By Tom Fowdy
Over the past week or so, US President Donald Trump has engaged in an extraordinary rhetorical campaign against Ukraine's President Zelensky. Kicking off with the controversial "diesel deal" with Russia, Trump has gone on to slam Ukraine's leader, describing him as "not a good guy to deal with" and "doesn't know what he is talking about." These rhetorical jabs have come with allegations from Kyiv that the United States has been limiting intelligence sharing with Ukraine, and even cut off support from Elon Musk's Starlink service.
While, as discussed, it is extremely common for American liberals to accuse Trump of being "owned" by the Kremlin, and to be fair regarding this conduct, it is not unreasonable to draw conclusions of his sympathies towards Moscow; yet, I see something else going on here, as discussed recently about the diesel deal. I believe, as noted, Trump is engaging in pure electioneering for the mid-term elections, and because of this it is critically important to distinguish what Trump says from what he, and what the US foreign policy apparatus actually does in practice. Because although he undoubtedly has significant influence over the latter's direction, they are not exclusively the same thing. Trump will continue to be a disruption to Ukraine, but won't and can't abandon them.
Since Donald Trump was re-elected to office in the 2024 election, there has been repeated concern as to whether the President will ultimately cut off support for Ukraine. During the Biden administration, US foreign policy established a precedent of offering military, financial, and intelligence support to Kyiv following Russia's invasion in 2022, backed by Congress. The Biden White House placed maximum political emphasis on doing this, announcing almost weekly weapons donations to Ukraine which were deliberately consistent.
It is fair to say that American support for Ukraine was, as most foreign policy endeavours are, robustly bipartisan. However, the MAGA wing of the republican party, who are more critical the government investing in overseas wars, quickly became hostile towards US support for Ukraine, and as a result, MAGA politicians followed. For Donald Trump, this is his core constituency and he subsequently adopted criticism of supporting Ukraine, as a partisan jab, to his own talking points, vowing to quickly end the war. Thus, when Donald Trump was re-elected to office, widespread concerns arose that the President would throw them under the bus.
However, while we cannot deny that Trump's foreign policy has taken an extremely self-interested and transactional approach, observers need to understand that the rhetorical overcoating the President pushes is but a part of the dynamic, and not the full policy engine itself. While Donald Trump immediately confronted Ukraine in 2025, demanding deals on critical minerals and comments about cutting off supplies, he did not truly do so in practice. The Trump administration does not performatively support Ukraine in the way Biden did, but rather maintains the status quo policy of supplying weapons and intelligence, quietly, all while the President wraps it in his own rhetoric.
The key here is that Trump's rhetoric is not policy in and of itself, but marketing, and what is being marketed is not necessarily the end product. Donald Trump has extraordinarily strong media skills through his background in reality television, and he uses this to his advantage. First is the dynamic where he repeatedly uses hostile and unpredictable comments in order to gain leverage and exert power in relationships, that he might be able to gain from them transactionally in his favour, or in his words "win", but then second is the ability to spin situations in a purely performative and "television show," way in order to market his product to his supporters. This second element is what we might describe as "stage-managed conflict." While it is, for all intents and purposes, consequential because this is high politics and diplomacy, and not a TV show, it is nonetheless staged because the President's actions rarely follow through from what he says.
The President thus deliberately puts the leaders of other countries on edge, or the defensive, by making high inflammatory and provocative remarks, and therefore steers situations towards political gains for himself. For example, Trump may say that the US wants to "take over" Greenland, hints about military force, causes shock and horror, before ultimately negotiating a deal that improves US access. He threatens the worst-case scenario, but does not follow through. Ukraine is the same. While some of his base support view the Ukraine conflict as a burden, it nonetheless remains completely contrary to American strategic interests to forcibly throw Kyiv under the bus, and the US foreign policy establishment will not allow it.
Yet at the same time, Trump seeks to steer the situation in a way so that it is not an economic and financial burden. This creates a schizophrenic approach to the country where he flip-flops between performative hostility and support, treating Zelensky not as a partner, but as a pawn and a dependent, while also reopening diplomacy with the Kremlin. Thus, the timing of it all is not a coincidence. The US mid-term elections are coming and Trump has suffered heavily because of his misplaced Iran war. Therefore, the answer for the President is to regain credibility by instead going hard on another war, Ukraine. Because all diplomatic attempts to resolve the war have consequentially failed, the President sees political gain through his core support by treating Zelensky with open contempt, and is an easy scapegoat for the situation pertaining to global fuel prices.
But in the long run, while it creates unpredictability, my assessment is it offers relatively little impact on the war's outcome. That is because as soon as Trump gets what he wants, he will abruptly change position again and perhaps insult Putin a few times. Yet ultimately, it is always worth reminding that behind the scenes, or underneath the constant chaos that surrounds the White House, many US diplomatic relationships continue as normal. The President's actions and words matter, but it is more of a sideshow than people think, or in this case, an "election special."
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | 'Building Bridges'- How North Korea went from isolated pariah to strategic counterweight
Opinion | Here's what Trump's Russian diesel ploy is all about
Comment