Why has Trump changed his stance on Ukraine again?

During an open cabinet meeting, Donald Trump, commenting on the possibility of granting Ukraine permission to manufacture interceptor missiles for the Patriot systems, stated that the U.S. “must be very cautious” on this issue. The U.S. president reiterated that he has not yet made a final decision on whether to grant Ukraine a license to produce missiles for the Patriot system.

Against the backdrop of the strikes on Kyiv and the deaths of residents of Ukraine’s capital, this seemed very cynical.

Even more cynical was Trump’s statement regarding the rare-earth resources agreement, which, according to him, grants the United States access to Ukraine’s mineral resources and could prove more profitable than the amount of U.S. aid provided. Here, Trump again mentioned the alleged $300 billion in aid.

Trump’s exact words: “We’ve struck a deal… We have a signed contract. As for rare earth resources, we can go in there anytime. We can take practically anything we want.”

Let me note right away that he cannot just come and take whatever he wants. The agreement does not provide for that. These are just more of Trump’s fantasies, which are not worth worrying about.

But this statement confirms once again that Trump is not a true partner for us, but a predator we must deal with in order to counter another predator who is even more dangerous to us—Putin.

Nevertheless, what happened? Why has Trump so abruptly changed his attitude toward Ukraine again? This attitude hasn’t become hostile; it has become cynical and uncooperative. Although it is more a matter of a shift in rhetoric than of his attitude toward Ukraine (Trump’s attitude toward Ukraine has always been highly contradictory). We do not know for certain why this happened. However, we must reflect on it in order to minimize the consequences of the problem and prevent it from recurring in the future.

What are the possible explanations for Trump’s latest about-face regarding Ukraine?

The simplest and most obvious explanation is that Trump’s moods change periodically. This is what’s known as the “Trump seesaw.” This pattern is evident not only in his attitude toward Ukraine but also toward other countries and many other issues. Based on my observations regarding Ukraine, there is even a certain cyclical pattern. A phase of a clear and strong stance (whether positive or highly critical) can last from a few weeks to about a month, after which this emotion cools off or gradually shifts. And this has happened regularly, several times already.

The second theory is that this is a negotiating tactic to apply simultaneous pressure on both Ukraine and Russia. By using the issue of granting Ukraine a license to produce interceptor missiles for the “Patriot” air defense systems, Trump can apply pressure alternately on Russia and on Ukraine, pushing both countries toward a certain compromise to end the war between them. But at the moment, there is no new peace plan from the U.S. yet. And the “Patriot” license is not a very strong lever of pressure on either Russia or Ukraine. So this version, in my view, does not seem the most plausible.

The third theory suggests that something may have happened in Washington after Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy. Either the Ukrainian president himself said something careless, which came to Trump’s attention, or there was something else that Trump didn’t like. But under such circumstances, we might have seen a more critical, even negative, reaction from Trump toward Zelenskyy or Ukraine. Therefore, this is also not the most plausible version.

It’s more likely that there’s a constant political struggle going on around Trump over various issues. At first, Trump was convinced that we should grant a license for the “Patriots,” and then other people began to convince him of the exact opposite. And this leaves room for speculation. One could look for a “Russian connection,” or perhaps this is yet another manifestation of a typical Trumpist stance: why give Ukraine a “gift”—let them pay for this license in some way.

It’s quite likely that something is also happening regarding the resource deal that Trump has started mentioning. Either there are those dissatisfied with how its implementation is progressing, or Trump and some in his inner circle have decided that, in exchange for the “Patriot” missiles, they need to extract even more concessions from us regarding the resource agreement.

Finally, we must take into account that the Kremlin is constantly trying to influence Trump—both directly (through unofficial contacts with him) and through its agents of influence in the U.S. President’s inner circle. And this influence has already worked on multiple occasions, especially last year in the saga surrounding Trump’s so-called peace plan. To some extent, this influence may have worked now as well.

What should be done in the current situation? We need to step up our efforts to shape public opinion in the U.S., emphasizing the horrific consequences of Russian strikes on Kyiv and other cities and regions of Ukraine. Given the approaching U.S. midterm congressional elections, this could be effective.

The main thing to remember is that Trump’s position can always change suddenly. And there’s no need to panic about this. With Trump, you always have to be on your guard; you can’t let your guard down, and efforts to engage with Trump and his administration cannot stop for a single day.

Source