By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former US President Donald Trump announced plans for a Monday phone call with Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the Ukraine conflict, aiming to halt the ongoing violence. This call, confirmed by the Kremlin, will reportedly be followed by conversations with President Zelenskyy and NATO leaders. While a previous face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin was proposed but declined, this phone call follows earlier discussions on the subject and seeks to facilitate a ceasefire. The initiative comes amidst ongoing international efforts to resolve the conflict, including recent talks in Istanbul.
Read the original article here
Trump’s announcement that he’ll call Putin on Monday to discuss halting the Ukrainian conflict raises several immediate questions. Why the delay until Monday? The weekend, it seems, is not a time for serious diplomacy, at least not according to this narrative. The implication is that his priorities lie elsewhere – perhaps on the golf course. This casual approach to a devastating war, with its daily toll of human lives, underscores a concerning lack of urgency and seriousness.
The suggested conversation between Trump and Putin also raises concerns about potential manipulation. Past interactions between the two have shown a pattern where Putin appears to exert considerable influence over Trump. The implication is that Trump, rather than approaching the conversation with a strong hand, might be easily swayed by Putin’s narrative. This makes the outcome far less certain and potentially detrimental to Ukraine.
The notion of a quick, productive call is also highly doubtful, especially given Putin’s demonstrated unwillingness to cease hostilities. Previous signals from Putin clearly indicate a lack of desire to end the war, yet Trump’s suggested phone call presents this interaction as a potential turning point. This optimism seems misplaced, given Putin’s track record and lack of previous compromise.
Moreover, the timing itself is suspect. Why wait until Monday when the urgency of the situation demands immediate action? The lives lost each day are a stark contrast to the leisurely pace implied by scheduling the call for Monday. The apparent prioritization of personal schedule over the pressing need to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis is troubling.
The suggested narrative emphasizes the perception of Trump’s incompetence and lack of preparedness. The comment about “Monday morning quarterbacking” implies that he lacks a coherent strategy or plan beyond a phone call with Putin. This reinforces the idea that he’s approaching this critical international situation without a well-thought-out plan or even a basic understanding of the complexities involved. The whole situation feels reactive rather than proactive.
This proposed call also highlights a deeper issue: Trump’s apparent belief that he has a personal connection with Putin that grants him unique influence. This perception is at odds with reality, as Putin is highly unlikely to be influenced by Trump, or to consider him anything more than a potential tool for his purposes. The suggestion of a simple phone call to resolve a complex geopolitical crisis based on a perceived personal relationship shows a disconnect from the realities of the situation.
The cynical undertones within the narrative point to a lack of faith in a positive outcome. The repeated mentions of past failures and Putin’s manipulative tendencies suggest that this phone call is highly unlikely to yield any significant results. Instead of a meaningful discussion aimed at ending the bloodshed, the anticipated result appears to be a mere photo-op, a display of action without substance.
In short, the idea of Trump calling Putin on Monday to end the “bloodbath” in Ukraine feels more like a symbolic gesture than a serious attempt at conflict resolution. The timing, the past interactions between the two leaders, and the lack of a comprehensive strategy suggest that this action is unlikely to produce any meaningful change and may even exacerbate the situation. The overall tone emphasizes a deep skepticism regarding the efficacy and intentions behind this proposed phone call. The lack of urgency, the perceived prioritization of personal convenience, and the past history of manipulation all contribute to this pessimistic outlook. The narrative concludes with a sense of futility and a profound concern for the future.