Ukraine: Trump and his deadlines
theindependent.co.zw -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 3:27:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–China Relations, Trade Policy & Tariffs
Donald Trump sets deadlines for more complicated reasons that purport to be tactical, but he too is addicted to the whooshing sound they make when he breaks them.
"I love deadlines," said Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
"I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." Donald Trump sets deadlines for more complicated reasons that purport to be tactical, but he too is addicted to the whooshing sound they make when he breaks them.
His latest display of disdain for the deadlines he sets himself began in mid-July, when he gave Russia a fifty-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire in its war against Ukraine. A week later, in an apparent fit of temper over President Vladimir Putin's relentless nightly attacks on Ukrainian cities, Trump moved the deadline up by a month, to August 8.
Russia's penalty for missing that deadline was allegedly going to be American "secondary tariffs" against other countries that continue to buy Russian oil, notably China, India and Turkey. "I used trade for a lot of things, but it's great for settling wars," Trump boasted - only to discover, not for the first time, that his intended targets were able to push back.
Trump declared, again before the actual deadline rolled around, that India's new tariff would be 50%, not 25%, if it didn't stop buying heavily-discounted Russian oil. Prime Minister Narendra Modi immediately declared that he was ready to "pay a huge price" rather than let the US dictate India's trade policies - and Trump didn't even try it on with China or Turkey.
So, with no leverage in Moscow, his deadline for a Russian ceasefire passed unmentioned. Instead, he sent his favourite emissary, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, to make a new offer: a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin in which the two men would make a deal without the Ukrainians, the European Nato countries, or anybody else present.
Putin jumped at the chance, as it will be his first face to face meeting with a US president since 2021. (He was being boycotted because of his invasion of Ukraine, but this is presumably one of Russia's rewards for agreeing to a "summit".) However, what Trump hopes to get out of it is less obvious.
Although Trump is very much in thrall to Vladimir Putin, who he mistakenly believes to be his personal friend, he knows that a full Russian conquest of Ukraine would not look good on his record. His real goal is to win the Nobel Peace Prize in order to end the shame of having seen a black American (Barack Obama) get one first. For that, he needs a longer lasting "peace".
This need not be a permanent peace settlement that includes an independent Ukraine. Trump really believes in "America First", and Ukraine's long-term fate is of no interest to him. But he must persuade Putin to accept only a partial victory now (and maybe final conquest later) in order to portray himself to the Norwegian Nobel Committee as a plausible "peacemaker".
This explanation sounds so stupid and ridiculous that people have difficulty in taking it seriously, but it does explain why Trump has tried so hard to bully first one side (Ukraine), then the other side (Russia), and now back to Ukraine, into signing that kind of nothing settled ceasefire.
If you still question that analysis, consider the fact that Trump regularly indulges in extended public rants about the sheer injustice of Obama getting a Nobel Peace Prize and leaving him still without one.
So, when Putin dangles the prospect of a one-on-one summit before Witkoff, of course Trump is tempted, even if it would impose a disadvantageous ceasefire on Ukraine.
However, there will probably not be a complete sell-out of Ukraine in Alaska, for two reasons. The first is that Putin, rightly or wrongly, is convinced that he is now winning the war by sheer weight of numbers, and that it is only a matter of time until Ukraine collapses. In that case, why would he now trim his maximal aspirations for the sake of a ceasefire?
Those aspirations include Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the four south eastern regions of Ukraine (including the yet unconquered parts), and permanent neutrality and a much-reduced army for Ukraine. In the long run, Putin aspires to "reunite" all of Ukraine with Russia under one pretext or another, but a decisive military victory might make it possible now.
The other reason to assume that the Alaskan summit is unlikely to end the war is the fact that if Trump does completely sell out Ukraine, the Ukrainians will go on fighting anyway.
They would be fighting at a worse disadvantage and facing a bigger likelihood of eventual conquest, but they know that wars can have unpredictable outcomes until the next to last moment.
And whatever happens, Trump will go on setting deadlines and then missing them. Just like he did in the real estate business.
Dyer is a London-based independent journalist. His new book is titled Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers. His previous book, The Shortest History of War, is also still available.
Sign Our PetitionThe complex geopolitical landscape surrounding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has often been overshadowed by the erratic behaviors and statements of political figures like Donald Trump. His recent attempts to set deadlines for a ceasefire with Russia seem less about genuine diplomatic endeavors and more about a performative display of bravado. For those analyzing the implications of such actions, it’s crucial to understand that this is not merely a personal quirk of Trump’s personality, but part of a historical trend of American foreign policy that frequently prioritizes optics over substance. This disconnect can have significant consequences for the people of Ukraine, who are left to bear the brunt of decisions made in the name of political gain.
Historically, the United States has often engaged in foreign policy maneuvers that seem to prioritize U.S. interests over the well-being of other nations. Trump’s dismissal of established diplomatic protocols, such as his suggestion to negotiate directly with Putin without Ukrainian participation, harkens back to earlier interventions where the voices of those most affected were marginalized. This approach is reminiscent of the Cold War era, where the U.S. often supported authoritarian regimes in the name of containing communism, leading to long-lasting destabilization in various regions. In Ukraine, a country striving for sovereignty and democratic governance, the notion of sidelining its leadership is not just a tactical misstep; it is a historical repetition that echoes the struggles of smaller nations against imperialist forces.
The current geopolitical situation in Ukraine is a manifestation of deep-rooted historical tensions that have been exacerbated by years of Russian aggression and Western indifference. The conflict is not merely a territorial dispute; it is emblematic of a broader struggle against autocracy and for self-determination. As Trump attempts to negotiate a “partial victory” for Putin, he risks undermining the hard-fought gains of Ukrainians who have resisted oppression and sought to chart their own course. This underscores a crucial issue: the need for international solidarity with nations facing imperialist aggression. History has shown us that peace cannot be brokered at the expense of justice, and any deal that ignores the aspirations of the Ukrainian people is likely to sow further discord rather than foster stability.
Moreover, Trump's ambition to win a Nobel Peace Prize underscores a troubling trend in American politics: the desire for recognition often eclipses the realities on the ground. The notion that he could be a “peacemaker” without a genuine commitment to equitable solutions reflects a superficial understanding of how peace is achieved. True peace requires addressing the grievances and aspirations of all parties involved, particularly those who have been oppressed. The Nobel Committee’s previous awarding of the prize to Barack Obama, a figure who also faced criticism for his foreign policy, serves as a reminder that the pursuit of accolades can sometimes overshadow the ethical responsibilities that come with power. The ongoing social struggles faced by those in conflict zones often require leaders to prioritize humanitarian outcomes over personal ambitions.
In engaging with right-wing perspectives, it is essential to highlight the consequences of transactional diplomacy as exemplified by Trump’s approach. The prioritization of personal gain over collective security has far-reaching implications. Trump's disregard for traditional allies and his willingness to negotiate with authoritarian leaders can erode the foundations of international alliances that are crucial for maintaining global stability. By framing the conversation around the historical context of U.S. foreign policy and its consequences, we can challenge simplistic narratives that paint geopolitics as merely a game of power. Instead, we must advocate for a more nuanced understanding that recognizes the importance of solidarity, justice, and the voices of those directly impacted by international decisions.
In conclusion, the complexities of the Ukraine conflict and the role of figures like Trump illustrate a broader struggle for global justice and accountability. The ongoing situation is not merely a political chess game; it is a reflection of the fundamental rights of people to self-determination and freedom from oppression. Engaging with these themes not only enriches our understanding of current events but also equips us with the necessary tools to advocate for a more just world. As we discuss these issues, we should remain steadfast in our commitment to upholding the dignity and agency of all nations, ensuring that their struggles are acknowledged and addressed in the pursuit of genuine peace.
The recent commentary on Donald Trump’s approach to the Ukraine conflict highlights a complex interplay between personal ambition and international diplomacy, reflecting the broader implications of American foreign policy on global stability. Trump’s penchant for setting arbitrary deadlines—only to let them pass without consequence—demonstrates a troubling trend in political leadership that prioritizes spectacle over substance. This is not merely a quirk of his personality but a manifestation of a deeper, systemic issue within U.S. foreign policy, where short-term political gains often overshadow long-term humanitarian considerations. Trump's actions, especially his overtures towards Putin, expose a dangerous flirtation with authoritarianism that should concern all Americans, regardless of their political affiliations.
Historically, the United States has positioned itself as a defender of democratic values and a supporter of human rights, especially in regions facing aggression. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a stark violation of these principles, yet Trump’s approach suggests a willingness to sacrifice these values for personal acclaim. This raises significant questions about the moral compass guiding U.S. foreign policy. In the context of the Cold War, American leaders were often criticized for making deals with unsavory figures to achieve geopolitical objectives, yet Trump's dealings with Putin seem to lack even the veneer of strategic calculation. Instead, they appear to be driven by a desire for personal validation, which weakens America's standing on the global stage and emboldens authoritarian regimes.
As American citizens, we must recognize the implications of such leadership and take proactive steps to advocate for a more principled foreign policy. Engaging in grassroots activism, supporting democratic movements abroad, and holding our leaders accountable are essential actions we can take. Encouraging our representatives to prioritize diplomatic solutions over militaristic posturing can foster a more stable international environment. Additionally, advocating for a foreign policy that is rooted in human rights and international law can help restore the credibility of the U.S. as a global leader in promoting democracy and peace.
Education plays a crucial role in this process. By informing ourselves and others about the historical context of U.S. foreign policy, we can better understand the stakes involved in contemporary issues like the Ukraine conflict. Understanding how past administrations have navigated similar crises can provide valuable insights into how we might approach current challenges. Facilitating discussions, hosting community events, and sharing educational resources can empower citizens to engage in foreign policy debates with a nuanced perspective, equipping them to challenge simplistic narratives that may arise from figures like Trump.
Finally, it is essential to recognize that the issues at hand are not solely about Trump or his deadlines. They reflect a broader crisis of leadership that prioritizes self-interest over collective well-being. As we continue to grapple with the ramifications of these decisions, we must remain vigilant and committed to advocating for a foreign policy that embodies the values of democracy, cooperation, and respect for international norms. By doing so, we can collectively work toward a future where the U.S. once again takes its rightful place as a champion of peace and justice on the global stage, ultimately benefiting not just ourselves, but the international community as a whole.
In light of the complexities surrounding Trump's recent approach to the conflict in Ukraine, there are several concrete actions we can take as individuals to advocate for a more principled foreign policy that prioritizes peace, human rights, and the sovereignty of nations. Here’s a detailed list of ideas:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others**: Understanding the nuances of international relations and the implications of U.S. foreign policy is crucial. Share informative articles, books, and documentaries about the Ukraine conflict and global politics within your community.
2. **Engage with Local Activism**: Join or support local organizations that focus on peace, human rights, and international solidarity. These groups often have initiatives related to Ukraine, such as organizing protests or educational events.
3. **Contact Elected Officials**: Reach out to your representatives to express your concerns about the U.S. approach to Ukraine and the importance of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty and human rights.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Petition for Peace**: - **Action**: Sign and share petitions that advocate for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine and emphasize international cooperation over unilateral actions. - **Example**: Look for petitions on platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org that address the need for diplomatic solutions and support for Ukraine.
2. **Write to Elected Officials**: - **Who to Write To**: - **U.S. Senate**: - **Contact**: Senator Dick Durbin - **Email**: https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact - **USPS Address**: 525 S. 8th St., Suite 313, Springfield, IL 62703
- **U.S. House of Representatives**: - **Contact**: Representative Jan Schakowsky - **Email**: https://schakowsky.house.gov/contact - **USPS Address**: 5531 W. Dempster St., Skokie, IL 60077
- **What to Say**: - Express your concerns about unilateral negotiations that exclude Ukrainian voices. - Advocate for continued support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the importance of diplomatic engagement that involves all stakeholders.
3. **Support Humanitarian Aid**: - **Action**: Contribute to organizations providing humanitarian assistance to Ukrainians affected by the war. - **Examples of Organizations**: - **Direct Relief**: www.directrelief.org - **Doctors Without Borders**: www.msf.org - **Ukrainian Red Cross**: https://redcross.org.ua/en/
4. **Participate in Peaceful Protests and Rallies**: - **Action**: Join or organize peaceful demonstrations to raise awareness about the ongoing conflict and support Ukraine. - **Example**: Check local listings or social media platforms for upcoming events in your area related to Ukraine.
5. **Engage on Social Media**: - **Action**: Use social media platforms to raise awareness about the importance of supporting Ukraine and advocating against a transactional approach to international relations. - **What to Post**: Share articles, comment on current events, create informative graphics, or host discussions about the implications of U.S. foreign policy.
6. **Write Opinion Pieces**: - **Action**: Compose letters to the editor or opinion pieces for local newspapers expressing your views on U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine. - **What to Include**: Highlight the importance of a multilateral approach and the need for a diplomatic resolution that respects Ukrainian sovereignty.
7. **Engage with International Organizations**: - **Action**: Support and engage with organizations like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch that advocate for human rights in conflict zones. - **What to Do**: Follow their campaigns, participate in their events, and amplify their messages.
By taking these steps, we can contribute to a more informed and engaged community that advocates for a foreign policy rooted in diplomacy and human rights, rather than one based solely on national interests or personal ambitions of political figures.