By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte believes former US President Donald Trump is the only individual capable of compelling Vladimir Putin to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. According to Rutte, Trump’s focus is on ending the conflict and he has the potential to bring Putin to the negotiating table. Rutte also emphasized that achieving peace requires compromises, but did not specify which parties should make concessions. Furthermore, Rutte expressed confidence that the US would remain committed to NATO, regardless of Trump’s presidency.
Read the original article here
NATO secretary general says Trump is only one who can force Putin to make peace – that’s quite a statement, isn’t it? It’s a bold claim that immediately gets you thinking. The idea that one person, especially someone who has, let’s say, a complicated history with the Russian leader, holds the key to ending a major international conflict is a lot to take in. It almost sounds like a Hail Mary pass.
This perspective quickly comes up against a wave of skepticism, doesn’t it? There’s a strong sentiment that this isn’t about genuine peacemaking, but perhaps a clumsy attempt to flatter Trump. Some people see this as playing to Trump’s ego, potentially hoping to influence him. The worry is that Trump is already too easily manipulated by Putin. The concern is that instead of forcing peace, Trump might be further influenced by Putin, solidifying a power dynamic that favors Russia.
The manipulation goes both ways, though. The potential is there for Trump to believe he’s in control, when in fact, he is not. The challenge, according to some, is exposing this manipulation to Trump. It’s about making him understand the extent of Putin’s influence. But, as one can imagine, it is a very difficult thing to do as Putin is believed to have already put his hooks in first.
Then there’s the question of what “peace” might actually look like. Would it involve the US giving up territory to Russia? That’s a deal-breaker for many, and it raises the specter of rewarding aggression. The underlying feeling is that giving away territory isn’t a long-term solution. It’s just a way for Putin to get what he wants.
The general impression seems to be that Trump would be more inclined to accommodate Putin’s desires. This is a common concern among those critical of Trump’s foreign policy. Instead of forcing peace, he might be more likely to negotiate a deal favorable to Russia, even if it means sacrificing Ukrainian sovereignty.
Many believe that Trump is more likely to undermine the peace and help America’s enemies instead. Some go so far as to suggest Trump is a “Russian asset,” echoing accusations from years ago. This casts a dark shadow over the entire premise, turning it into a question of whose interests Trump would actually serve.
There is the sense that Putin doesn’t really want the war to end, which is a major obstacle. The idea that Trump, with his own set of priorities and potential vulnerabilities, could somehow force Putin to change his mind seems optimistic at best. This perspective points to a more fundamental issue: a lack of genuine commitment to ending the war on terms that are acceptable to Ukraine and its allies.
The response from Europe is one of frustration. There is a sense of being left out of the negotiations and being forced to bear the brunt of the situation. Some view the NATO Secretary General’s statement with bewilderment and even derision, seeing it as naive, or perhaps as a clumsy attempt to court Trump’s favor.
The question of whether Trump can even *ask* Putin to do anything is a critical point. Many seem to believe that Trump is in no position to dictate terms to Putin. The relationship between the two leaders is not seen as one of equals. Some believe Trump is little more than a “puppet.”
There is also a concern that Trump is more interested in appeasing Putin than in actually seeking peace. Instead of forcing Putin to make concessions, Trump might be more inclined to pressure Ukraine to give in to Russia’s demands. This view is very common.
Many people believe that it is not Trump but the EU that could exert some true pressure. Many see this as a way to force Russia to come to terms, rather than rely on Trump’s supposed influence. It is a view that challenges the very foundation of the original statement.
Finally, the whole idea is seen as a way to play to Trump’s ego. The suggestion is that, instead of focusing on genuine diplomacy, the approach is designed to flatter Trump and make him feel important. This makes the whole situation very uncomfortable.