By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent Fox News interview, former President Trump asserted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy should not have resisted the Russian invasion, suggesting a negotiated settlement was achievable. Trump reiterated his belief that he could have brokered such a deal, contrasting Ukraine’s military capabilities with Russia’s superior forces. He criticized Zelenskyy’s decision to fight, while simultaneously threatening Russia with substantial tariffs and sanctions if the conflict isn’t resolved swiftly. This stance contrasts sharply with the Biden administration’s unwavering support for Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Trump suggests Ukraine shouldn’t have fought back against Russia, a stance that deeply contradicts the bravery and resilience shown by the Ukrainian people. His argument seems to hinge on a belief that Ukraine, facing a vastly superior military force, should have simply negotiated a deal with Russia to avoid the conflict altogether. This ignores the reality of the situation, where Russia’s aggression was a clear act of invasion and a threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The suggestion that Ukraine should have surrendered implicitly minimizes the horrors inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians and the systematic destruction of their infrastructure. The idea that a negotiated settlement could have prevented this overlooks the pattern of Russian expansionism, suggesting that appeasement only emboldens aggressors. The historical precedent of appeasement, like the Munich Agreement, demonstrates that yielding to such demands frequently leads to further aggression, not peace.
Trump’s comments also seem to ignore the profound moral and strategic implications of a nation’s right to self-determination. The Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland against invasion, and their courageous resistance has inspired admiration worldwide. To suggest otherwise is to disregard the principles of national sovereignty and self-defense that underpin international relations. The cost of resistance is undoubtedly high, but the cost of surrender would have been far greater, possibly resulting in complete subjugation and the loss of Ukrainian identity.
Moreover, Trump’s proposed “deal” remains undefined, leaving us to speculate about its potential terms. Considering Russia’s historical behavior and current goals, any such deal likely would have involved significant territorial concessions and a surrender of Ukrainian autonomy. This would have been a Pyrrhic victory at best, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to future aggression and undermining the credibility of international norms against invasion.
Trump’s assertion that Russia possessed a superior military force is not in dispute, yet this doesn’t invalidate Ukraine’s right to self-defense. Resistance isn’t merely about military might; it’s about the will to fight for one’s freedom and national identity. The Ukrainian resistance has proven far more tenacious and effective than many predicted, demonstrating that determination and international support can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds.
The idea that Ukraine could have simply “made a deal” also conveniently overlooks the many attempts at diplomacy and negotiation that preceded the full-scale invasion. Russia, consistently demonstrating its disregard for international law and agreements, has never been truly interested in a peaceful resolution that respects Ukraine’s integrity. In this context, resistance becomes a necessity, not a reckless choice.
The argument that Ukraine should have surrendered overlooks the potential for widespread atrocities, similar to those witnessed in Bucha and Mariupol. By resisting, Ukraine has mitigated these horrors, preventing far greater suffering and preserving the lives of countless citizens. While the war has been devastating, the alternative of unconditional surrender would undoubtedly have led to an even more catastrophic humanitarian crisis.
Ultimately, Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine shouldn’t have fought back is deeply flawed. It ignores the realities of Russian aggression, the importance of self-determination, and the potential consequences of appeasement. His comments appear to prioritize a simplistic notion of negotiation over the fundamental right of a nation to defend itself against invasion, a stance that many find morally reprehensible and strategically unsound. The Ukrainian people’s courageous resistance is a testament to their resilience and a powerful demonstration of the importance of fighting for one’s freedom, even in the face of overwhelming odds.