Mehmet Özay 20.07.2025
In the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the new policy that US President Trump has put on the agenda in the last few days amounts to a reconstruction of the agenda.
For those who have been following Trump's policies and the rhetoric that underpins them since 2016, there is no surprise.
After all, President Trump continues his consistent tendency to contribute to the political literature by implementing the U-turn as a policy method.
Peace with counterattack
In fact, the phenomenon of the last few days is a direct reflection of the Trump-Putin and then Trump-Zelenksy phone calls earlier this month.
The fact that Trump's promise to "end the occupation of Ukraine", which experts say could be considered a kind of responsibility towards the American and global public opinion, has not been fulfilled so far, seems to have turned the process towards "subjugating Russia with a counter-attack and forcing it to make peace".
Trump's U-turn is as much about 'exaggerated' or 'bluff-filled' rhetoric as it is about his policy of U-turn.
Targetting Moscow
In his meeting with Zelenky, the question "You can hit Moscow?" means just that...
It is clear that Trump's rhetoric, which he has brought to the agenda, perhaps haphazardly or with the idea of impressing his interlocutors, does not correspond to a logically calculated political approach.
Even if Zelensky has 'verbally said yes' to this approach, it is hard to imagine that he would be willing to hit Moscow.
Even though his country is under occupation, it is clear that Zelensky would not want to engage in policies as crazy as Trump's.
Suspension in the peace process
One of the key arguments and promises of Trump's 2024 election campaign, representing the global dimension, was that he would establish peace between Ukraine and Russia from day one.
In the intervening period, not only has there been no peace in the center of Europe, but there has been a growing and escalating discourse of war.
Barış süreci adımlarından biri kabul edilebilecek şekilde Trump’ın, Ukrayna devlet başkanı Vladimir Zelensky’i Beyaz Saray’da ağırlaması, ekranların önünde canlı bir şekilde sergilendiği üzere politik hüsranla sonuçlandı.
The fact that Trump, who has been trying to punish Ukraine, failed to get results from the US-led peace talks in Saudi Arabia last February should be considered one of the milestones of the process evolving in a new and different direction.
And today, when President Trump openly voices his support for Ukraine and declares his readiness to help generously, it seems that he has decided to punish Russian President Putin with this approach.
European factor
One of the main drivers of Trump's shift to the Ukrainian side in the Ukraine-Russia conflict can be explained by the 'lobbies' that are said to have influence over policymakers in the US.
However, it would not be wrong to say that the most important developments in Trump's full support for Ukraine and his tendency to punish Putin, covertly or overtly, were the discussions at the NATO summit in the Netherlands about a month ago, on June 24-25.
In fact, just three months ago - previous processes and rhetoric aside - European leaders had put on the agenda the idea that Ukraine should "have its own military and defense capacity" against Putin.
Recalling that the same NATO leaders refused to participate in the US-led meetings in Riyadh, it is safe to say that today US President Trump is in the same position as the European leaders with whom he has long been at odds.
And the fact that Trump has today rushed to respond to the call by European leaders last February to arm Ukraine should be seen as an expression of his U-turn policies.
It is possible to see this development as a step towards a new cooperation within NATO, replacing the European-US conflict and divergence.
However, at this point, it is necessary to be cautious and to see and understand what steps Trump will take in the coming days.
Russia's occupation of Ukraine, which has been going on in the heart of Europe since 2022, proves that it is not an occupation, but rather a situation of open warfare, with the processes of counter-attack that Ukraine has been implementing within Russia's borders for some time.
U-turn policy
Even before he took office on January 20, US President Trump claimed that "I would end this war", referring to the war in the middle of Europe, saying that he "knows Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky very well".
The intervening six months seem to have proved Trump wrong. It is futile to expect Trump, who stands out as the epitome of a pragmatic politician, to go back and try to understand where he went wrong and to make sincere public statements on this issue.
Within the framework of current developments, Trump, as the head of the global system, will tend to choose and implement the alternative that best suits him and the US.
Even if this process requires a U-turn in US international policy, there is no reason for him to avoid it.
English and Indonesian versions translated with DeepL AI
