By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Over the summer, the Trump administration’s approach to Russia has shifted, as it attempts to pressure Vladimir Putin into peace talks with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Despite this tougher stance, Putin has resisted negotiations, leading to increased calls for harsher sanctions against Russia. While Trump desires the EU to cease buying Russian oil and strengthen its sanctions, he is waiting for Europe to make these changes first. The U.S. is working to reduce Russia’s ability to fund the war, aiming to displace Russian gas.
Read the original article here
Trump finally calls Russia the ‘aggressor’ in war on Ukraine, a statement that’s, well, interesting, to say the least. It’s like watching a weather vane in a hurricane. You get whiplash trying to keep up. And the immediate thought that pops into mind is, what does this mean for his relationship with, ahem, his “friends”? The implications are… complicated.
The sheer unpredictability of it all is a bit exhausting, isn’t it? One day it’s “stopped seven wars,” a claim that, frankly, falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. The next day, it’s a condemnation of Russia. The problem isn’t just the flip-flopping; it’s the sheer lack of consistency that renders his pronouncements utterly devoid of meaning. What does it even *mean* when someone says one thing and then, seemingly at random, says the exact opposite?
The memory of a goldfish is a surprisingly apt analogy, isn’t it? You could replace “Russia the aggressor” with any other stance and predict a rapid about-face. It’s a reminder to not take anything he says as gospel. It’s more like background noise, a series of verbal fumbles, than a solid foundation of policy or principle. And while the world is busy trying to decipher the latest pronouncements, the real issues remain largely unaddressed.
It’s almost as if he’s taking cues from… somewhere else. Perhaps someone told him Russia might lose, so he’s positioning himself to swoop in and take credit for the eventual victory? That would fit the pattern. Or maybe he’s just saying whatever pops into his head at that precise moment, with no regard for consistency or coherence. Whatever the motivation, it’s clear that his words are, at best, fleeting and, at worst, actively misleading.
And let’s be honest, this is not a new phenomenon. We’ve seen this pattern for years. A statement here, a retraction there, a complete denial the next day. It is the political equivalent of quicksand. You get sucked in trying to make sense of it, and then suddenly you’re back where you started. The only thing that remains constant is the uncertainty and the need to look beyond the words themselves.
The timing of this announcement – calling Russia the aggressor – is also curious. It’s hard to ignore the fact that these pronouncements often coincide with, shall we say, unflattering press coverage. Could this be a deflection tactic? A means of changing the narrative? We may never know the real reason, but it is hard not to wonder, especially given other alleged legal issues in the mix.
Moreover, the fact that it took so long to arrive at this conclusion – if it even *is* a conclusion – is frankly astounding. To finally acknowledge the reality of the situation is, in itself, a statement on the state of affairs. The lack of any clear, decisive action speaks volumes.
Then there’s the issue of accountability. Words are cheap. Actions are what matter. Condemning Russia verbally is one thing; actually *doing* something about it is quite another. Until we see concrete steps taken, any verbal condemnation is just noise. Until he actually does something, it’s essentially meaningless. And the likelihood of any real change in behavior is, well, slim to none.
The constant shifting and the lack of any underlying principle make it impossible to trust anything he says. You can’t trust someone who forgets their own statements within hours, let alone formulate a coherent foreign policy. Consistency is key, and that is one ingredient that he seems to have misplaced long ago. The only thing you can expect is the unexpected.
And, of course, the ever-present shadow of the Epstein files looms large. One has to wonder whether this latest statement is somehow connected to that whole, messy business. Will the files be released? Who knows. But the timing, as always, is highly suspect. The only question is, what will he say tomorrow? Or, more accurately, what *won’t* he say? The answer, as always, is: who can even keep track?