By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In his evening address, President Zelenskyy condemned Russia’s recent strike on Kyiv as an attack not only on Ukraine but also on Europe and former US President Donald Trump. Zelenskyy asserted that Russia’s actions demonstrate an unwavering commitment to war, targeting those who seek peace. He further criticized Russia’s strategy of using violence to undermine negotiations and draw other nations, including China and India, into complicity through trade, thus emphasizing the importance of global unity against Russian aggression.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s framing of Russia’s aggression as a direct hit against Trump is, frankly, a smart move. It’s a calculated maneuver, a strategic use of “kiddy psychology,” as some might say, tailored for a specific audience: the former U.S. president. The core idea here is to make the situation personal, to ensure that every attack on Ukraine resonates not just as a geopolitical event, but as a direct challenge to Trump’s ego and legacy.
The brilliance, or perhaps the cynicism, of this approach lies in its understanding of the dynamics at play. The goal is to craft a narrative where Russia’s actions are portrayed as an attempt to humiliate Trump. Headlines screaming “Trump HUMILIATED by Russia’s strike on Ukraine” or “Putin MOCKS Trump” become the weapons. The aim is to get his attention, and the assumption is that the desire for self-preservation and the aversion to being seen as weak will override any ideological alignment. It’s about making it so that ignoring the situation becomes an unacceptable failure, a direct blow to his image of strength.
The logic is straightforward: Trump responds to personal slights and perceived threats to his stature. Zelenskyy is essentially trying to manipulate this, to turn the crisis into something Trump can’t ignore. The hope is that this approach will shift Trump’s stance, and perhaps even force him to take a more assertive position against Russia.
Of course, the success of this strategy is not guaranteed. Some argue that Trump and Putin are aligned, that they are in the same bed, and that a direct appeal will fall on deaf ears. Others suggest that Trump’s interests in the region might be limited to financial gain or the acquisition of land. There’s also the argument that shaming doesn’t work with Trump, as his base is a reaction against imposed shame and is vulnerable to persuasion.
However, Zelenskyy’s approach is based on recognizing that Trump thrives on validation and abhors being portrayed as a loser. By subtly framing Russia’s actions as a personal affront, he’s creating a situation where Trump’s own self-interest becomes a key factor in his response. This is a move not just to appeal to Trump but to manipulate him.
Moreover, there’s a deeper historical context to consider. Framing the conflict in terms of Reagan’s legacy – the removal of the Iron Curtain, the spread of freedom and democracy – may resonate with Trump’s supporters. Zelenskyy is presenting an opportunity for Trump to align himself with a historical narrative of strength and success, to seize the moment to save Reagan’s legacy.
The success of Zelenskyy’s efforts depends, ultimately, on whether he can successfully link his interests to Trump’s. To see if he can find a new way to use the situation as a way to win. This approach is a testament to Zelenskyy’s savvy and willingness to use every tool at his disposal to protect his country.