Staff Reports
Donald Trump’s recent debate performance was a mixed bag, leaving some of his supporters scratching their heads and others chuckling at how undisciplined his approach appeared. Critics from all corners were quick to point out that the former president’s delivery wasn’t exactly what one would call composed. However, when the topic turned to the conflict in Ukraine, it was as if a light bulb went off; suddenly, Trump was articulate and down-to-earth in confronting a question that most leaders seemed to fear.
During this debate, moderator David Muir asked Trump a rather loaded set of questions about Ukraine. The first was how he would resolve the war in merely 24 hours – a grandiose claim that popped into Trump’s playbook without skipping a beat. The second was a blunt inquiry about whether he desired a victory for Ukraine. It’s astonishing how Muir thought these two questions belonged in the same breath, but hey, who’s keeping score? The core of the second question is nonsensical at best; of course, Trump supports Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, can anyone really claim there’s a “win” to be had when both sides have been locked in a stalemate for far too long?
Pointedly and persuasively, @monacharen nails one of the most critical and under appreciated parts of the debate: Trump refusing to say he wants Ukraine to winhttps://t.co/HVRCz98NKT
— Sam Stein (@samstein) September 11, 2024
In true Trump fashion, he sidestepped the political gymnastics and simply stated that he wanted the war to stop. And why wouldn’t he? Civilian casualties are soaring, there are staggering numbers of refugees, and the devastation in Eastern Ukraine can only be compared to a post-apocalyptic movie set. Estimates put rebuilding efforts in the ballpark of $480 billion. Unsurprisingly, it’s difficult to tell which nation will jump at the opportunity to front that gargantuan sum.
One thing is clear: Ukraine is stuck in a tough spot against the Russian bear. Trump’s recognition that Ukraine cannot win a straight-up fight with Russia is an acknowledgment grounded in reality. The possibility that the U.S. and NATO would intervene militarily against a nuclear-armed nation? Absurd. The prudent path is to negotiate, and Trump pointed this out while casting a side-eye at the current administration’s ongoing reluctance to even acknowledge the nuclear aspect of this conflict.
Trump’s commentary on Biden’s competency (or lack thereof) in dealing with Putin seems almost prophetic. While Biden trots around claiming how tough he is on Russia, Trump makes it known that neither he nor Kamala Harris have a viable plan for addressing the war – let alone any negotiating tactics they’d deploy. It stands to reason: if either had a solid game plan, one would think they’d share that with the American public. Instead, it feels more like a cheerleading squad for Ukraine, resolutely pushing for a ‘victory’ that seems increasingly disconnected from reality.
The former president’s recognition that a compromised resolution may be in everyone’s best interests is not only logical but echoes sentiments that have begun to seep into Biden’s own rhetoric. With Putin seemingly warming up to the idea of negotiations post-occupation of significant areas in Ukraine, Trump’s call for realistic engagement can’t be overlooked. If only the current administration would take notes from the man whose achievements consistently have attacks hurled at them due to his persona rather than his policies. Failing to strategize effectively against a nuclear power? That’s a tremendous gamble that no one wants the U.S. to take.
