By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appealed to Donald Trump, urging him to “stay on our side” and support Ukraine against Russian aggression. Zelensky emphasized the critical importance of US backing, stating that the nation is too significant to disengage from the conflict. He expressed that Ukraine cannot concede to Russian demands, as doing so would result in occupation and loss for its people. Discussions surrounding security guarantees remain a point of contention, with Zelensky prioritizing the ratification of these agreements by the US Congress before any peace deal is finalized.
Read the original article here
The very notion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky pleading with former President Donald Trump to “stay on our side” is a stark and unsettling image. It suggests a desperate pivot, a reaching out to a figure whose allegiances have long been perceived as fluid at best, and self-serving at worst. The idea that Ukraine, a nation fighting for its very survival, would find itself in a position to implore any individual, let alone one with such a complex and often contradictory history of international engagement, to align with them is, frankly, mind-boggling.
This plea immediately brings into question the perceived reliability of traditional allies. When one feels the need to appeal to someone who has demonstrated a clear affinity for or at least a working relationship with adversaries, it speaks volumes about the perceived cracks in existing alliances and the urgency of the situation. The underlying sentiment appears to be that traditional avenues of support might be faltering, forcing a consideration of less conventional, and perhaps more precarious, avenues.
Central to the entire discourse surrounding this plea is the characterization of Trump himself. The prevailing sentiment is that Trump operates solely on his own behalf. The idea of him being “on Ukraine’s side” is met with widespread skepticism, bordering on disbelief. He is seen as a transactional figure, driven by immediate gratification, personal gain, and a deep-seated narcissism. Higher ideals like democracy, justice, or even long-term global stability are considered largely irrelevant to his decision-making calculus.
The suggestion that appealing to Trump requires a specific, tailored approach highlights this transactional nature. Offering him something tangible, like the opportunity to build a “Trump Tower” in a liberated Crimea, or even renaming Ukraine in his honor, emerges as a more likely pathway to securing his perceived support than appeals to shared values or humanitarian concerns. The concept of offering him personal profit or immense ego stroking seems to be the only language that resonates.
Furthermore, the notion that Trump has a history of being aligned with Russia or its leadership is a significant factor. Many believe he has been in “Putin’s pocket” for years, and that his past actions, including the impeachment proceedings related to withholding aid to Ukraine, are evidence of this inclination. This perceived historical alignment makes any plea for him to be “on our side” appear tragically misguided, as it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of his core motivations.
The plea also inadvertently raises questions about the responsibility of Ukraine’s immediate neighbors and other European nations. If these entities were providing more robust and unified support, perhaps with a visible military presence even in non-combat zones, the pressure on Zelensky to seek support from an unpredictable figure like Trump might be significantly lessened. The absence of this expected collective European action seems to exacerbate Ukraine’s vulnerability.
The inherent risk in approaching individuals perceived as bullies or narcissists with pleas is also a recurring theme. The idea is that such tactics can backfire, leading to further humiliation rather than securing genuine support. Narcissists, it’s argued, tend to categorize people into those they wish to bask in the glory of and those they gain pleasure from humiliating, and begging often places one firmly in the latter category.
Ultimately, the overarching message is that Ukraine’s true allies, in the absence of more reliable American commitment, lie within Europe. While the United States has historically been a pillar of support, the current political landscape and the perceived personal motivations of Donald Trump cast a long shadow of doubt. The hope, it seems, lies in Europe stepping up to provide the necessary security guarantees, as relying on Trump for anything beyond self-interest appears to be a gamble with extremely low odds of a favorable outcome for Ukraine.