By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In remarks made Tuesday, Donald Trump asserted that Ukraine bears responsibility for the ongoing conflict with Russia, suggesting a pre-invasion deal could have prevented the war. He criticized President Zelenskyy for not being included in recent US-Russia talks, claiming he could have brokered a deal preserving Ukrainian territory and preventing casualties. Trump further criticized Zelenskyy’s leadership and suggested Ukraine hold new elections as a potential peace measure. These statements follow Trump’s previous pronouncements supporting Russia and downplaying Ukraine’s defense.
Read the original article here
Trump’s assertion that Ukraine “should never have started it” regarding the war with Russia is deeply troubling and reveals a profound misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation, of the situation. The statement implies a level of culpability on Ukraine’s part for the invasion, a notion completely at odds with the reality of a sovereign nation defending itself against an unprovoked attack.
This statement ignores the long history of Russian aggression against Ukraine, culminating in the full-scale invasion. It disregards the years of escalating tensions, the annexation of Crimea, and the ongoing conflict in Donbas, all initiated by Russia. To suggest that Ukraine is somehow responsible for Russia’s actions is to fundamentally distort the narrative and absolve Russia of all accountability.
The comment also displays a remarkable lack of empathy for the Ukrainian people, who have endured immense suffering at the hands of the Russian military. Countless civilians have been killed, cities have been reduced to rubble, and millions have been displaced. To minimize Ukraine’s plight and place blame on the victim is not only insensitive but morally reprehensible.
The idea that Ukraine could have prevented the war by simply conceding to Russia’s demands is ludicrous. Such a proposition would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging aggression and rewarding those who resort to violence to achieve their goals. It is a fundamental violation of national sovereignty and self-determination.
The statement’s implications extend beyond Ukraine. This kind of rhetoric normalizes and even encourages aggression, creating a climate of impunity for autocratic regimes. It undermines international norms and institutions designed to prevent conflict and uphold the rule of law. The message sent is that aggression can be successful, if one is willing to ignore international norms and simply exert overwhelming military force.
Moreover, the statement’s acceptance within any political framework seems frightening. To suggest that Ukraine bears responsibility for Russia’s actions is to condone the use of force to resolve disputes. It is a dangerous precedent that could embolden other authoritarian regimes to employ similar tactics.
Furthermore, the assertion raises serious questions about the speaker’s understanding of international relations and conflict resolution. The suggestion of a “deal” that would have ceded Ukrainian territory to Russia before the invasion is alarming, particularly when viewed in conjunction with previous statements suggesting a fondness for Russia’s leadership.
Such sentiments appear to prioritize expediency over principle, suggesting a willingness to compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity to appease a foreign power. This raises concern over the broader geopolitical implications of such a perspective and suggests a potential lack of understanding of or concern for the crucial alliance between the United States and its NATO partners. The ramifications for global security are deeply concerning.
The casual dismissal of Ukrainian suffering and the misplaced blame underscore a disturbing disregard for human life and international law. It suggests an alarming indifference to the principles of self-determination, national sovereignty, and the rules-based international order. The entire premise is based on a deeply flawed interpretation of events and reveals a complete lack of understanding regarding the causes of the war.
In conclusion, the statement that Ukraine “should never have started it” is not merely a mischaracterization; it is a dangerous and misleading statement that undermines the principles of international law, disregards the suffering of the Ukrainian people, and raises profound questions about the speaker’s judgment and geopolitical understanding. It is a statement that demands scrutiny and challenges the very foundations of international peace and security.