Unable to Sway Putin, Trump Turns the Spotlight on Biden and Zelensky

Former President Donald Trump, once again in the political spotlight, has attempted to shift blame onto President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the ongoing war in Ukraine. This latest rhetorical maneuver comes amid reports that Trump was unable to make headway in persuading Russian President Vladimir Putin to consider peace negotiations, raising questions about his diplomatic leverage and strategy.

Trump, who has consistently boasted about his supposed close relationship with world leaders, including Putin, faced a critical moment in attempting to position himself as a peacemaker in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. However, behind the scenes, sources indicate that his outreach to Moscow yielded little to no progress. Despite claims of having the “ability to end the war in 24 hours,” the reality appears far more complicated, revealing limitations in both influence and negotiation tactics.

Instead of acknowledging the impasse, Trump has redirected public attention by accusing Biden of escalating the conflict through military support to Ukraine. He also criticized Zelensky, painting him as unwilling to compromise for peace. These accusations have been met with skepticism by international analysts, who argue that Trump’s deflections serve more to protect his image than to offer constructive solutions.

Critics suggest that Trump’s posturing reflects a familiar pattern: when confronted with failure, he often resorts to blame-shifting. By targeting Biden and Zelensky, he avoids addressing the deeper issue—his inability to influence Putin or present a viable peace framework. Meanwhile, the war continues to devastate Ukraine, with no immediate resolution in sight.

The Biden administration has maintained a firm stance of supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and providing military and economic aid, arguing that any peace agreement must be just and not reward aggression. Zelensky has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is open to negotiations, but only under conditions that ensure national security and territorial integrity.

Trump’s attempt to recast the narrative reveals a broader strategy aimed at regaining political traction ahead of the upcoming elections. However, experts warn that such rhetoric could damage international perceptions of U.S. consistency and undermine efforts to build multilateral support for peace.

As the situation unfolds, the question remains whether Trump’s tactics will resonate with voters or simply expose the limitations of his foreign policy credentials. What is clear is that in the high-stakes arena of global diplomacy, image management is no substitute for meaningful engagement—and empty promises of peace can come at a high cost.