“You don’t start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles,” said the U.S. President Donald Trump to reporters, effectively blaming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for starting the Russia-Ukraine War, once again. Trump has held Zelensky responsible for triggering the war with Russia, just a day after a devastating Russian assault killed 35 people and injured 117 more in Ukraine.
On Monday (April 14), the US president claimed that the Ukrainian leader bore part of the blame alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin for what he described as “millions of people dead” in the ongoing conflict. He also called the Ukraine war “Biden’s war, not mine,” when asked to visit Ukraine and witness the devastation by Zelensky.
Russia’s initial incursion into Ukrainian territory occurred in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, and its full-scale invasion began in February 2022, five years after Zelensky took office.
While Trump described the Sumy attack as “terrible”, he simultaneously suggested that Russia had “made a mistake” in carrying it out, a remark he left deliberately vague. His broader assessment was stark and sweeping: according to Trump, the war in Ukraine was the product of three men’s failures, “Putin, Biden, and Zelensky”. His assertion that “millions of people” had died in the conflict has also drawn scrutiny; although the war has indeed caused massive suffering and displacement, casualty estimates are generally in the hundreds of thousands.
A Deliberate Rewriting of the Narrative?
Trump’s comments represent more than a casual distortion of facts; they mark a deliberate attempt to reframe the narrative around the Ukraine war for political gain. By shifting blame onto Zelensky and Biden, Trump positions himself as the outsider willing to challenge the dominant Western consensus, a move consistent with his broader populist strategy.
This narrative may resonate with certain segments of the American electorate, particularly those sceptical of foreign entanglements and weary of the billions of dollars spent in military aid to Ukraine. By casting Zelensky as a reckless leader “always looking to purchase missiles”, Trump feeds into the isolationist sentiment that the US should not bear the burden of defending foreign nations at the cost of domestic priorities.
Yet this framing is dangerous. It not only undermines Ukraine’s legitimacy in defending itself against a recognised act of aggression, but also risks emboldening autocratic leaders who interpret such rhetoric as a sign of weakening Western resolve.
Tactical Messaging or a Window into Future Policy?
The question now being asked in policy circles and foreign capitals is whether President Trump’s comments are merely campaign rhetoric or a signal of how he might govern now that he has returned to office. His praise for Putin, mentioning a recent “great” phone call and even a personal gift from the Russian leader, adds to speculation that a second Trump term could see a dramatic shift in America’s foreign policy posture.
Under former President Biden, the United States has taken a clear stance in support of Ukraine, coordinating sanctions against Russia and supplying Kyiv with critical defence aid. Trump’s remarks suggest a stark departure from that strategy. If he genuinely believes that all parties share equal blame for the war, then continued military and diplomatic support for Ukraine could be significantly scaled back under his administration.
This is not the first time Trump has admired authoritarian figures or questioned the value of long-standing alliances. His previous presidency was marked by friction with NATO allies, a transactional approach to diplomacy, and a penchant for strongman leaders. In that context, his recent statements are consistent, if not surprising.
Strained Ties with Zelensky
Tensions between Trump and Zelensky are hardly new. The two leaders had a well-documented and fraught interaction in February at the White House, during which Trump reportedly accused the Ukrainian president of “gambling with World War Three”. Trump has repeatedly criticised Zelensky for failing to pursue peace talks with Russia sooner, ignoring the fact that numerous attempts at negotiation have been derailed by Russian escalations.
By painting Zelensky as an instigator rather than a defender, Trump undermines Ukraine’s diplomatic standing. It also risks weakening international solidarity with Kyiv at a time when unity is critical. European leaders, already grappling with war fatigue among their own populations, could find it harder to justify ongoing support if Washington shifts its stance.
A New Narrative from the Oval Office
Now that Trump is once again commander-in-chief, his statements carry direct policy weight and global consequences. These are no longer campaign-trail soundbites; they are signals from the leader of the world’s largest military and a cornerstone of NATO. As such, his framing of the war as a product of miscalculation on all sides, rather than as Russian aggression, has alarmed European allies, agitated Ukraine, and emboldened commentators aligned with the Kremlin.
Trump has long made clear his disdain for America’s expansive foreign entanglements, and his recent remarks seem to reinforce that posture. In contrast to the bipartisan support that Ukraine has enjoyed in Washington since 2022, Trump appears to be charting a different course. This course could recalibrate U.S. commitments abroad in favour of a more transactional, interest-first diplomacy.
Domestically, Trump’s rhetoric appears finely tuned to rally his base. His message resonates with voters who prioritise “America First” policies, are disillusioned with Washington’s foreign policy record, and view foreign aid with suspicion. By criticising Biden for being out of his depth and accusing Zelensky of escalating the conflict, Trump positions himself as the pragmatic alternative — someone who, in his own words, “would have stopped the war before it started”.
For his supporters, the idea of cutting back on foreign military spending in favour of domestic priorities is appealing, regardless of the broader consequences.
A Calculated Strategy?
Some analysts believe Trump’s remarks represent a part of a broader post-election messaging strategy. By blaming Zelensky, Biden, and Putin simultaneously, Trump casts himself as the only adult in the room: the pragmatic leader who could have prevented the war, the outsider to Washington’s establishment failures, and the one figure capable of striking deals where others only provoked conflict.
This narrative appeals to Trump’s core base, many of whom are weary of military aid packages, international entanglements, and what they see as endless foreign wars. It also allows Trump to simultaneously distance himself from Biden-era policies while avoiding full endorsement of Russian actions, though his equivocation certainly leans closer to Moscow than Kyiv.
However, this strategy comes at a cost. It risks alienating key European allies, who have borne much of the logistical and humanitarian burden of the war. It threatens to undermine morale in Ukraine, which still depends heavily on Western support. It also raises troubling questions about how the U.S. views international law, sovereignty, and the use of force.
A New Chapter in U.S. Foreign Policy?
Whether Trump’s approach will yield diplomatic breakthroughs or embolden authoritarian aggression remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the Trump administration is already steering U.S. foreign policy in a markedly different direction.
If the president continues to build closer ties with Russia while alienating Ukraine, NATO’s cohesion could face fresh tests. If military aid is scaled back and pressure on Ukraine to negotiate mounts, Kyiv’s battlefield position may weaken. And if the U.S. abandons its post-World War II role as a consistent advocate for democratic sovereignty, the global balance of power could shift in unpredictable ways.
For now, one thing is certain: the war in Ukraine is no longer just a test of Eastern European endurance—it’s a litmus test for the future of American foreign policy under Donald Trump’s second presidency.
