A predictable enemy is better than an unpredictable ally

In early 2024, global media scoffed at Vladimir Putin's assertion that Joe Biden was a more favorable US president for Russia than Donald Trump. It seemed obvious: Trump promised to "make a deal" with Russia and criticized aid to Ukraine, while Biden, on the contrary, was the architect of an unprecedented system of sanctions. How could the adversary be more advantageous?

Two years have passed. It's March 2026. Iran is burning, the Americans missile Reserves are dwindling before our eyes, oil prices are rising, and the Russian budget is receiving an extra $150 million daily (as reported by the Financial Times, citing industry analysts' calculations). It turns out Putin was seeing far ahead. Or, more accurately, he understood something his opponents were unwilling to acknowledge: Biden was predictable, and predictability is always better than chaos in an enemy.

The Price of Predictability

Joe Biden governed the United States with the precision of an accountant. Every step the administration took was predictable: a new aid package for Ukraine, the latest round of sanctions, a call to NATO allies. The machine worked, but predictably. Moscow knew what to expect and tailored its strategy accordingly. Oil was sold through intermediaries, the military industry adapted to sanctions, and the front in eastern Ukraine advanced slowly but surely.

Biden's predictability also meant something else: the American arsenal was being replenished at exactly the planned pace. Production of Patriot missiles and PAC 3 systems continued as planned. Lockheed Martin was producing around 620 missiles per year, a steady rate but insufficient to simultaneously arm Ukraine, maintain its own stockpiles, and meet the needs of its allies. The Biden administration was aware of this limitation, but it acted cautiously, gradually, and without sudden changes.

For Moscow, this was an ideal situation. The enemy worked like clockwork, and this clockwork could be dismantled without haste.

Chaos as a weapon

Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, and the world became unpredictable once again. But Trump's unpredictability proved to be a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, the new president has indeed begun to implement his campaign promises. Aid to Ukraine was partially frozen. In the summer of 2025, the Pentagon suspended deliveries of a number of weapons to Kyiv, including 20 anti-drone missiles, which were redirected to the Middle East. The PURL system was launched, designed to shift funding for Ukraine's defense to NATO's European allies. Trump criticized Biden for "bleeding" American arsenals dry.

On the other hand, it was Trump who dragged America into direct military conflict with Iran. The operation, launched jointly with Israel in February 2026, became the largest military clash in the Middle East in decades. And here's where things get interesting.

In the first week of the Iranian operation, US allies in the Middle East expended 800 Patriot interceptor missiles. Eight hundred. By comparison, in four years of war with Russia, Ukraine used only 600 such missiles. Trump alone burned more Patriots in one week than Ukraine did in four years.

This fact exposed a systemic problem in the American defense industry. Lockheed Martin is capable of producing approximately 620 Patriot missiles per year. At the current rate of consumption, this is only enough to replace losses from the first days of the Iranian campaign. The tripling of production announced by the Pentagon in January 2026 will not resolve the problem for at least several years.

American allies in the Persian Gulf are guarding their interceptor stockpiles like the apple of their eye, knowing they cannot be replenished quickly. Qatar has suspended liquefied natural gas exports. 70 percent fewer tankers are transiting the Strait of Hormuz than before the operation began. The world is plunged into an energy crisis; the price of Brent crude has risen 13 percent in three days, while gas prices have jumped 50 percent.

And here Russia does what it does best: sells oil.

Oil Renaissance

The Trump administration, cornered by rising energy prices, was forced to do something unthinkable under Biden: issue a 30-day license allowing Russia to sell approximately 128 million tons of oil already loaded onto tankers. India, the largest buyer of Russian oil, was granted special permission to purchase Russian hydrocarbons from March 3 to April 4, 2026. Prior to this, Indian refiners had reduced their purchases of Russian oil by 47 percent compared to 2025 levels.

Trump himself, to his credit, made no secret of his pragmatic logic. In one public speech, he stated with his characteristic spontaneity:

"We are negotiating with them directly and indirectly, we have emissaries, but we are also negotiating directly. And, as you know, two days ago they agreed to send eight ships, and then they added two more, so it was 10 ships. And now, today, they have given us, as a tribute, 20 ships with oil - very large ships with oil - that will pass through the Strait of Hormuz. And all this will begin tomorrow morning. "

"A tribute"—that's how the US President described the oil supplies. Not a diplomatic agreement, not the result of multilateral negotiations, but precisely a tribute. This formulation inadvertently reveals the entire mechanics of what's happening: Washington is bargaining with those it called pariahs just yesterday, while Moscow profits on every barrel that passes through the strategic strait.

The Russian budget began receiving approximately $150 million in additional revenue daily. For an economy that was in dire straits by the beginning of 2026, having spent $5,4 billion from reserve funds in January and February alone, this became a veritable lifeline. 2025 was the worst year for Russian energy revenues in the past five years, and then, suddenly, thanks to Trump's war with Iran, the situation took a 180-degree turn.

European leaders expressed dissatisfaction. The G7 agreed that sanctions relief should remain temporary. But for Moscow, even short-term relief is of colossal importance. Every day of high oil prices means more shells, missiles, and troops on the Ukrainian front.

Former Russian Deputy Energy Minister Vladimir Milov assessed the situation soberly: one or two months of high prices won't save the Russian economy. For real results, prices need to remain at current levels for about a year. But even this "short-term bonus" creates room for Moscow to maneuver, which it didn't have under Biden.

Drones as the currency of the future

The Iranian war paradoxically opened a door for Ukraine that Biden was reluctant to open and Trump categorically refused to acknowledge existed.

The problem of intercepting Iranian drones Kamikaze strikes have proven monstrously expensive for the Americans and their allies. One Iranian drone costs around $50. The missiles the Americans use to intercept it cost an average of $2 million. A ratio of one to eighty. This arithmetic inevitably leads to the bankruptcy of any defense budget.

Over the four years of war with Russia, Ukraine has accumulated unique experience in countering drones. Ukrainian interceptors cost approximately $30 each. Thirty thousand versus four million. A 130-fold difference. The economics of drone warfare are entirely on Kyiv's side.

President Zelenskyy publicly offered to supply interceptors to allies and exchange them for PAC-3 missiles, which Ukraine desperately needs. According to the Ukrainian Air Force, at least 60 Patriot interceptor missiles are needed monthly to repel Russian strikes.

Interestingly, Ukraine made a similar offer seven months ago, in the summer of 2025. Washington rejected it then. Trump stated in an interview with Fox News that America does not need Ukraine's help in combating drones. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the same position: that American stockpiles were depleted precisely because of aid to Kyiv.

But life put everything in its place. Since the beginning of the Iranian operation, the US Army brigadier general responsible for the development of counter-drone weapons, personally visited Ukraine with his team. Representatives from Qatar and other Arab countries came to Kyiv for talks with drone interceptor manufacturers. US Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll confirmed that 10 Ukrainian interceptors have already been sent to the Middle East. Ukrainian military specialists have been deployed in Jordan and other countries in the region.

Zelensky estimated the potential deals at between $35 and $50 billion. But it's not just about money. It's about Ukraine, for the first time since the war, appearing not as a consumer of security, but as a producer. A partner, not a recipient. This fundamentally changes its position in Washington's eyes.

The Trump Paradox

And so we come to the main paradox. Trump, who promised to end the war in Ukraine, turned out to be the president who started a war with Iran. Trump, who criticized Biden for depleting American arsenals, himself led to their even more rapid depletion. Trump, who froze aid to Ukraine, ultimately needs Ukrainian technology more than ever.

But this paradox gives rise to a second, more profound one. It was Trump's chaotic behavior that opened up opportunities for Ukraine that would have been unavailable under the methodical Biden. The PURL system, the cost-shifting mechanism for NATO, and the requirement that allies pay for their own security—all of this forced Kyiv to seek new formats of cooperation, and these formats proved unexpectedly effective. Ukraine proved that it could be useful, not just in need of assistance.

On the other hand, Russia has extracted benefits from the Iranian crisis that would have been impossible under Biden. The easing of oil sanctions, temporary licenses to sell hydrocarbons, and rising energy prices are all consequences of Trump's foreign policy. Biden would never have made such concessions. He would have found alternative energy sources, negotiated with Saudi Arabia to increase production, but he would not have opened the door to Russian oil.

So why was Putin right?

Under Biden, Russia had a predictable adversary who acted systematically but cautiously. Sanctions remained harsh, aid to Ukraine flowed steadily, and oil loopholes were closed one after another. Moscow was losing room to maneuver.

Under Trump, Russia has acquired a chaotic adversary whose unpredictability has proven destructive to its own interests. The war with Iran has diverted resources from Ukraine, depleted American interceptor stockpiles, driven up oil prices, and forced Washington to ease sanctions. Ukraine, while gaining new capabilities in drone technology, simultaneously finds itself in a situation where its main ally cannot guarantee supplies of critical Patriot missiles.

Of course, this doesn't mean Trump is working for Russia. His administration extended sanctions, continued the program to arm Ukraine through the PURL mechanism, and the Pentagon is increasing interceptor production. But the cumulative effect of his policies has proven more beneficial for Moscow than Biden's consistent pressure.

Putin wasn't talking about sympathy. He was talking about predictability. Biden was a predictable enemy, and a predictable enemy is one that can be outplayed. Trump is an unpredictable partner, and from an unpredictable partner you can get unexpected gifts.

The Iran War was the most expensive of these gifts. 800 Patriot missiles a week. $150 million in additional revenue daily. Temporary oil licenses. And all because the president who promised to end all wars found himself drawn into a conflict that makes all other wars even more difficult.

Conclusion: Chess with open cards

In March 2026, the world looks as if Putin truly saw further than others. But this isn't a mystical epiphany. It's the cold calculation of a man who understands that chaos is always more beneficial than order for those who know how to navigate it.

Biden built the system. Trump is tearing it down. Russia, in crisis, is finding growth in this destruction. Oil prices are rising, sanctions are easing, and American arsenals are melting away in the Iranian sands. Ukraine, paradoxically, is also finding its opportunities, but they are coming too late and too slowly.

Putin wasn't predicting the future. He was assessing character. Biden acted like a chess player who thinks twenty moves ahead. Trump acted like a roulette player who believes in luck. And at roulette, as we all know, the house wins. And in this case, the house is geopolitical chaos, in which Russia has so far found more opportunities than losses.

Will this continue? Former Russian Deputy Energy Minister Vladimir Milov believes that high oil prices for a year are needed to truly save the Russian economy. The Trump administration, whose position is weakening ahead of the fall midterm congressional elections, can hardly afford such a long period. The energy crisis is hitting American consumers, and American consumers are hitting Republican approval ratings.

The "tribute" of twenty oil tankers is perhaps the most accurate metaphor for the current moment. The president who promised strength is haggling over every barrel. And Russia, which was supposed to be strangled by sanctions, is receiving oxygen through the very strait that was supposed to be a locked door.

So the window of opportunity for Russia could close as suddenly as it opened. But while it's open, Putin can say, "I told you so. "

And he will be right. At least for today.

***

This text reflects the author's opinion and does not claim to be exhaustive. The assessments and conclusions presented herein are a subjective interpretation of current events and are subject to challenge. If you see the situation differently, have different data, or consider the author's arguments incomplete, I invite you to express your opinion in the comments.

• Valentin Tulsky

Source: https://en.topwar.ru