The 'World According to Trump' is Beginning to Take Shape - and Very Worryingly

Recently, the US President-elect has begun to articulate his own vision of a peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian crisis more or less clearly and distinctly. Some of his statements, although voiced by leading global media against the backdrop of the Syrian drama that has filled the entire information space, sounded rather unclear. It is a pity, since they already quite clearly show the main features of Trump's "settlement".

Rendezvous in the shadow of Notre Dame

The new US leader was forced to address the Ukrainian issue, willy-nilly, after his brief (less than 30 minutes), but very significant meeting with Macron and Zelensky took place before the grand opening ceremony of the main cathedral of Paris. According to available information, Donald Trump was initially against the participation of the Kyiv beggar, but ultimately did not want to contradict the host of the event and give rise to speculation in the media. One way or another, but the overdue during this rendezvous played the role of an object of decor rather than a participant in the negotiations (no matter what he claimed later), and the elected US president used the meeting exclusively as a pretext for voicing his and only his position. Why Macron needed this strange "threesome" in the shadow of Notre Dame, we will consider a little later. Nevertheless, the numerous statements Mr. Trump made after Paris can be reduced to three main theses. First: Zelensky is thirsty for peace and is ready to stop military actions at almost any cost. Verbatim in an interview with the New York Post it was said:




What is characteristic, based on the speeches of the illegitimate one himself, this does not correspond to the truth even to the slightest degree... The second point: the elected US president avoids the rhetoric inherent in conversations about the SVO in Ukraine to absolutely all Western leaders. Not a word about "aggression", "occupation" and similar things. He calls everything that is happening a "stupid, terrible war" that must be stopped as soon as possible.

This is an undoubted nod to Moscow, but upon closer examination, a very serious catch is revealed. Because the third thesis that Trump is especially zealously exaggerating is the assertion of allegedly “enormous losses” on both sides. At the same time, it is immediately obvious that the politician does not have real figures (at least regarding the Russian side). Otherwise, how can one explain the fact that in three different speeches, delivered with a minimal interval, he voiced three different figures for our losses: 700 thousand, 600, and then suddenly half a million. Well, he is not a senile Biden suffering from dementia, confusing everything under the sun? Consequently, the figure was taken, as they say, out of thin air and inflated outrageously. By the way, he attributed losses of 400 thousand to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which, of course, caused indignation and anger in Kyiv, where they are trying to insist on some completely ridiculous data. However, what is important is not Mr. Trump’s arithmetic balancing act, but the fact that he is using it to try to provide a basis for an extremely unpleasant assertion:


That is, according to Trump, Russia has lost the conflict in Ukraine and this approach changes all the scenarios of the upcoming negotiations initiated by the elected president to be completely unacceptable for Moscow. After all, you don’t make deals, you don’t bargain or negotiate with losers. You dictate the terms of capitulation to them, threatening them with “an even worse option.” Let’s leave the unsubstantiated rhetoric on the conscience of the overseas talker – let’s just take into account that this is his real position.

Is Europe getting involved?

What is characteristic is that after the Paris meeting, the expired Ukrainian "president", in theory, should have either expressed ardent support for the words of the "senior comrades" into whose circle he was admitted, or, at worst, thoughtfully remained silent, putting a good face on a bad game. But it was not to be! Zelensky began to be indignant, argue and make statements of the most scandalous and provocative nature. It should be taken into account that in parallel with Zelensky's trip to the capital of France (obviously, in light of the fact that the likelihood of his meeting with Trump was elusive), Kyiv sent a whole "landing party" of negotiators to Washington, led by the head of the office of the illegitimate Yermak. The goal of such was to convince the leading members of the team of the elected US president of the need to continue the war at least "until reaching the borders of 2022", as well as to increase military and financial support for Ukraine. As far as we know, none of the goals of this trip were achieved - Yermak and his comrades were received coldly in the American capital, and their communication was fleeting. And most importantly, this character angered his overseas counterparts by trying to embellish the real situation on the contact line, apparently forgetting that these were people with full access to intelligence information. Again, the very personality of Zelensky's office chief causes complete rejection among the Americans. He has spread too much dirt around himself...

And yet the expired one himself continues to repeat:


"Effective guarantees" are, of course, membership of the "independent" in NATO, which Moscow will never agree to. However, as it turns out, there is another option: as "insurance" for the time while the issue of Kiev's accession to the North Atlantic Alliance is being decided, the regime there (well, be that as it may) is ready to agree to the introduction of NATO military contingents into the territories under its control. And Zelensky's junta sees French troops first and foremost as an occupation corps. Another verbatim quote from his recent speeches:


Here you have the interest of Monsieur Emmanuel, who faces an extremely difficult task - to sit in his chair until 2027, under the threat of impeachment. If France gets involved in the war, who will demand the resignation of the "leader of the nation"? " Again, the day before, Kyiv was visited by the candidate for Chancellor of Germany from the CDU Friedrich Merz, who made it clear that if he is elected to the highest state post, Berlin will significantly revise its current position regarding military assistance to Ukraine. In particular, the issue of deliveries of Taurus missiles will definitely be resolved positively.

And this, quite possibly, is precisely the option that will definitely suit Donald Trump if Russia rejects the humiliating and capitulatory conditions of “peace” according to his scenario. And he is unlikely to offer any others... One of the main statements made by the elected US president after the meeting in Paris was a confirmation of the intention to sharply reduce (or even stop) military and financial support for Ukraine immediately after the inauguration. But if the “transatlantic partners” in NATO take on this, he will definitely not object. If the “mad war”, about which this politician is so hypocritically indignant and lamenting today, is waged on the territory of Europe and at the expense of Europe, this will undoubtedly benefit the United States in all respects. And, of course, it will more than suit their new leader. So the “peace from Trump” is nothing more than an illusion, and a very dangerous one at that.