Trump's unique phrasing hints at his lopsided approach to a Ukraine peace deal
Unraveling the Peace Effort: Trump's Questionable Approach to the Ukrainian Conflict
Donald Trump's unwavering support for Russia and disregard for Ukraine has cast a long shadow over the United States' role as a peace broker. The US procedure leans heavily on Russia's positions, despite Moscow instigating the war. This bias is rooted in Trump's belief that Kyiv "has no cards to play."
In the face of intensifying pressure on Ukraine, Trump vigorously denied having a dog in the fight, claimting he merely seeks to end a war that has cost countless innocent lives. However, the US peace effort's lopsided nature is evident in Trump's vague language about the conflict and peculiar discourse on the war itself.
The Day Russia Attacked: A Bloodbath Ignored
Russia launched a vicious assault on Ukraine early Thursday, firing 70 missiles and 145 drones towards Kyiv in the deadliest attack on the capital in nine months. At least a dozen lives were lost and 90 people were injured, with many trapped under the rubble of residential buildings. Frightened residents were forced back into their air raid shelters, even taking their pets and small children with them.
Trump's response to this horrifying escalation? A half-hearted post on Truth Social that seemed fixated on the timing of the attacks rather than the loss of life. "I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP!" he wrote. "Let's get the Peace Deal DONE!"
During an Oval Office appearance later in the day, Trump echoed this passive stance, noticeably avoiding direct blame of Putin. "I didn't like last night. I wasn't happy with it, and we're in the midst of talking peace, and missiles were fired, and I was not happy with it," Trump said.
Another US president may have offered condolences to the victims, emphasized that targeting civilians is a war crime, and threatened repercussions. But Trump's response mirrors his long-standing practice of disconnecting attack results from the leader responsible.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who oncecalled Putin a thug during his presidential run, adopted Trump's evasive tone during an afternoon appearance in the Oval Office. "What happened last night with those missile strikes should remind everybody why this war needs to end," Rubio said, inadvertently suggesting the missiles materialized on their own.
Impartiality and Inconsistency: Zelensky Versus Putin
Trump's inconsistent tone towards Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin is jarring. While criticizing Zelensky for his positions, Trump's words are harsher and judgmental. In contrast, Trump adopts a more lenient, even reluctant tone when addressing Putin's atrocities.
John Herbst, former US ambassador to Ukraine, noted the glaring difference in Trump's reactions to the two leaders. "When Zelensky dares to speak the truth, Trump truly slams him," Herbst told Paula Newton on CNN International. "When Putin murders civilians with ballistic missiles, he’s merely corrected. Or slightly chastised."
Why Russia's Withdrawal is No Concession
Trump insisted on Thursday that he has pressure on Russia to end the conflict, stating: "Stopping the war, stopping taking the whole country... I’m putting a lot of pressure on Russia". However, his characterization of Russia's actions in Ukraine betrays a misunderstanding of the situation.
The reason a Russia-backed president is not currently ruling Ukraine is due to the heroic efforts of Ukraine's armed forces, which halted the invasion at the war's start and saved the capital. Ongoing military aid from the US and its allies has kept the situation from deteriorating further. "It is absolutely no concession," stated Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of Ukraine's parliament. "From my perspective at least, it is absolutely absurd to say something like that."
Critics argue that accepting the current occupation lines would legitimize Russia's territorial gains and further hinder peace efforts. So far, Trump's efforts to coerce Russia into settling have been lackluster, failing to provide Ukraine with the necessary weapons or imposed secondary sanctions on nations funding Russia's war effort. This uneven approach threatens to further burden Ukraine, the conflict's victim.
- In the wake of Russia's vicious attack on Ukraine, Trump's response seemed disproportionate, with a half-hearted post on Truth Social that seemed more focused on the timing of the attacks rather than the loss of life.
- Unlike his harsh criticism towards Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump's tone towards Russian President Vladimir Putin has been more lenient, even reluctant, sparking concern about the president's impartiality.
- Referring to the horrifying escalation that resulted in civilian casualties, Trump asserted during an Oval Office appearance that he has put pressure on Russia to end the conflict, but his characterization of Russia's actions in Ukraine suggests a misunderstanding of the situation.
- The insistence on accepting the current occupation lines might legitimize Russia's territorial gains and further hinder peace efforts, according to critics. So far, Trump's efforts to coerce Russia into settling have been lackluster, failing to provide Ukraine with the necessary weapons or imposed secondary sanctions on nations funding Russia's war effort.
- John Herbst, former US ambassador to Ukraine, pointed out the obvious difference in Trump's reactions to the two leaders, stating that when Zelensky speaks the truth, Trump severely criticizes him, but when Putin commits atrocities, Trump only corrects or mildly reprimands him.
