By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a recent hour-long phone call between U.S. President Trump and Russian President Putin, Trump reported that no progress was made regarding ending the war in Ukraine. The call, the sixth between the two leaders since January, focused on the conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East. Putin, according to a Kremlin aide, indicated Russia would continue pursuing its goals in the war. This comes as Russia intensifies attacks, and the U.S. paused weapons shipments, while Ukrainian President Zelensky emphasized the need for direct talks between national leaders to achieve peace.
Read the original article here
Trump says he “didn’t make any progress” with Putin following phone call. Well, that’s quite a statement, isn’t it? It’s almost shocking to hear him admit that, considering his reputation for self-aggrandizement and the whole “art of the deal” persona. But here we are. The reality, as the comments seem to suggest, is far more complex than a simple lack of progress.
It seems the general sentiment is that the lack of progress might be the *only* truthful thing coming from him. A common thread weaving through these reactions is the idea that the call wasn’t about negotiation or progress in the traditional sense. Instead, it’s framed as something akin to an instruction session, where Trump was receiving marching orders. The perception is that Putin, not Trump, dictated the terms. Some commenters even suggest Trump was acting as an asset, a puppet, a tool, rather than a leader capable of achieving anything in the US’s favor.
The implication is that Trump didn’t just fail to make progress; he actively *aided* Putin’s goals. Stopping arms shipments to Ukraine is cited as a key example, painted as a concession made without any reciprocal benefit. This paints a picture of a very lopsided interaction, where Trump essentially gave Putin what he wanted while receiving nothing in return, making it hard to believe he’s making the decisions.
The language used is sharp and critical, the words are not kind. “Dumb,” “demented,” and “loser” are just a few of the choice words employed. This harsh assessment likely stems from a combination of factors, including disillusionment with his past actions, his perceived weakness, and the overall perception of his relationship with Putin. The phrase “brain-dead American” says a lot about the commenter’s mindset. The comments also suggest a profound disappointment in the United States on a wider international scale.
The reactions also raise questions about transparency. There’s a strong desire for the release of the phone call’s transcript, to see the “actual chit chat,” not some manufactured narrative. This longing for transparency suggests a deep distrust, a feeling that things are being hidden and that the public is not getting the full picture. The suggestion that Trump should be put in a home is not so flattering.
And of course, there’s the recurring theme of Trump’s supposed weakness and ineffectiveness. The critiques are not just about the lack of progress with Putin; they’re about the bigger picture, his perceived incompetence, and his tendency to seemingly be played by stronger figures. The entire tone suggests the current and former administration isn’t being run as a strong government for the benefit of its people.
Moreover, it looks as if the comments suggest that this is not a matter of policy disagreements but of a fundamental lack of respect for the US and its leaders. The statements reflect a deep sense of betrayal, a feeling that Trump is not acting in the best interests of the country or its allies. The comment from the European perspective is especially cutting. It is an indictment of Trump’s leadership, which the commenter believes has damaged America’s standing and jeopardized its alliances.
Ultimately, the reactions portray a picture of a relationship between Trump and Putin. It wasn’t about negotiations; it was about giving. A relationship of such lopsidedness does not bode well for the future. And for many, Trump’s own admission of no progress is not a sign of integrity but a reflection of his incompetence and his subservience to a much more powerful figure.