Trump's lie or mistake? How US President's statements on Ukraine benefit Russia

Contents

• Ukraine in NATO is a provocation
• Ukraine started the war... in Ukraine
• Referendums held in Ukraine: People wanted to join Russia
• Russia does not want to absorb Ukraine
• Thousands of Ukrainian troops are surrounded in Kursk
• Mike Waltz and the Ukrainian ceasefire

One of the main ideologists of Trumpism as a movement was far-right activist and publicist Steve Bannon. He fell out of Trump’s inner circle, but the political strategies developed by Bannon are now being applied by the White House even more actively than during Trump's first term when Bannon worked there as chief strategist.

Bannon himself described the "flood the zone" strategy in a 2019 interview as follows:

"Every day we hit them with three things. They’ll bite on one, and we’ll get all of our stuff done. Bang, bang, bang. These guys will never — will never be able to recover. But we’ve got to start with muzzle velocity."

A concrete example of such "flooding the zone" is when Trump, during a single briefing, manages to threaten several countries with horrific tariffs, make territorial claims, give a number of original (to put it mildly) assessments of international conflicts, insult a dozen of his enemies, and touch on several domestic US issues. As a result, journalists, political opponents, and observers simply do not know what to focus on. And while they try to analyze one topic, Trump has already generated a dozen new ones.

Ukraine has constantly faced this tactic for the past two months of his presidency. It started during the election campaign.

A CBS News/YouGov poll last year showed that Republicans were twice as likely to believe Trump's statements about Ukraine than any other sources, including journalistic reports from the frontlines.

This is where stories originate about "hundreds of billions of dollars" that Zelenskyy allegedly takes after each visit to the US Or about "thousand-year-old cities with golden domes" supposedly destroyed across Ukraine — except Kyiv. Or about the Ukrainian army being full of "elderly people and children."

When Trump and his team seriously took up the Ukrainian topic a few weeks after his inauguration, such stories became even more frequent.

Ukraine in NATO is a provocation

The current US administration, through several officials, seems to be attempting to legitimize some blatantly illegal Russian actions against Ukraine. The very fact of Russia’s full-scale invasion, which violates multiple articles of international law, conventions, and treaties, is pushed aside and no longer discussed.

Instead, the audience is led into the details, where manipulating public opinion becomes much easier.

For example, instead of discussing the invasion itself, people are urged to discuss its causes, as if there is something comparable to weigh against it.

Back in January, before his inauguration, Donald Trump stated that the topic of Ukraine joining NATO should never have been discussed and, as usual, blamed Joe Biden.

"Russia has been saying for years that NATO can’t interfere in Ukraine. It was like it was set in stone. And then Biden broke that and said no, they should be able to join NATO. Then Russia would have someone right on their doorstep. I can understand their feelings about that," Trump said.

Later, in February, US Special Representative Steven Witkoff stated that the war was "provoked," adding: "It doesn’t necessarily mean it was provoked by the Russians."

In an interview with CNN, he said: "There were all kinds of conversations back then about Ukraine joining NATO. That didn’t need to happen. It basically became a threat to the Russians."

However, the reality is different.

First, such a large-scale aggression by Russia could not have happened for one reason alone. Back in 2014, Moscow took advantage of the revolution in Ukraine to occupy part of the territory, although, at that time, there was no talk of joining NATO.

Secondly, in December 2021, two months before the start of the great war, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic course remained unchanged precisely because Russia occupied part of the country's territories. It turns out that it was Ukraine, seeing threats from Russia, that wanted to join NATO, not NATO, that wanted to expand to attack Russia.

Ukraine started the war... in Ukraine

At the end of February, Donald Trump stated that Ukraine started the war with Russia in Ukraine.

"Today I heard, ‘oh, well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you’ve been there for three years ... You should have never started it. You could have made a deal," Trump declared.

This statement has been repeated many times in various contexts and interpretations.

The US leadership either ignores Ukraine’s role as a victim of an unprovoked and large-scale attack or shifts the blame onto Ukraine. The victim becomes guilty of being attacked by an aggressor. Ukraine "should have ended it" or, better yet, "shouldn’t have started it at all."

Donald Trump (photo: Getty Images)

In this way, Trump and his team are trying to downplay Russia’s role in the war. Russia is not called an "aggressor." The focus is always on Ukraine. Ukraine either provoked the war, attacked itself, or threatened Russia. Any conclusion drawn from these narratives always works against Ukraine. This fits into the concept that Trump explained to Zelenskyy in their Oval Office meeting: if you want to "strike a deal" with Putin, you cannot call him an "aggressor" or a "killer."

Referendums held in Ukraine: People wanted to join Russia

The most controversial statement made by Witkoff was about the Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia and the so-called referendums held there. Witkoff immediately emphasized that these territories are the main issue in this "conflict."

In an interview with propagandist Tucker Carlson, Witkoff stated that referendums were conducted in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia regions, and Crimea. Since these are Russian-speaking regions, the overwhelming majority of people allegedly voted to be under Russia’s control.

"I think that's the key issue in the conflict," Witkoff added.

When Carlson pointed out that from the Russian perspective, these territories are already part of Russia, Witkoff doubled down, again stating that this is the central issue.

"The elephant in the room is, there are constitutional issues within Ukraine as to what they can concede to with regard to giving up territory. The Russians are de facto in control of these territories. The question is, will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories? Will it end up? Can Zelenskyy survive politically if he acknowledges this? This is the central issue in the conflict," Witkoff stated.

Here, the US special envoy deliberately shifts the focus. The issue is no longer that Russia invaded Ukraine — this is not even discussed. The problem is now framed as certain Russian-speaking regions in Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia. From the Russian perspective, they are already part of Russia, but Ukraine refuses to recognize this due to its Constitution. Everything is presented as a legal technicality as if some legal conflict simply needs to be resolved.

However, in reality, the situation is much simpler. Any referendum held under occupation cannot be considered free and democratic.

The pseudo-referendums that Moscow staged in occupied Ukrainian territories in September 2022 violated multiple articles of both Ukrainian and international law.

Such "referendums" are legally void, and no civilized country has recognized their results. The central issue of this conflict is not that some Russian-speaking regions in Ukraine supposedly voted to join Russia. The real issue is how to force Russia to stop its aggression and, at a minimum, withdraw from the occupied territories.

But this is a difficult question, and the US does not have an answer to it.

Thus, it is far easier to play into Moscow’s narrative and tell the American public the story that some Ukrainians wanted to be part of Russia. That way, the Kremlin’s claims to five Ukrainian regions seem logical and legitimate. And Kyiv, by refusing to recognize them as Russian, is portrayed as simply wanting to continue the war.

A few days after his interview, Witkoff stated that he did not support either side but was merely relaying Russia’s viewpoint.

"In Russia itself, there is a belief that these territories are Russian, that referendums were held there, and that they justify these actions," the diplomat said.

Russia does not want to absorb Ukraine

In the same interview with Carlson, Witkoff also stated that Russia has no intention of "absorbing" Ukraine.

Strangely, he compared Ukraine to Gaza: "Why would Israelis really want to occupy Gaza for the rest of their lives? They don’t. They want stability. They don’t want to deal with it. They (Russia) got what they wanted, they took back those five regions. They have Crimea, why would they want more…?"

However, in 2014, Russia seized Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. In 2022, it expanded its invasion, capturing parts of the Kyiv, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, and Zaporizhzhia regions. Only thanks to the efforts of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) and support from allies Ukraine managed to liberate some territories that the Russian army had occupied. By February 2022, Russian forces were already on the outskirts of Kyiv. Despite Moscow’s attempts to justify its retreat as a "gesture of goodwill," the reality is they lacked the resources to hold such a vast stretch of land across the Ukrainian border. They were forced to prioritize and withdrew from Kyiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson.

Steve Witkoff (photo: Getty Images)

Judging by what is happening at the front today, it is unlikely that the Russian military command wants to stop. And it is far from certain that, having reached the borders of the same five regions, the Russians will not go further, as they already tried to do at the beginning of the full-scale invasion. Witkoff's statements that the Kremlin does not intend to “absorb Ukraine” are cynical and have no basis. On the contrary, they have nothing to do with reality.

Thousands of Ukrainian troops are surrounded in Kursk

After Russia launched its military operation in the Kursk region, Donald Trump claimed that "thousands" of Ukrainian soldiers were surrounded by Russian forces. He repeated this claim multiple times, consistently adding that only he could help them.

However, US intelligence itself contradicted Trump’s statement.

The CIA informed the White House that Ukrainian troops were retreating and were not encircled.

Later, Ukraine’s General Staff also confirmed that the reports of an encirclement were false.

But that did not stop Trump. On March 19, in an interview with Fox News, he again claimed that Ukrainian forces were surrounded — this time citing a specific number: "2,500 thousand soldiers." Trump concluded by saying that this was "not good."

Mike Waltz and the Ukrainian ceasefire

Since Trump and Putin allegedly agreed on a partial ceasefire, the American administration has tirelessly claimed that peace is practically being established in Ukraine.

The latest to make such a statement was Trump’s advisor, Mike Waltz.

"There will be progress. We already have a ceasefire on infrastructure, which took effect immediately after President Trump's phone call with Putin this week," Waltz said.

He also stressed the need for a ceasefire at sea, so that Russia and Ukraine could "transport grain, fuel, and resume trade in the Black Sea."

However, both of Waltz’s statements are completely false.

Not only has Russia not stopped its attacks on Ukraine in recent days, but it has intensified them. Every night, UAVs are launched at Kyiv, Odesa, Kryvyi Rih, and other Ukrainian cities. Iranian-made Shahed drones are hitting residential buildings and killing civilians. Hundreds of drones are being used, making it impossible to claim that Ukrainian energy infrastructure is unaffected.

The same applies to the so-called "restoration" of trade in the Black Sea. In reality, trade in the Black Sea never stopped. In July 2023, Russia loudly announced its withdrawal from the grain deal, which had previously allowed Ukraine to export food supplies.

However, this had no significant impact on Ukraine’s maritime trade. No diplomatic negotiations or agreements were needed to continue trading.

When Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Trump in the Oval Office, he tried to explain that Ukraine was not as devastated as Trump claimed and that the country was still fully capable of resisting Russian aggression.

But for Trump, this was just further proof that Ukraine and its government "do not want" to end the war.

Trump’s team consistently gives overly optimistic assessments when discussing the ongoing peace negotiations.

For example, Mr. Witkoff talks about possibly achieving a full ceasefire in a few weeks. In Kyiv and even in Moscow, such optimism is viewed rather coolly.

The phrase “2-3 weeks” has become a part of the latest political folklore, after which the war was supposed to end. It was especially actively used exactly 3 years ago, during the preparations for the “big” talks in Istanbul. Everyone knows the result of those negotiations, or rather, the lack of it. The same applies to any other conditional deadlines and forecasts for various truces - “by Trump's 100 days,” “by Easter,” “by May 9,” etc.

RBC-Ukraine has already written that in the absence of any real victories, Trump and his team need to regularly show at least an imitation of them - or at least movement toward these victories. Hence the constant comments by Waltz-Whitkoff-Rubio about “significant progress in the negotiations.” Their audience is clearly domestic American. However, due to the global nature of modern media, all these comments immediately reach the audience in Ukraine.

At some point, Waltz and Witkoff, or even Trump himself, do not announce that “peace has been achieved” and that their powers have ended. And at that time, another herd of Shaheds will fly across Ukraine.

---

---

---