I have written extensively about the Ukraine war and Donald Trump’s involvement in it. Over months of analysis, a pattern has become unmistakable: Trump has no intention of helping Ukraine win this war. In fact, when he does act, he runs interference for Russia. Anyone interested in the full accounting can review my past Substack posts. What’s less obvious — and more insidious — is how Trump has weaponized the very narrative his critics use against him.
From the beginning, the world has bought into the story that Putin controls Trump, that Trump is compromised, that he’s being outfoxed by the Kremlin mastermind. Various talking heads and news reporters love to point out how “they” aren’t being outsmarted — no, it’s Trump who’s being played. They say it with knowing smirks, as if they’ve cracked the code. In fact, all these analysts are the ones falling for Trump’s tactics hook, line, and sinker. They think they’re exposing his weakness when they’re actually providing him cover.
Trump doesn’t fight the puppet narrative — he performs it. And every analyst who rushes to explain how Putin is manipulating Trump becomes an unwitting accomplice in Trump’s sleight of hand.
Consider what happened last week. When Donald Trump called Vladimir Putin before speaking to Volodymyr Zelensky, critics cried foul. They called it diplomatic malpractice, a breach of protocol, evidence that Trump was being played. They missed the point entirely. The sequencing wasn’t a gaffe — it was the strategy.
There is a method to Trump’s seeming diplomatic disorder. By reaching out to Putin first, Trump isn’t being outfoxed. He’s constructing an alibi. The real aim is to manufacture the impression that Trump is the victim of Kremlin manipulation. In doing so, he obscures what is actually happening.
Trump never intended to fully arm Ukraine with long-range strike capabilities. Talking to Putin first gives him cover for his turnaround position.
The Tomahawk Question: Threat, Tease, Retreat
The pattern becomes clearest when you examine the question of Tomahawk cruise missiles. These long-range strike munitions have the potential to reach deep into Russian territory and shift the strategic calculus of the war. For months, Ukraine has pressed for them. For months, Trump has dangled the possibility.
But watch the sequence carefully. Trump publicly floats the idea of supplying Tomahawks to Ukraine. The trial balloon goes up. Then come the calls with Putin. The Kremlin publicly warns that provision of such missiles would mark “a new stage of escalation.” Within hours, Trump’s language shifts dramatically. At Friday’s meeting with Zelensky, Trump expressed concern about depleting U.S. stockpiles: “We need Tomahawks for the United States of America, too. We have a lot of them, but we need them. We can’t deplete for our country. They’re very vital.” He acknowledged it would be an “escalation” to provide the weapons, then added: “We’d much rather get the war over.”
The timing is too consistent to be coincidence. Trump teases support, Putin objects, Trump retreats behind the language of caution.
If you believe — as the evidence suggests — that Trump never intended to give Ukraine robust long-range strike capabilities, then the sequence is perfectly logical. Use the rhetoric of armament to extract political capital and appear engaged. But structure the actual diplomacy to deflate that possibility under the guise of prudent mediation — or better yet, being played again by Putin.
Talk to Putin first. Let Putin preempt the narrative. Then announce constraints on delivery to Zelensky while blaming Putin’s resistance or sincere desire to end the war.
The Domestic Alibi
The performance plays even better at home. For Trump’s “America First” base, this choreography tells a different story: Trump is the only one who can talk to Putin. He’s the peacemaker. He stopped the “deep state” and the “warmongers” from sending America’s own missiles to Ukraine and starting World War III. He’s the adult in the room, navigating between the demands of a desperate Zelensky and the threats of a dangerous Putin.
During Friday’s meeting, Trump made this explicit. “Okay, this will be number nine for me,” he told reporters and Zelensky. “I solved eight, including the Middle East... I didn’t get the Nobel Prize... so I don’t care about all that. I just care about saving lives. But this will be number nine.” The statement encapsulates the entire performance: Trump as global peacemaker, Trump as the indispensable mediator, Trump solving what others cannot.
The Counterargument
Trump’s defenders have a more sophisticated response. They argue that the Tomahawk threat was real and effective — so credible that it forced Putin to initiate last week’s call. In this interpretation, Trump succeeded in using the threat of missiles as leverage to bring Putin back to the negotiating table for the upcoming Budapest summit. Trump isn’t retreating on the missiles, they say; he’s pausing their delivery as a reward for Putin’s “good faith” in agreeing to new talks. He’s holding them in reserve as a stick. The threat worked.
This is an appealing narrative. It casts Trump as a shrewd negotiator rather than a Putin enabler. But it requires us to ignore the established pattern. How many times has Trump threatened decisive action on Ukraine only to pull back? How many “leverage plays” have resulted in actual leverage rather than Russian gains on the ground?
Zelensky Is Willing to Play Trump’s Game
Make no mistake: Zelensky is not fooled by any of Trump’s antics. He knows exactly what’s happening. But he also knows he has no choice but to play along, to follow Trump’s narratives, to praise how Trump “solved the problems of the Middle East.” During Friday’s meeting, Zelensky dutifully referenced Trump’s Gaza ceasefire, expressing hope that the same momentum could end Russia’s war on Ukraine.
Ukraine wants to recapture the land they lost. They need it back now, not later, not through some drawn-out negotiation process. Because once a ceasefire freezes the current lines, they will never get that territory back.
Zelensky understands this. He knows that Trump’s talk of stopping “where they are” and letting “both claim victory” means Ukraine loses permanently. But he has to say publicly that they’ll negotiate for the territory later, that diplomacy can recover what force cannot.
Europe Loves to Be Deceived
And then there’s Europe. European leaders express concern about Trump’s unreliability, worry publicly about American wavering, and position themselves as Ukraine’s steadfast supporters. But look at what they’ve actually done over three years of war.
If Europe truly wanted to help Ukraine win militarily, they would have started mass-producing artillery shells three years ago. They would not have dragged their feet on every supply decision, every weapons system, every commitment. The industrial capacity exists. The wealth exists. What doesn’t exist is the political will.
Trump’s theater gives them exactly what they need: an excuse. They can point to American hesitation, to Trump’s consultations with Putin, to Washington’s unwillingness to provide decisive weapons like Tomahawks, and use all of it as justification for their own inaction. They’re happy to let Ukraine fail as long as they can blame the United States for the failure. But they have to pretend the US is serious, at least publicly, to escape culpability for their own abandonment.
What This Means
The fundamental truth is this: the only time Trump will end this war is if Putin really wants him to. At this time, that seems highly unlikely. Putin believes he can and will win — consolidating gains, watching the West fracture over aid commitments, and betting on time as his ally.
The question is no longer whether Trump will give Ukraine the weapons it needs. The question is whether we’ll pretend he ever intended to — or whether we’ll call this theater what it is: a carefully choreographed retreat, with Putin playing the heavy so Trump can play the peacemaker. The phone calls make it clear. We just have to be willing to see them for what they are.
Trump’s diplomacy is theater. The tragedy is that while he plays peacemaker, Ukraine bleeds — and Putin smirks and says: thanks buddy.
Further Reading
I’ve explored Trump’s Ukraine strategy in depth across several essays. For readers interested in the full pattern of interference and rhetorical sleight of hand, you can find my previous analysis at my Cranky Old Guy Substack.