By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Trump is taking a step back from direct involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, aiming for a preliminary bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy before considering a trilateral meeting. He has expressed a desire to observe the initial meeting’s outcome. While a senior administration official characterizes this as a “wait-and-see approach”, there are few concrete signs of progress toward this meeting. The White House claims Trump is engaging with both Russian and Ukrainian officials, but there has been a disagreement on security guarantees for Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Trump steps back from Russia and Ukraine peace talks for now, sources say, and it’s hard not to see a pattern emerging here. It seems pretty clear that this move is strategically timed, likely to deflect blame if the war doesn’t magically disappear. The sentiment echoes, “We tried nothing, and we’re all out of ideas,” which is a pretty blunt assessment of the situation.
This “step back” seems suspiciously linked to the potential release of the Epstein files. The timing of his stepping away raises questions about what he might be focusing on instead. There’s this undercurrent of, “Hey, I’m still working on ending the war, just you wait.” But it comes across as performative, more about optics than actual action. This feels like a clear sign of not taking the job seriously and failing miserably.
The consistent narrative is one of complete inadequacy, with his appointments also facing severe criticism. It’s like watching “The Art of No Deal” play out in real-time, a tactic to avoid actually committing to anything. The underlying frustration is palpable, highlighting the fact that true diplomacy is about doing the work, not just taking credit for the situation.
The suggestions of a more forceful response from NATO, involving military intervention, stand in stark contrast to the apparent lack of initiative. The emphasis on escalating the conflict seems like the only reasonable strategy at this point in time. It’s a call to action that sharply contrasts with the passive approach. The potential Nobel Prize, which seemed to be a driving factor, is now just another point of contention.
The idea that the deadlines and promises were all lies just reinforces the perception of untrustworthiness and manipulation. Supplying more aggressively and attempting to put pressure on Russia, is a viable option. Instead of trying to do nothing.
The narrative that he stepped back long enough for Putin’s next marching orders further fuels the image of compromised actions and hidden agendas. The phrase, “The Show’s Over,” is rather telling, along with the cynical observation that there were no forward steps, only the “greatest back step.” It’s a brutal takedown, painting a picture of failure and broken promises.
The core issue, according to the critiques, isn’t about peace; it’s about control and public perception. The focus on the Epstein files, while possibly a distraction tactic, underscores the perception that he’s prioritizing personal gain or hidden agendas. The need for the next distraction suggests a calculated approach to handling negative attention, constantly pivoting to stay ahead of the narrative.
The fact-check referencing repeated claims to end the war immediately further emphasizes his inability to deliver. The reality is that the situation has only gotten worse. And the criticism he is facing isn’t unwarranted, it’s a reflection of his actions.
The swift withdrawal, after a limited period of engagement, suggests a lack of commitment or understanding. The “attention span of an ant” comparison hits the nail on the head. It’s a classic move: make a grand gesture, then retreat when it gets difficult.
The consistent use of “TACO” as a descriptor underscores the point of failure, coupled with the accusations of being owned by Putin. The constant stream of criticism reinforces the lack of trust and the perception that he is not able to do the job.