By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the successful brokering of a peace deal between Israel and Hamas, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to prioritize resolving the Russia-Ukraine war. Trump’s shift in focus follows stalled peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv, despite his previous backing of direct negotiations. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who attempted to negotiate a peace deal with Putin, faced criticism for echoing Russian narratives and lacking a clear understanding of Ukraine’s position. Trump also stated he is prepared to send long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine but plans to first discuss the matter with Putin.
Read the original article here
Trump says he’ll focus on Ukraine war after brokering Israel-Hamas deal, and honestly, that’s a statement that raises a lot of eyebrows. It’s a big claim, especially considering the complexities of both conflicts. It’s almost like, alright, he’s stepping in to solve a problem that everyone agrees is incredibly difficult, and the reaction is… well, varied, to say the least.
The prevailing sentiment seems to be a mix of skepticism and outright disbelief. Some people are wondering how he plans to approach the situation, especially since peace talks between Russia and Ukraine are, as it stands, pretty much at a standstill. There are questions being asked, like, “Did he forget about the past dealings and proposed solutions, or did he think there was no more need to focus on it?” The general feeling is that Russia’s actions and Putin’s stance will make any peace deal exceedingly challenging. People are also expressing doubts that he would be able to broker a meaningful peace deal.
Focusing on the Ukraine war after an Israel-Hamas deal also raises questions about his priorities. It feels like a “wait, what?” moment for many. Some see this as a potential for the situation to deteriorate. Doubts about his strategy and ability to handle such intricate geopolitical issues are expressed. People seem to be feeling that his focus should be on America, rather than diving into international conflicts.
Then there is the point being made that the Israel-Hamas deal itself is not what it seems, and that maybe he’s taking credit where it isn’t necessarily due. There’s a concern that the deal’s success is overhyped and the situation’s long-term implications may be understated. The prevailing concern here is that he might be misrepresenting his role in the negotiations.
The idea of Trump being involved in the Ukraine war also brings up concerns about his potential approach to the conflict. Some are worried that he might align himself with Putin, viewing him as the stronger party and favoring appeasement over supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty. There’s the sense that his focus might not be about finding a lasting solution, but rather about scoring political points or personal gain, which could lead to unintended consequences. The emphasis is on “America First”, with everything else coming after.
The situation is, undoubtedly, complex. The war in Ukraine has dragged on for almost four years, and the only way it’s realistically going to end is if Russia faces consequences that are unbearable. People think that giving Ukraine significant support to counter Russia’s advances is the only way to change the situation. The goal is to shift the balance of power.
There’s also the frustration that Ukraine needs tangible support, like precision weaponry, air defenses, and logistical help, rather than empty promises. The main point that’s coming across is a longing for serious, sustained action rather than superficial gestures. People have concerns that if Trump steps in, he might end up being played by Putin, and that any attempts at negotiation could be ineffective or even detrimental to Ukraine’s cause.
The key takeaway is this: Trump’s stated intention to focus on the Ukraine war after an Israel-Hamas deal is met with skepticism, doubt, and a sense of déjà vu. The perceived approach, potential priorities, and past actions all contribute to an environment where it’s difficult to believe in a positive outcome. The situation demands a nuanced understanding of the war, the players involved, and the potential consequences of any actions taken.