By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy urged Donald Trump to take a definitive stance on sanctions against Russia and security guarantees for Ukraine. Specifically, Zelenskyy highlighted the potential for the US to provide Ukraine with air defense systems and implement impactful sanctions targeting the Russian economy. He believes Trump’s decisive actions are crucial for compelling Vladimir Putin to end the war. Zelenskyy also expressed hope that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer would discuss Ukraine’s future with Trump during his state visit.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s actions highlight a stark reality: Trump, despite wielding immense power, appears to be under Putin’s influence. The situation is complex, a mix of personal insecurities, potential leverage, and perhaps even admiration, as indicated by the fact that Zelenskyy is attempting to appeal to Trump’s ego by making comments on his perceived strength. This raises the question of whether Trump could genuinely intimidate Putin, and the answer, unfortunately, seems to be a resounding no.
The core issue lies in the suggestion that Trump has something to fear from Putin. There’s a strong sentiment that Putin possesses compromising material, perhaps the infamous “Moscow tapes” or references to the Epstein files, that keeps Trump compliant. This isn’t about military might or political strategy; it’s about personal vulnerability. Trump, with his history of controversial behavior, is seen as someone susceptible to blackmail, someone who prioritizes his own image and reputation over international diplomacy or strategic alliances. The implication is clear: Trump’s perceived fear of Putin overrides his capacity to act decisively against him.
This perception is further reinforced by Trump’s actions. Rather than projecting strength or issuing threats, Trump is seen as appeasing Putin, often echoing Russian talking points or downplaying Russian aggression. This behavior is not consistent with a leader who feels empowered or confident. A leader who could intimidate Putin would likely be more assertive, more critical of Russian actions, and less willing to compromise on key issues.
The narrative also suggests that Trump’s personality is a factor. Trump is often portrayed as a bully, someone who thrives on intimidation but lacks the courage to confront those he perceives as stronger. His actions show that he is often eager to take on those that are considered defenseless, but is reluctant to confront anyone that might have a hold on him. Putin, with his alleged kompromat, is seen as having the upper hand, a position from which he can dictate Trump’s behavior. This creates a dynamic where Trump is not a threat to Putin, but rather a tool.
Adding to the complexity is the speculation about Trump’s motivations. Some believe Trump has a financial interest in maintaining a positive relationship with Russia, possibly through illicit channels. This would further explain his reluctance to challenge Putin and his willingness to overlook Russian misdeeds. The narrative suggests that money, combined with personal vulnerability, creates a potent mix that renders Trump incapable of acting against Putin’s interests.
This assessment has serious implications for international relations. The United States, under Trump’s influence, is perceived as unreliable, potentially unwilling or unable to stand up to Russian aggression. This weakens alliances, emboldens adversaries, and undermines the global order. Europe, in particular, is left in a precarious position, forced to navigate a situation where the US, a supposed ally, may be compromised.
This raises questions about the role of other actors, particularly Europe and NATO. Are they equipped to act independently of the US? Can they counter Russian aggression without relying on a potentially compromised American leader? The narrative suggests that the situation is dire, that the US under Trump cannot be trusted, and that other nations must find a way to forge their own path.
Ultimately, this perspective paints a bleak picture. Trump, despite his position of power, is seen as a pawn, a puppet in Putin’s game. His inability to act against Putin is attributed not to a lack of capacity, but to a lack of will, driven by fear, potential blackmail, and perhaps even a misguided admiration for the Russian leader. The international community, therefore, is left to grapple with a leader whose actions are dictated not by strategic considerations or moral principles, but by personal vulnerabilities and potential threats.