By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On July 5th, President Trump stated that Russian President Putin does not appear interested in ending the war in Ukraine, expressing his unhappiness with their recent phone call. During the call, which focused on Ukraine, Putin reportedly indicated that Russia would continue pursuing its goals. Following escalating attacks by Russia, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Zelensky, calling the conversation “strategic” and hinting at the potential supply of Patriot air defense systems. However, Trump’s administration has yet to impose new sanctions or approve additional aid packages, while also directing strikes against Iran.
Read the original article here
Trump says Putin “wants to keep killing people,” signaling a potential shift in rhetoric, which is interesting, to say the least. It’s quite a statement, and it comes after a period where aid to Ukraine has been, let’s say, uncertain. There’s been talk of withholding aid, and even reports of assistance already on its way being put on hold. The constant shifting back and forth is, well, it’s something we’ve all become accustomed to. “May send,” “is considering it,” and a vague “two-week deadline” – it’s a pattern that’s hard to ignore.
The core of the issue, as I see it, is this: will actions match the words? We’ve heard the promise of ending the war quickly before, even within 24 hours, a claim that seems distant now. Now the idea is, maybe, just maybe, sending Patriots, which, let’s face it, would be a significant step in supporting Ukraine’s defense. This is a pretty big departure from what was promised before. It’s hard to be optimistic when the track record is, shall we say, spotty. It’s worth remembering the previous promises and the actions that followed, or rather, didn’t follow.
The criticism is sharp, and it’s understandable. The accusation of being “terrified of daddy Putin,” and the constant flip-flopping creates a feeling of unpredictability. Remember, just because a person speaks a certain way does not mean that is the same as doing something. People are right to ask, if he truly believes this about Putin, why the hesitation? Why the maybes and the considering, instead of decisive action? Because there is a lot of “I can do this,” “I will do that,” but the question comes down to, will it happen?
The whole dynamic with aid to Ukraine is frustrating. Reports of aid being stalled in transit are a concern, and the withholding of support could be seen as a strategic move but also as a lack of conviction. You can’t help but wonder if there’s something else going on here. Is this a tactical move, playing the political game, or something deeper? And the question is, again, why is it being stopped?
The timing is also suspicious. The statements are coming with that “two-week” timeframe. This creates an impression of a performance, a show for the media and for certain parties. The overall implication is one of not helping, but of making sure the attention stays on a person, not on the matter itself. It raises suspicions of ulterior motives.
There’s also the stark contrast between what’s being said and what’s actually happening. On one hand, we have statements about Putin’s intentions. On the other, it’s all maybes and perhaps. We should be cautious about taking the statements at face value, and we should instead be looking at the actions. The statements about potential Patriot missile systems are meaningless until they are actually delivered.
What’s more, it’s worth considering the historical context. Ukraine has been trying to purchase Patriot systems, even when he was in charge before. Now the talk of sending them makes one wonder what the actual plan is. It’s essential to analyze the long game. Why now, and what are the potential consequences?
The lack of consistent support and even the blocking of aid seems to be a constant reminder of the unreliability of this approach. This inconsistency makes it challenging to be optimistic, even when a potentially positive announcement is made. The bottom line is: watch the actions, not the words.