By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a CBS “60 Minutes” interview, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged President Trump to visit Ukraine to witness firsthand the devastation caused by Russia’s invasion, believing a visit would clarify the situation and inform any potential negotiations. Zelensky refuted previous accusations of staging propaganda tours, assuring Trump of an unfiltered view of the conflict’s impact. He emphasized Putin’s untrustworthiness and desire for complete Ukrainian destruction, highlighting the obstacles to a lasting ceasefire. Despite his intense hatred for Putin, Zelensky remains committed to pursuing a swift and just peace that restores Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Read the original article here
President Zelensky’s plea for Donald Trump to visit Ukraine and witness the devastation firsthand is, frankly, a perplexing request given Trump’s well-documented personality and political leanings. The idea that witnessing the horrors of war would somehow awaken empathy within him seems highly improbable, based on his past actions and statements.
The sheer lack of empathy consistently demonstrated by Trump suggests such a visit would be fruitless. Numerous examples exist where he showed astonishing indifference to suffering, even that of injured veterans or those directly harmed. His emotional responses often prioritize self-preservation and self-aggrandizement above any genuine concern for others.
Trump’s history indicates he’s unlikely to be moved by the destruction in Ukraine. Instead, his focus might shift to opportunities for personal gain, possibly viewing the devastation as prime real estate for future development, a pattern consistent with his business dealings. The idea of a war-torn country prompting humanitarian action is simply incompatible with his known behavior.
Moreover, Trump’s known aversion to physical discomfort and danger makes a visit to an active war zone exceptionally unlikely. Past claims of medical issues, such as bone spurs, further suggest he’d avoid any situation that posed a risk to his personal safety. The logistical challenges and security concerns inherent in such a trip would likely be insurmountable for him.
Even if hypothetically motivated, his deep ties to Russia and his admiration for Putin make a sincere show of support for Ukraine doubtful. Any visit might be interpreted more as a propaganda opportunity, potentially using the situation to his political advantage, rather than an act of genuine compassion.
This situation reveals a fundamental disconnect between Zelensky’s hopes and the realities of Trump’s character. While a visit might provide powerful visual evidence of the conflict’s impact, it’s highly improbable to elicit any meaningful change in Trump’s attitude or actions toward Ukraine. His personality and political stances make a genuine display of empathy and support highly unlikely.
The request seems almost naive given Trump’s lack of empathy, his self-interest, and his existing political ties. It seems more likely that any visit would merely provide him with an opportunity to exploit the situation for personal gain, potentially further exacerbating existing tensions.
Ultimately, appealing to Trump’s sense of humanity or compassion in this context seems futile. The immense scale of the devastation in Ukraine wouldn’t necessarily sway him, as his past behavior suggests a profound detachment from the suffering of others. Zelensky’s request, while understandable given his desperate need for international support, appears misdirected in this instance.
The suggestion of compelling Trump to visit through public pressure or appeals to his competitive nature is equally problematic. Such tactics might backfire, prompting defensive reactions rather than genuine concern. Indeed, even facing the stark reality of devastation firsthand, his characteristic responses might involve deflecting blame or exploiting the situation to serve his own agenda.
Any expectation that Trump would react differently than he has in the past is based on a flawed understanding of his character and motivations. His lack of empathy and his existing political alliances suggest his response to the war in Ukraine is unlikely to change, regardless of any external influence or direct exposure to its consequences. The likelihood of a productive outcome seems remarkably slim.