Jul 15, 2025
Filip J. Scherf analysed Trump’s oil ultimatum, Kremlin strategy, and internal Russian tensions in a recent interview on the future trajectory of the war in Ukraine.
In a recent discussion for ČT24, Filip J. Scherf analysed the implications of Donald Trump’s rhetoric on Russia, the internal dynamics of the Kremlin, and the shifting fault lines within Western unity.
While Trump’s recent threats to halt all Russian oil exports were widely interpreted as a potential game-changer, Filip Scherf described them as largely unworkable.
What Trump is proposing is essentially an ultimatum – not to Russia, but to its key trading partners like China, India, Turkey, and Brazil. These countries would be forced to either stop importing Russian oil overnight, which would be economically devastating, or face U.S. sanctions. But such tariffs would damage U.S. allies and risk global economic instability or even recession,” explained Scherf
He also underscored that Trump’s priority remains the U.S. economy – not the outcome of the war in Ukraine.
Commenting on Russia’s response, Scherf noted that Vladimir Putin welcomes Trump’s return to the international stage. For Putin, this signals a return to great-power diplomacy, in which the presidents of the U.S. and Russia negotiate the world order directly. Putin remains eager to meet Trump, but past patterns suggest he is unlikely to follow diplomatic gestures with corresponding actions. “He may smile during talks and then bomb Kyiv the next day,” Scherf remarked.
Scherf emphasized that the U.S. currently lacks effective tools – short of military force – to pressure Russia into concessions.
“The only thing that could truly destabilize the Kremlin is internal pressure. The regime’s survival depends on reaching its maximalist goals – Ukrainian neutrality, some form of ‘denazification,’ and recognition of annexed territories. If these objectives fail, the legitimacy of the regime may erode from within.”
Scherf also addressed Western disunity, saying that Moscow interprets EU disagreements as evidence of a crumbling front. Russia’s strategic objective, he argued, is less about territory and more about breaking the unity of the West. If successful, this would enable Russia to negotiate with individual countries on its own terms and push for a revision of the post-Cold War order – one where Russia dominates Europe.
“We are deciding whether full-scale war will reach Central Europe in the coming years. Supporting Ukraine is not about abstract ideals – it’s a security investment in the future of our own region”.
In closing, he addressed how Russia might react to a potential Ukrainian strike on Moscow. It would likely follow its usual pattern – labeling Ukraine a terrorist state and using the incident to justify further escalation. Russia’s demands during previous negotiations, such as requiring Ukrainian presidential elections within 100 days, reflect an effort to delegitimize the Kyiv government and create internal chaos. That chaos, Scherf noted, is what Russia would prefer over Ukraine’s current unity and resilience.