By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a recent call, former U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly suggested to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he strike Moscow and St. Petersburg if provided with necessary weapons. According to sources cited by the Financial Times and The Washington Post, Trump aimed to intensify pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin and force peace negotiations. This shift in strategy comes as Trump’s frustration with Putin grows, and he hardens his stance against Russia, seeking to broker peace amidst the ongoing war. Newsweek has reached out to the White House and Russian foreign ministry for comment.
Read the original article here
Trump raised striking Moscow, St. Petersburg in Zelensky call: reports. It’s a headline that immediately grabs your attention, doesn’t it? The idea of a former U.S. President, someone who had often been seen as cozying up to Russia, now discussing the possibility of targeting major Russian cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg? It’s the kind of development that forces you to sit up and take notice.
The subject matter of a former U.S. leader possibly considering strikes against Russian population centers is clearly a dramatic shift from any previous rhetoric. It’s a stark contrast to the image he often cultivated of seeking better relations with Russia and potentially distancing himself from Ukraine. This pivot, if accurate, suggests a significant change in perspective, one possibly driven by a variety of factors. It’s worth considering what might have prompted this change, and whether it signifies a genuine shift in policy or something else entirely.
Trump’s shift might be driven by a sense of betrayal. The strongmen he often seemed to admire, like Putin, may have had a hold on him, which may have led to the change. Seeing a previously idolized figure supposedly turn on him, in the form of some sort of leverage, is enough to prompt his more vindictive side. He may now see a need to “thank Ukraine for their innovative ways of fighting”.
Another perspective sees this as a direct reaction to the Epstein files, or some sort of damaging material. It’s a compelling angle, suggesting that the threat of exposure is the ultimate motivator. If Putin had leverage over Trump, specifically tied to sensitive information, a shift in his stance could be a desperate attempt to alter the narrative or regain some control. This perspective casts the whole situation in a different light, making Trump’s actions seem less about strategic considerations and more about personal survival.
Whatever the true motive, there’s the distinct possibility this may be a distraction from past actions. Whether it is truly the case is impossible to say without hard evidence, but it would fit the overall narrative of the situation, if the focus is on something else, and takes the attention away from certain documents. The situation is more likely to be a diversion from previous wrongdoings.
It’s also important to consider the potential implications of such actions. If the United States, or any other power, directly supported strikes against major Russian cities, the risk of escalation is immense. Would Russia retaliate in kind? The potential for a devastating conflict increases significantly. The “doomsday clock” moves forward, as it were, with every such move.
There is also the idea that he may not actually follow through on any such actions. There’s a cynicism that exists in this situation. Maybe it’s a power play, a way to garner attention, or a tactic to shift the narrative. Trump has a long history of making bold statements without necessarily backing them up with action.
The possibility of Trump seeing the situation as a win-win for himself is also a point to explore. In his mind, supporting Ukraine, even with aggressive military action, could be framed as a bold move that benefits the United States. It would certainly be a way to change the direction of the story.
The idea that Putin would not strike against American cities should the United States provide support for a strike against Moscow or St. Petersburg is highly questionable. The world may be pushed into an even more dangerous situation than it currently is, with dire consequences. The possible repercussions of this type of situation cannot be understated.
Finally, there is the political context to consider. The reactions to this information can be interpreted as a result of a multitude of different political situations. Even Trump’s base could come to support Ukraine. The world is changing rapidly, and with it, the political landscape.
It’s a complex issue. The headline alone raises so many questions, and the potential ramifications are so far-reaching, that it’s essential to approach the topic with a critical eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. The information that might be available, and the truth that lies beneath it, is the only thing of importance.