By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump stated in an interview that his administration would know within two weeks if there would be peace in Ukraine, hinting at a change in strategy if a resolution wasn’t reached. This statement follows a pattern of setting deadlines for the war, none of which resulted in immediate action. Trump also claimed the war wouldn’t have happened under his leadership and criticized the current administration’s restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to strike inside Russia. Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham threatened to designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism if they did not return the thousands of Ukrainian children abducted during the conflict.
Read the original article here
Going around in circles – that’s exactly what it feels like, isn’t it? The headlines flash, the news cycles churn, and here we are, discussing yet another supposed deadline for peace in Ukraine set by Trump. It’s like a rerun of a bad movie, and the script hasn’t changed much in the last few months. We’re back to square one, it seems, watching the same predictable patterns unfold.
This whole situation, with Trump announcing deadlines that come and go without any tangible results, is starting to feel like a cruel joke. Another two-week deadline? Seriously? It’s almost comical at this point, this constant cycle of pronouncements followed by… well, nothing. The anticipation of each new “deadline” seems more about the theater of it all than any genuine commitment to action. Nine months late on his first promised deadline, and the promises keep coming. It’s almost like those who shout the loudest are, as they say, full of something else entirely.
The core of the issue, as it appears, is the suspicion that Trump is merely stalling. It looks like he’s playing a game of delay, providing cover for Putin while the bloodshed continues. There’s a palpable frustration in the air, a feeling that the United States, under his supposed leadership, has become compromised, turning a blind eye to the aggression while the world looks on. The consistent lack of consequences for Russia fuels this perception, leaving many to wonder if the true agenda is something other than peace.
And then there’s Lindsey Graham. Ah, “tough” Lindsey Graham. When he speaks of potential tough legislation, it hardly seems convincing. Is it a strongly worded letter, or a more “powder puff” approach? The feeling seems to be that his threats are as empty as his promises, and that he’s just going through the motions. The sense that he’s not a serious player is strong. The “sanction deadlines” are, as some say, swiftly undone with a smile and a handshake, further eroding any confidence in the US’s resolve.
The world stage is hardly impressed. The Russians, it would seem, are digging in their heels, unwilling to concede anything meaningful. The EU and other allies are urged to take the lead, to step in and compensate for a perceived vacuum of leadership emanating from Washington. There’s a sense that the US has abandoned its role as a dependable ally. The rest of the world is encouraged to shut out the US until the situation is resolved. The global feeling is that it is a time of ineptitude.
This leadership feels deeply lacking in vision and competence. The public appearances, the supposed negotiations, all the talk… it amounts to nothing more than what some see as gibberish. These performances, seemingly, are more theater than substance. The words are just words, with no weight behind them. This whole situation is presented to look more like a sad spectacle, not a genuine effort to address the crisis.
The frustration boils over into the simple, undeniable fact: there is no real progress being made. The war continues, and the leaders are simply continuing to make hollow pronouncements. The cycle of empty deadlines reinforces the perception of a lack of resolve. The constant repetition of this pattern can easily lead to the feeling that both Trump and Putin have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo – perhaps, for the sake of financial gain.
The question, then, is: what can be done? The most commonly offered answer is, put up or shut up. Backbreaking sanctions. A no-fly zone. Or simply admitting a lack of interest in resolving the situation and accepting the consequences of the US’s inaction. The impotence and lack of integrity are clear.
The two-week deadline is, as the critics so clearly point out, a joke. It’s a pattern, and in this pattern, we find the same things. Trump is stalling for Putin. He is all about the theatrics and promises of actions. And it is a repeat of the same thing over and over.