In pointing fingers at not just Russia but also Ukraine and the U.S., Trump is not absolving anyone but he is challenging a narrative that often oversimplifies the complexities of modern warfare.
In the shadow of yet another tragic strike on Ukrainian soil, former President Donald Trump’s recent comments have reignited a complex and necessary debate over the origins and ongoing dynamics of the war between Russia and Ukraine.
While Trump’s accusations against Ukrainian President has sparked widespread criticism, especially following Russia’s devastating attack on Sumy, a Ukrainian city, that killed 35 civilians and injured 117 others, it is important to examine the substance of his assertions rather than dismiss them outright.
Trump has placed partial responsibility for the war not only on Vladimir Putin but also on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Joe Biden. His reasoning centers on the premise that war, particularly one of this magnitude, does not erupt in a vacuum.
In Trump’s view, leadership missteps on all sides contributed to the spiraling conflict. “You don’t start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,” he said, highlighting what he views as a strategic miscalculation on Zelensky’s part.
While the comment may seem insensitive against the backdrop of recent civilian deaths, the underlying point touches on a broader strategic concern, that whether Ukraine, under Zelensky, had pursued sufficient diplomatic alternatives before conflict escalated.
It is undeniable that Russia launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, following years of tension that began with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. However, Trump’s argument appears to be rooted not in the historical timeline of military actions, but in the leadership decisions taken, or not taken, that allowed the war to fester and expand.
For instance, Trump criticized Biden for not effectively deterring Putin, and Zelensky for not initiating peace efforts earlier, suggesting that earlier dialogue might have altered the current trajectory.
The timing of Trump’s comments, coming on the heels of Russia’s deadliest attack on Ukrainian civilians this year, has amplified public outrage.
It is, however, worth noting that Trump did describe the Sumy strike as “terrible” and said he had been told it was a Russian “mistake,” a detail which remains unverified. While Russia claimed it had targeted a gathering of Ukrainian soldiers, no evidence has been provided. Ukrainian media reports slightly differed, that a medal ceremony for military veterans was taking place at the time.
Nonetheless, Trump’s broader narrative is not about excusing Russia’s aggression. It’s about expanding the conversation to include accountability on multiple fronts. He has repeatedly insisted that “everybody is to blame,” a stance that diverges sharply from the prevailing Western consensus but forces a re-examination of diplomatic strategies employed before and during the war.
Trump has also emphasized the role of proactive diplomacy. His administration has sought to restart negotiations with Moscow and push for a ceasefire, even without direct Ukrainian involvement. While critics argue this undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty, supporters point to the potential for a rapid de-escalation and eventual peace agreement.
Indeed, Trump’s recent engagement with Vladimir Putin, including a reportedly positive phone call and a symbolic gift from the Russian leader, signals an attempt, however unconventional, to establish channels of communication that could lead to tangible outcomes.
Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, described a nearly five-hour meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg as “compelling,” noting that the Russian president expressed interest in a “permanent peace.” This included discussions over the future of contested Ukrainian territories and the possibility of Ukraine remaining outside NATO.
Though still preliminary, these talks between U.S. and Russian officials represent one of the few ongoing dialogues aimed at ending the conflict without further bloodshed.
Zelensky, for his part, has urged Trump to visit Ukraine and witness the war’s destruction before engaging in any potential deal-making with Putin. It’s a powerful request, underscoring the human cost of the war and the danger of high-level diplomacy divorced from ground realities.
Yet Trump’s position remains rooted in realpolitik, the belief that lasting peace may require difficult compromises, including reassessing territorial claims and security alliances.
While many find Trump’s views provocative or ill-timed, especially amid a humanitarian catastrophe, they raise questions that have yet to be fully answered by existing Western policy. Is peace achievable through continued military support alone? Could earlier negotiations have prevented the scale of today’s suffering?
And most crucially, how can diplomacy be leveraged now to prevent more lives from being lost?
These are the questions that must be grappled with honestly. In pointing fingers at not just Russia but also Ukraine and the U.S., Trump is not absolving anyone but he is challenging a narrative that often oversimplifies the complexities of modern warfare.
Whether one agrees with Trump’s conclusions or not, the conversation he’s initiating is one the international community can no longer afford to ignore.
OpEd Column Syndication 