US President Donald Trump has escalated his rhetoric on Ukraine, falsely suggesting that Kyiv is responsible for the war with Russia. His latest remarks, made after high-level US-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia, have reinforced concerns that Washington is aligning itself more closely with Moscow.
Trump’s statements reflect a broader shift in US foreign policy under his administration. By excluding Ukraine from the talks and downplaying Russian aggression, he appears to be setting the stage for a settlement that would benefit the Kremlin. But his accusations against Kyiv also serve a more immediate political purpose—deflecting attention from his own failure to secure quick progress in negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Blaming Ukraine: Trump’s Narrative
Following discussions with Russian officials in Riyadh, Trump claimed he felt “more confident” about securing a deal with Moscow. He described the war as “senseless” and suggested that Ukraine had opportunities to end the conflict but failed to act.
“Even an inexperienced negotiator could have solved this years ago,” he said, implying that Kyiv had been unwilling to reach an agreement that could have avoided destruction and loss of life.
His comments directly align with Russian propaganda, which portrays Ukraine as the obstacle to peace rather than the victim of an unprovoked invasion. Trump’s assertion that Ukraine should have accepted a deal suggests he believes that Kyiv should have surrendered to Russian demands—whether that meant territorial concessions or political alignment with Moscow.
Trump’s approach represents a stark reversal of US policy from the previous administration. Under President Joe Biden, Washington firmly backed Ukraine’s sovereignty, providing military aid and diplomatic support. Now, Trump appears to be blaming Kyiv for its own devastation, while pushing for a resolution that serves Moscow’s interests.
Why is Trump Blaming Ukraine Now?
Trump’s rhetoric seems to serve two key objectives:
- Shifting Responsibility for the Stalemate
Trump entered office claiming he could end the war “within 24 hours” by negotiating directly with Putin and Zelensky. However, his early attempts at diplomacy have yielded no results. Moscow has refused to commit to a ceasefire on Trump’s terms, while European allies remain sceptical of his approach. By blaming Ukraine for failing to reach an agreement, he is attempting to justify why his promised breakthrough has not materialised. - Laying the Groundwork for a New Political Order in Ukraine
Trump’s insistence on elections in Ukraine—despite martial law preventing them—suggests he sees a change in leadership as essential to his strategy. He has repeatedly implied that Zelensky’s legitimacy is in question, citing unverified claims that the Ukrainian president’s approval rating is as low as 4%.“They want a seat at the table, but you could say … wouldn’t the people of Ukraine have a say? It’s been a long time since we’ve had an election,” Trump said, suggesting that the current government lacks democratic legitimacy.His remarks echo Putin’s own objectives—installing a Ukrainian government that is more willing to negotiate on Russia’s terms.
Contradicting His Own Administration
Trump’s statements have also raised tensions within his own government. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who led the US delegation in Saudi Arabia, had previously assured allies that any peace agreement would be fair to all parties. However, Trump’s remarks suggest that the US is willing to impose a settlement that prioritises Russian interests over Ukrainian sovereignty.
His comments also risk alienating European leaders, who were already frustrated at being excluded from the negotiations. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, due to visit Washington next week, is expected to raise concerns over Trump’s approach, particularly his suggestion that European troops could enforce a future peace deal without US backing.
Putin’s Calculated Response
Trump’s strategy assumes that Putin is willing to negotiate a ceasefire in exchange for concessions. However, the Russian president has shown little interest in pausing military operations. Reports suggest that Putin rejected Trump’s initial proposal for a temporary ceasefire, instead insisting that Ukraine must first accept territorial losses before any peace deal is reached.
Unlike Trump’s preferred sequence of events—ceasefire, elections, then negotiations—Putin favours the opposite approach: securing territorial gains through military pressure before formalising them in talks. For Moscow, allowing Ukraine to hold elections could backfire, as it might legitimise a government that remains hostile to Russian influence.
Republican Divisions Over Russia
While Trump’s pro-Russian stance has become more pronounced, not all Republicans share his position. Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker has called Putin a “war criminal” who should face trial, while Senator John Kennedy has described him as having “Stalin’s taste for blood.”
However, the party remains largely aligned with Trump, with few Republicans willing to challenge his efforts to reshape US policy towards Ukraine. The lack of pushback from Congress suggests that Trump may have a free hand in determining the future of US support for Kyiv.
The Political Cost of Trump’s Approach
Trump’s latest remarks could have far-reaching consequences. By framing Ukraine as the party responsible for prolonging the war, he risks undermining Western unity at a time when Kyiv is still fighting to defend its territory.
His eagerness to negotiate with Putin—without clear conditions—also sends a signal that the US is no longer committed to supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty. This could embolden Moscow to push for further concessions, prolonging the conflict rather than resolving it.
At the same time, Trump’s focus on a rapid deal—regardless of its long-term viability—suggests that his primary goal is securing a political victory. Whether his approach leads to a sustainable peace or merely emboldens Russia remains an open question.
Implications of Trump’s Stance on Ukraine
Trump’s latest comments mark a significant shift in US policy, with the president blaming Ukraine for the war and positioning himself as the only leader capable of ending it. By excluding Kyiv from negotiations, pushing for elections that are legally impossible, and downplaying Russian aggression, he is aligning himself more closely with Putin’s objectives.
His approach appears driven by both political expediency and a belief that he can personally broker a settlement. However, with Russia unwilling to compromise and European allies growing increasingly wary, Trump’s strategy faces serious obstacles. If he continues down this path, he may find that his efforts to force a deal only deepen the conflict rather than bring it to an end.
Read also:
American Right-Wing Politicians Turn on Trump Over Ukraine Deal
