By Matt Underwood 
Ukraine deliberately blindsided Trump before the massive drone attack on Russia, and for good reason. The decision to exclude him from the pre-attack briefing wasn’t a simple oversight; it was a calculated move born from a deep-seated lack of trust. The prevailing sentiment is that sharing crucial military intelligence with Trump would be akin to handing it directly to Putin, given Trump’s well-documented affinity for the Russian president and his perceived pro-Russia stance.
This strategic decision wasn’t merely about avoiding a leak; it reflected a broader assessment of Trump’s trustworthiness. The perception is widespread that he’s easily manipulated, prone to revealing sensitive information, and potentially even acting as a Russian asset. The prevailing view among many is that any intelligence shared with him would inevitably find its way into Putin’s hands, severely jeopardizing the operation’s success.
The Ukrainian leadership’s decision underscores the profound distrust felt by many toward Trump, even to the point of undermining potential cooperation for the sake of operational security. The narrative suggests that Ukraine likely viewed sharing information with Trump as a risk far outweighing any potential benefits. It’s a gamble they deemed necessary to protect the operation and ultimately, themselves.
Consider the context of previous meetings and interactions between Trump and Ukrainian officials. Many believe these encounters left a lasting impression of Trump’s potential to sabotage efforts against Russia. The memory of those earlier meetings, characterized by perceived disrespect and a lack of support for Ukraine’s cause, cemented the conviction that informing him would be foolhardy.
This wasn’t simply a matter of omitting Trump; it’s suggested that the operation itself was shrouded in remarkable secrecy. The planning phase stretched over eighteen months, with information about the attack remaining carefully guarded, highlighting the sophistication and effectiveness of Ukraine’s operational security. This stands in stark contrast to perceived vulnerabilities within the U.S. Department of Defense.
Furthermore, the attack’s success is seen as further vindication of Ukraine’s decision. The daring and impactful nature of the strike against strategically important Russian targets highlights the value of keeping the details under wraps. The secrecy ensured the attack’s success and reinforced the belief that excluding Trump was a necessary safeguard.
The absence of any obligation to brief Trump on Ukraine’s military strategy is also emphasized. Many argue that Ukraine has no inherent duty to keep Trump informed, particularly given his past statements and actions regarding the conflict. The view is that Ukraine is fighting its own war, and its own decisions regarding operational security are paramount.
It’s also speculated that the Ukrainian government may have deliberately leaked misinformation to Trump in the past to gauge his reactions and potential leaks. This tactic would allow them to assess the extent of his susceptibility to manipulation and the potential risks of sharing real intelligence with him. This underscores the lengths Ukraine went to in order to protect its operations.
The overall conclusion is that Ukraine’s decision was not a matter of carelessness or oversight, but a strategic choice grounded in deep skepticism about Trump’s trustworthiness and a firm understanding of the risks associated with sharing sensitive military information with him. The successful execution of the drone attack only reinforces this perspective. The prevailing belief is that the success of the operation is a testament to the wisdom of Ukraine’s decision to keep Trump completely in the dark. It’s a situation where the lack of information turned into a powerful strategic advantage.