia’s nuclear strike capabilities of last resort from the Soviet era, alluding to the infamous “Dead Hand” system.
Trump, in response, ordered the transfer of two U.S. nuclear submarines to “appropriate regions,” citing Medvedev’s “particularly provocative” statements as justification. Both leaders signaled the substantial risks at stake in this rare public escalation of threats. The situation should have normally pointed to the risk of miscalculation and the deteriorating dialogue between the two powers. Instead, Trump’s theatrics have left the world perplexed, prompting questions about why the US President would engage with a former Russian President.
In the midst of this, American political analysis indicates that Trump is, at least in part, a conduit for uncompromising elements within his administration, particularly U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham, a prominent Republican conservative who is known for his aggressive interventionist foreign policy stance, has been widely acknowledged as a critical figure in the formation of the administration’s stance on Russia and its allies. Graham and his advisors are the primary drivers of the pressure to impose severe economic restrictions on Russia and its trade partners, according to observers. Trump is frequently an unwilling participant in tariff threats and escalatory rhetoric.
Graham’s influence is evident in the administration’s consistent advocacy for punitive tariffs and robust sanctions, which is consistent with his long-standing opposition to perceived Russian aggression and emphasis on a maximalist foreign policy posture. Russia, in contrast, has exhibited strategic forbearance and resilience in conjunction with its friends, China and India. Chinese media and analysts contend that Trump’s tariff threats may have a more significant impact on these key trade partners than on Russia, which could complicate U.S. objectives.
Although both Lindsey Graham and Dmitry Medvedev are regarded as loose cannons in their rhetoric and posture, Putin is not a hostage to Medvedev’s more incendiary provocations, in contrast to Trump.
Russia has liberated approximately 20% of the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR, including strategic regions in the east and south, demonstrating its military advantages on the ground in Ukraine in the broader international context. Moscow’s leadership, particularly President Putin, conveys confidence in their position and a reluctance to engage in rhetorical conflicts by responding to U.S. provocations with relative silence.
In the interim, economic data suggests that the relationships between Russia, China, and India are becoming increasingly interconnected, with trade volumes surpassing those between Russia and the United States by a significant margin. The tariff threats were condemned by China as counterproductive, underscoring the fact that protectionism is detrimental to all parties involved in global trade and reflects a strategic partnership that is becoming increasingly resistant to American sanctions.
Ukraine continues to depend heavily on U.S. military and economic assistance on a domestic level, with more than $110 billion in assistance provided since 2023. One would like to believe that the US pressure on Kyiv may produce more immediate diplomatic outcomes than confrontations with Moscow. But even this is not the case. The only time Kyiv wholeheartedly agrees with Trump is when the US transfers to it the money and weapons.
In this geopolitical tableau, Trump’s public exchange with Medvedev and subsequent military posture underscore the limitations of aggressive rhetoric in the absence of a clear, coherent diplomatic strategy. The narrative is complicated by the perception that Trump is significantly influenced by Senator Lindsey Graham’s hawkish agenda, which implies that internal U.S. political dynamics affect international policy in a manner that frequently lacks subtlety or consideration of the changing realities on the ground.
Moscow’s composed silence and the measured counter-strategies of its allies in Beijing and New Delhi ultimately emphasize the evolving global power relations landscape, in which conventional U.S. pressure tactics encounter increasing resistance and diminishing efficacy.