By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During an Oval Office briefing, President Trump stated he informed Russian President Putin of his unhappiness regarding the recent Russian missile strike on a U.S.-owned electronics factory in western Ukraine. The factory, belonging to Flex Ltd., was targeted on August 21st, prompting accusations of a deliberate attack during ongoing peace talks. Trump expressed optimism about the U.S.-brokered peace negotiations, claiming the U.S. would know in two weeks how they would unfold and suggested a different approach might be considered if an agreement is not reached.
Read the original article here
Trump “not happy” about Russian strike on a US factory in Ukraine, well, it’s a headline that’s pretty hard to ignore, isn’t it? You’d think a direct hit on a US-linked facility would warrant a response that’s a little stronger than “not happy.” It feels like a polite disapproval, like finding a slightly undercooked steak at a fancy restaurant. You might send it back, but you’re not exactly going to start a brawl over it. This whole situation just underscores the general sentiment of many; this is a display of weakness, a lack of resolve, and perhaps even a level of subservience that’s genuinely unsettling.
The idea of sending a “sad face emoji” to Putin as a response is just… well, it’s something. It’s hard to imagine a more dismissive gesture from the world’s former most powerful person. It speaks volumes about how little regard Putin likely has for Trump, and the level of control he may exert. You almost expect the follow-up to be, “and I’m giving him two weeks to think about what he’s done.” It’s like a time-out for a toddler, not a threat against a country that has been openly attacking another, and now targeted something with American ties.
The responses from some are not surprising. There’s a feeling that the former President is being played, that he is not really in charge, and that Putin is simply mocking him on the world stage. The idea of a “humiliation fetish” is a pretty harsh assessment, but it’s a testament to how some people view his actions. It’s about constantly being embarrassed, and still coming back for more. This constant display of weakness is seen by many as a complete betrayal of any sense of American strength.
The expectation of inaction is almost universal. It’s the same old story, the cycle of outrage, and then disappointment. The constant refrain, “he won’t do anything,” seems to be the prevailing sentiment. It’s this lack of action that fuels the frustration, the idea that a man who once promised strength and decisiveness is now simply incapable of standing up for American interests. The whole situation is a reminder of how much people feel betrayed by this ongoing inaction.
The reactions, ranging from “Benghazi upset” to “slavery in a museum upset,” offer a glimpse into just how the former president’s base may feel. What is the level of outrage? Where is the line that would elicit a strong reaction? It’s a question that some people are seemingly desperate to know the answer to. The answer, seemingly, is that it does not exist. Nothing would move him to action. The idea that he is still being manipulated is a hard pill for some to swallow, and it comes out in how the former President is viewed.
The accusations of being a Russian agent are, of course, intense. And it feels that the lack of response is due to that level of control. It is not just about the strike itself; it’s about the perceived power dynamic and the suggestion that Trump is beholden to Putin. The constant questioning, “What does Putin have on Trump?” is a natural consequence of this perception. It’s not just about the damage to a factory; it’s about the damage to the image of a strong, decisive leader, someone who would supposedly stand up to American adversaries.
The frustration and disappointment are palpable. How many times has this scenario played out? Empty threats, followed by inaction. The world watches, the allies are puzzled, and the enemies gloat. It is a tragic picture of a once-powerful figure, rendered ineffective by some perceived bond. The level of humiliation, and his response to it, just seems to grow with each passing incident.
The commentary about the “pedophile” accusations, are, of course, highly charged and should not be taken lightly. While there may be no consensus on these things, the fact that they are out there adds another layer of suspicion to the whole affair. This adds fuel to the fire, making an already volatile situation even more combustible. The questions from the UK and EU are not unexpected, since many of the world’s leaders are puzzled at the US position.
The accusations are a direct expression of the prevailing view that this is nothing more than a betrayal. A sell-out, not only of American interests, but also of any perceived moral obligations. The idea that financial debts, such as the “Epstein Files” or the “Russian paying off debts” have compromised Trump, are seen as deeply troubling. His response will only serve to strengthen the perception of a man who has been compromised and who is simply not acting in the best interests of his country.
Ultimately, Trump’s reaction, or lack thereof, is an indication of the current state of international relations. It underscores the perception that this is about the former president and his relationship with Putin, not about the defense of American interests. And the fact that this is the narrative seems to be more shocking than the actual strike itself. The question is what does he do, or won’t do, to show that he is no one’s “taco girl”.