By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a White House news conference, former US President Donald Trump stated his intention to negotiate the return of Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia during his upcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Trump anticipates a “feel-out meeting” with Putin on Friday, after which he will contact European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to inform them of any proposed “fair deal”. Trump has expressed his disagreement with Zelensky’s actions. Kaja Kallas, vice-president of the European Commission, stated that Putin wants to divide territories and spheres of influence.
Read the original article here
Trump says he will try to get back territory for Ukraine in talks with Putin, and it’s hard to ignore the cynicism surrounding the whole idea. The common thread seems to be a deep-seated skepticism, and honestly, it’s pretty easy to understand why. The general consensus is that “try” in Trump-speak is code for “won’t even remotely attempt it.” This perception is fueled by a history of grand promises that often fail to materialize.
It’s painted as a scenario where Trump, the self-proclaimed “best negotiator,” will engage in a conversation with Putin, and then, predictably, offer a justification that he failed, like how he would supposedly get 50% of Ukraine back, but it would not occur. This narrative of supposed hard work that then is easily defeated, isn’t exactly inspiring confidence. It leads many to believe he would probably capitulate and offer Ukraine’s territory to Russia, perhaps even providing Russia with more.
The details being bandied about suggest that the outcome of any such meeting will be some sort of capitulation on the side of the US. It’s suggested that he might try to negotiate giving up territory that is not heavily defended, or it is simply Russia’s to take. The idea is that it would appear like concessions were made from both sides to create a peace treaty that favors Russia, a tactic that would not allow Ukraine to protect itself.
The underlying distrust runs deep, and it bleeds into all the speculation surrounding this hypothetical meeting. The idea of Trump standing up to Putin is laughable to many. Given the situation, and the history between them, and how there has always been a supposed relationship that benefits Putin, it’s easy to imagine that Trump would likely bend over backward to please Putin.
The fear is that any “agreement” would effectively legitimize Russia’s land grab. If Trump is negotiating, it’s suspected he would focus on limiting weapons supplies, restricting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and pushing for concessions that would undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and security. The core concern here is that the result would be a situation where Russia gets to keep the territory it seized.
Some comments go further, suggesting that Trump might be more concerned with his personal interests than with the fate of Ukraine. This opens the door to speculation about other hidden incentives, such as potential blackmail from Russia, or the unearthing of files that may hold evidence that incriminates Trump.
The most scathing remarks portray Trump not just as weak but also as untrustworthy and potentially dangerous. There’s a consensus that he is unwilling to stand against Russia, and this is made even worse by the context that the enemy put bounties on Americans. The implications are serious and raise questions about national security.
The overall feeling is that the very idea of Trump negotiating for Ukraine’s interests is a farce. People seem to assume it will be a sham negotiation. Most of the people commenting appear to believe he is going to do the opposite of what he claims to be doing.
At the end of the day, the skepticism surrounding Trump’s intentions is palpable. The expectation is that he will prioritize his own interests, and that he will fold as soon as the negotiations get tough. The people who don’t trust him seem to think he will not be able to get any territory back for Ukraine.