The Predictable Unpredictability of Trump: Ukraine as the Eternal Scapegoat

Donald Trump’s presidency was often characterized by its seemingly random, off-the-cuff nature, leading many to decry his unpredictable approach to international relations and domestic policy. However, beneath the surface of this apparent chaos lies a consistent pattern: a predictable set of biases and grievances that dictate his actions, particularly when it comes to Ukraine and Russia. One merely needs to decipher the signals, to understand what triggers his responses, and the trajectory of his pronouncements becomes remarkably clear.

The recent actions and statements by individuals within the current administration, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, highlight the stark contrast between traditional diplomatic strategies and Trump’s deeply entrenched, idiosyncratic views. Rubio’s recent trip to Saudi Arabia, where he engaged in negotiations with Ukrainian officials regarding a ceasefire with Russia, provided a striking example. Both Rubio and Waltz went out of their way to praise Trump during the press conference announcing the tentative agreement, likely an attempt to preempt any potential backlash from the former president.

However, Rubio’s commendation of Ukraine for taking a "concrete step" toward peace, while simultaneously suggesting that Russia would be "the impediment" if it rejected the ceasefire, was a position that Trump himself would never publicly endorse. In fact, just two weeks prior, Trump reportedly threw a "full-blown Oval Office tantrum" when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accurately pointed out Russia’s unreliability in adhering to international agreements.

This divergence in perspective underscores the core issue: Trump views Ukraine through a distorted lens, colored by personal grievances and a perceived need to project strength, even if it means siding with a known aggressor. The author expresses clear surprise at Rubio’s adherence to straightforward diplomacy, stating it was “jarring” compared to Trump’s constant rhetoric.

The author poses the prescient question of when Trump would again blame Ukraine for the ongoing war, and their answer, unfortunately, came swiftly. During an Oval Office address, Trump, when questioned about the prospects of Russia accepting a ceasefire, referenced Zelenskyy’s earlier visit and reiterated his long-held belief that "Ukraine might have been the more difficult party." He went on to claim that Zelenskyy "didn’t seem to want peace" before suddenly agreeing to it, implying a shift in responsibility for the conflict.

This narrative is a blatant distortion of reality. Russia has repeatedly violated international law through its invasion of Ukraine and has a history of disregarding ceasefire agreements. Yet, in Trump’s eyes, Ukraine becomes the aggressor simply for acknowledging these undeniable truths.

Furthermore, Trump extends his blame beyond Zelenskyy, implicating past American presidents for Russia’s actions. He attributes Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia to President George W. Bush and the 2014 annexation of Crimea, as well as the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, to Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. He claims to be the only one who has "dealt with him [Putin] successfully," a statement that carries significant weight considering his well-documented history of siding with Putin over his own intelligence agencies.

Trump’s notorious defense of Putin during their joint press conference in 2018, in the face of overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, exemplifies this pattern. His dismissive response, "I don’t see any reason why" Russia would have interfered, shocked many and raised serious questions about his allegiances. The author suggests that if there was a Nobel Prize for "self-serving, willful ignorance", Trump would have earned it that day.

This consistent refusal to hold Russia accountable for its actions, coupled with his eagerness to blame Ukraine, reveals a deeply troubling perspective on international responsibility. Trump seems incapable of acknowledging Putin’s culpability, and he is particularly sensitive to any suggestion that he himself is responsible for negative outcomes.

The author further highlights Trump’s 2019 phone call with Zelenskyy, which led to his first impeachment, as another example of his skewed priorities. In that infamous call, Trump attempted to leverage American assistance to Ukraine in exchange for politically motivated investigations into Joe Biden. The author emphasizes that Zelenskyy was merely a victim of Trump’s machinations, yet Trump, like Putin, would never admit to any wrongdoing.

In Trump’s worldview, Russia, which may have assisted his 2016 election victory, can do no wrong, while Ukraine, which inadvertently played a role in his impeachment, can do nothing right. This predictable pattern, driven by personal grievances and a desire to maintain a favorable image, shapes his foreign policy decisions and undermines America’s standing on the global stage.

The author juxtaposes Trump’s approach with Rubio’s demeanor during the recent press conference. When asked if Trump’s relationship with Zelenskyy was "back on track" after the recent outburst, Rubio dismissed the question, stating, "This is serious stuff, OK. This is not Mean Girls. This is not some episode of some television show."

This statement is particularly insightful, as it reveals the fundamental difference between Rubio’s grounded approach and Trump’s tendency to view the world through the lens of reality television. Trump famously instructed his top aides to treat each presidential day as an episode in a television show, with him as the hero vanquishing his rivals.

The author concludes by painting a picture of Trump’s future narrative: Trump and Putin will star as the "plucky heroes," while Zelenskyy will remain the villain. This predictable storyline, driven by Trump’s personal biases and his unwavering need for self-aggrandizement, underscores the dangers of allowing personal grievances to dictate foreign policy decisions. The implications of this skewed perspective could have profound consequences for America’s allies, for Ukraine, and for the stability of the international order. The author leaves the reader with a stark understanding: Trump’s supposed unpredictability is, in reality, a predictable pattern of blaming Ukraine and excusing Russia, a pattern that is deeply rooted in personal grievances and a desire to maintain a favorable self-image.