By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump initiated ceasefire negotiations concerning the Ukraine conflict with a phone call to President Zelenskyy on May 19th, deviating from expectations of initially contacting Vladimir Putin. Following the Zelenskyy call, Trump subsequently spoke with Putin, as previously announced. The calls aimed to advance efforts toward ending the war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump’s planned diplomatic outreach also includes conversations with NATO allies.
Read the original article here
Trump calling Zelenskyy before speaking with Putin is a fascinating dynamic, revealing a potential pattern in his communication style and decision-making process. The sequence of these calls seemingly holds significant weight, influencing Trump’s subsequent stance on the conflict. The implication is that Trump’s opinions are heavily swayed by the last person he interacts with, a detail that many find both revealing and concerning.
This prioritisation of the most recent interaction suggests a lack of consistent, independent judgment. Instead of forming an informed opinion based on a comprehensive understanding of the situation, Trump appears to adopt the perspective of whomever he last spoke to, essentially acting as a conduit for their arguments. This is highlighted by the comments suggesting that if he speaks to Putin last, his subsequent statements will likely favor Russia’s narrative.
This characteristic makes the order of his calls incredibly important. By calling Zelenskyy first, Trump is, in theory, giving Ukraine’s perspective precedence. However, the uncertainty surrounding whether this was a conscious or accidental decision adds another layer of intrigue. The suggestion that it could be a manifestation of worsening dementia underscores the serious implications of such unpredictable behavior in a high-stakes international conflict.
The potential for this approach to backfire is evident. The comments suggest that regardless of the initial conversation with Zelenskyy, a subsequent conversation with Putin would likely overrule the earlier engagement. This implies a vulnerability to manipulation, with Putin potentially leveraging his influence to shape Trump’s final position. The fear is that any progress made through the call with Zelenskyy would be immediately undermined once Putin’s perspective enters the equation.
The comments express cynicism toward Trump’s ability to negotiate any meaningful outcome. His approach is described as attempting to “make [himself] look good,” a clear indicator of self-interest overriding any concern for actual conflict resolution. The repeated suggestion that he’s easily manipulated, likened to a “wet napkin” in the face of other world leaders, casts serious doubt on his effectiveness as a mediator.
Even if Trump were to genuinely attempt mediation, his communication style itself poses problems. The informal tone, characterized by comments such as “Alright Zelenskyy where you at right now?”, is far from the diplomatic decorum one would expect from such a critical undertaking. This approach could be perceived as disrespectful and undermine any attempt to build trust and foster cooperation.
Further, the comments allude to a potential motive behind the call order – damage control. The idea that Trump’s call to Zelenskyy might be an attempt to appear less biased, or even an unplanned action stemming from his cognitive state, highlights his unpredictability and raises concerns about his judgment. The speculation that this could be an act of damage control only intensifies these anxieties.
The underlying narrative repeatedly emphasizes the concern that any seemingly positive outcome of Trump’s supposed mediation will be short-lived. The prediction that Russia might retaliate by bombing a major city after any announced ceasefire underlines the inherent instability of the situation and the potential for Trump’s actions to exacerbate the conflict. This adds further weight to the critique of his approach as being driven by self-interest and a susceptibility to outside influence.
Ultimately, the order of Trump’s calls – Zelenskyy then Putin – reveals more than just a communication strategy; it showcases a potential vulnerability to manipulation, a questionable decision-making process, and a profound lack of consistent judgment. The entire scenario is infused with a tone of skepticism and uncertainty, painting a picture of a potentially disastrous intervention in a highly volatile international situation. The comments portray a situation where Trump’s actions are more likely to escalate the conflict than to bring about peace.