By Matt Underwood Trump says the US could walk away from a Russia-Ukraine war deal, claiming any proposed agreement would be unfavorable to Ukraine and designed to shift blame. He anticipates a scenario where a deal is presented, then declared a failure, allowing the US to withdraw from negotiations.
This proposed abandonment, however, isn’t a genuine attempt at conflict resolution. It’s more a theatrical performance, designed to showcase his supposed negotiating prowess while simultaneously avoiding any difficult decisions or complicated actions. The claim to end the conflict “in one phone call” is viewed as highly improbable, reflecting a lack of understanding about the complexity of the situation.
This supposed ability to resolve the conflict within 24 hours is particularly striking given the previous lack of progress. There’s a perception that any previous efforts to broker peace were superficial, focusing on tactics that mirror Trump’s preferred style of using tariffs or wielding power, rather than engaging in genuine diplomacy. The suggested withdrawal is framed as a cynical maneuver, abandoning Ukraine to face the consequences while simultaneously retaining a presence in any subsequent negotiations, attempting to influence outcomes to align with his own preferences.
There’s a strong feeling that Trump and his associates lack the patience and willingness to engage in complex negotiations. Instead of genuine diplomatic efforts, they are believed to prioritize actions that allow them to easily disengage and deflect responsibility. The suggestion of withdrawing from a deal, therefore, is seen not as a strategic retreat but as a symptom of their inability or unwillingness to manage the intricacies of international relations.
The perceived failure to reach a meaningful agreement is attributed to a variety of factors, including what is seen as Trump’s disrespectful treatment of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, a lack of sincere effort to bring Putin to the negotiating table, and a general tendency to prioritize actions perceived to benefit Russia. This perceived bias further fuels the argument that any purported negotiation would ultimately serve Russia’s interests.
This lack of genuine engagement is contrasted with an apparent willingness to blame Ukraine for any failed negotiations. The expectation is that Trump would use such a failure to justify a withdrawal, leaving Ukraine vulnerable. This strategy is deemed cynical and self-serving, with Trump’s announced actions interpreted as more of a tantrum than a calculated diplomatic maneuver.
This perceived pattern of behavior, combined with previous actions that seem to favor Russia, leads to significant doubt regarding Trump’s ability to effectively negotiate an end to the war. Instead of a strategic player, he’s portrayed as someone who’s easily bored or overwhelmed by the complexity of the situation. His reputation as a “dealmaker” is severely undermined by the perception that he is ready to walk away from any meaningful engagement, leaving a significant power vacuum in the international effort to achieve a lasting peace.
The question of what deal exists to walk away from, or whether any serious attempts at negotiation ever took place, is central to much of the criticism. The suggestion is that the narrative of a failed deal is manufactured to justify a withdrawal that ultimately serves Russia’s agenda. This leaves many wondering if Trump’s actions might exacerbate rather than resolve the conflict, leaving Ukraine more isolated and vulnerable.
This perception fuels a broader critique of Trump’s approach to foreign policy. His actions are viewed as incompetent and potentially harmful to Ukraine’s interests. Many believe that genuine attempts at negotiating a solution to the war, free from political gamesmanship and personal agendas, are critically needed, rather than the supposed theatrics and abrupt withdrawals proposed by Trump. Ultimately, his actions are seen as undermining any progress towards a resolution, leaving the already complex situation even more precarious.