Trump regularly maintains to the American public that, if he had still been president, this terrible war on Russia would never have happened. Here’s my view, which I’ve expressed before.
It’s no secret that Trump’s ambition when he first became president was to patch things up with Russia in order to get Russia to ally with America against China. Perhaps that’s still his idea—I don’t know, but he still appears hostile towards China. However the difference between Trump’s strategy and the Neocon strategy is this: Whereas Trump was willing to work with a sovereign Russia for a common goal, the Neocons wanted to first subjugate and plunder Russia before turning to China. I won’t pretend to know for sure what Trump’s plan really was, but I’m willing to take his word on this one. The alternative—that Trump was trying to pull a fast one on Putin before going full Neocon on him—seems less likely, if only because of the rabid Neocon hostility to Trump and his Russia policy. Therefore, to this extent, I also accept Trump’s claim that the war would never have happened under his presidency to this extent—he would have resisted war. And, in fact, it seems that Trump did resist warlike advisers during his first term.
The problem is, Trump also ordered his military to withdraw from Syria. So it all remains somewhat unclear whether he would have resisted fully, or might have been talked around. And there’s another problem, which I’ve cited numerous times: Trump did absolutely nothing to slow down the Deep State preparation for war in Ukraine—to the contrary, those preparations accelerated markedly during Trump 1.0.
The reason I bring this up is because Will Schryver—no fan of Trump—is currently arguing against Trump’s claims—in part. As I argued above, I doubt that we can ever reach certainty on this point, but it is nevertheless worthwhile to consider Schryver’s arguments for clarity on geopolitics going forward. Despite the peace euphoria, peace will likely not be easy.
Schryver’s argument is based on what we can know for sure: Trump did vastly increase military aid to Ukraine. Either Trump did that, or he was a mere catspaw of the Neocons running the Deep State. First, we point out that Schryver claims a narrow purpose:
my point is a relatively narrow one: the trajectory of US/NATO preparation of Ukraine for war against Russia was upward and in crescendo all during the Trump 45 administration.
That seems undeniably the case, based on ascertainable facts. Regardless of Trump’s inner intentions, he never interrupted that trajectory. With that factual basis for his argument, Schryver then takes issue with Trump’s statement that Ukraine started the war. A commenter responds with a sensible observation in support of Trump, based on Neocon hostility to Trump:
Will Schryver @imetatronink
There is a major uproar throughout the empire and its vassal states because Trump said it was Ukraine that started the war against Russia.
Of course, Trump is only partly right. It was the US/UK et al. that planned and started the war, using Ukraine as their willing proxy.
3:03 PM · Feb 19, 2025
In other words, Schryver is willing to apportion blame to Ukraine as well as to the US/UK et alios. It remains that but for the pushing of the Anglo-Zionist bloc the war would likely never have happened. Schryver’s further point is that, once a trajectory is set, events become well nigh inevitable—absent a clear and decisive interruption of the trajectory:
Brandon Weichert @WeTheBrandon
They [the Anglo-Zionists] planned it for years. One of the reasons they went so hard after Trump was because in 2016 he interfered so badly in their carefully laid plans by beating Shitlery. That's why they had to stymie his first term & rig the election in 2020 against him. They wanted their war.
Will Schryver @imetatronink
During the Trump 45 period, more heavy weapons were delivered, more AFU troops were NATO-trained, and more Donbass fortifications constructed than in any previous administration.
Revisionist history won't work with me. I watched it all happen, and warned about as it did.
it is indisputable that the trend line of US/NATO preparations of the #MotherOfAllProxyArmies in Ukraine began to go parabolic during the 2017-2021 period.
In fact, Ukraine's military (AFU) was far and away the most formidable in Europe--except for Russia's. The reason for this is that Ukraine had inherited vast amounts of ex-Soviet weaponry, which has proven itself to be highly effective in the Ukrainian environment--more so than most of the "modern" NATO systems that were sent to replace Ukrainian losses.
Equally importantly, the first version of the AFU had already been trained up on supposedly advanced NATO systems that were provided within a few months of the start of the war.
But by far the most important fact, and Schryver's clinching argument:
the AFU was provided with and trained on advanced US/NATO secure communications systems and battlefield management software applications.
AFU command and operations were integrated with the US/NATO command structure, and comprehensive access was provided to US/NATO ISR — satellite, airborne, and "on the ground" personnel.
As I have argued repeatedly, it was precisely this access to US/NATO ISR capabilities that elevated the AFU from "potent" to "very formidable" in this war. And the training and preparation for this aspect of war-fighting rose in a steady crescendo in the five years preceding February 24, 2022.
Perhaps President Trump himself was "kept in the dark" regarding these preparations. I doubt it, but I consent to that possibility. In any case, it does not alter the fact that these developments occurred during his tenure, and constituted the final stages of the preparation for open warfare against Russia that ultimately commenced in early 2022.
Attempting to mitigate the culpability of the Trump 45 administration while simultaneously heaping all the blame on Biden and Zelensky is not only disingenuous, it is historically erroneous.
The empire carefully orchestrated and choreographed "Project Ukraine" over the course of many years spanning multiple US presidential terms, and there was no discernible diminution of their focus and efforts at any point along the time line.
Those last two paragraphs are very important. A war of this magnitude could never have been launched without a permanent policy trajectory “spanning multiple US presidential terms.” In other words, the Deep State was in control and our CinCs were either dragged along or were willing—but perhaps not fully witting—participants.
Putting all that aside, Trump is unquestionably aggressively seeking peace ASAP. With that in mind, SecState Rubio made some interesting comments to Catherine Herridge. Herridge was asking when we might expect a meeting between Trump and Putin—recall that there have been rumors that this could happen as soon as the end of February, which seems wildly optimistic, or even wildly unrelealistic. Rubio refused to commit, pointing out that any such meeting would be the culmination of negotiations—the meeting at which the deal was finalized. And, he said, that all depends on whether progress can be made in ending the war.
Catherine Herridge @C__Herridge
EXCLUSIVE:
@SECRubio
Trump, Putin meeting depends on progress to end Ukraine war
“...when that meeting happens will largely depend on whether we can make any progress on ending the war in Ukraine, and if we can and that meeting is what seals the deal, I think everybody should celebrate that President Trump is a peacemaker. He’s the only global leader right now that can make this happen, the only global leader.”
Of course, the question then becomes: How is progress toward ending the war to be measured? On the battlefield or at the negotiating table? Or both?
What’s becoming apparent is that in Riyadh—and probably before that—the Russians presented very tough conditions for moving toward an end to the war. That was entirely expected. It also appears that the Russians demanded concrete and significant actions on the part of the US as a sign of good will. Recall that just the other day—yesterday?—I cited a report that the US had actually committed in Riyadh to removing its military from members of NATO that had joined NATO after 1990. That would have meant, in effect, a return to the NATO of the Cold War years—if you measure that by force deployment. That would have been a huge concession by the Americans, but this was a demand that Putin had put in writing in his draft treaties of December, 2021.
The Russians, via Lavrov, are saying that they have “every reason to believe” that the Americans understand all Russian conditions and that the meeting was “very useful.” But that also means that without some give there has been no measurable progress in ending the war. Unless you consider—as the Russians probably do at this point—that a continuation is progress.
Now there appears to be a hint that the Americans are seeking to break that deadlock—or is this only speculation?
-- GEROMAN -- time will tell -  -- @GeromanAT
"The Pentagon is preparing to disconnect Ukrainian information systems from American launch detection data.
In the coming days, we will see an increase in the effectiveness of our missile strikes on Ukrainian targets."
Condottiero  TG
6:53 AM · Feb 20, 2025
The point here is that time is on Russia’s side. Whether or not the US ever unplugs Ukraine from its ISR systems, Russia is going to win. The more Russia wins the less reason they have to do a deal with Trump. So now we see why Rubio wouldn’t commit to any sort of time line. Riyadh was a breakthrough, but it’s a measure of the degree to which Russia controls events that Trump—having gone out on a limb—is now quickly in need of another breakthrough. The only breakthroughs the Russians are concerned about at this point are on the battlefield. And, to bring this full circle, the Russians are fully aware of Trump’s role in making this war possible. Whether or not he ever intended it is not Russia’s concern—only the actual fact that Trump did nothing to actively preempt the trajectory toward war matters.
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
I will be forever stunned by the sheer arrogance and stupidity of the neocons/americans who thought they could just swoop in and plunder Russia like it was Haiti. I was in Russia for a bit after the Soviet Union collapsed. the way the americans acted toward the Russians sickens me to this day. not one bit of empathy for what they had endured under communism.
None of this is rocker science. Russia's primary objective in negotiations with the US is elimination of the threat of nuclear armed missiles located 5 minutes flight time from Moscow. That's like holding a negotiation with someone who is holding a loaded 45 caliber pistol 2 inches from your forehead. The US would not accept this situation if it were reversed. Trump knows and will comply, but he wants something in return. That is what's being negotiated now. The only losers in this are the Europeans, who aren't getting any of the resource booty they have been scheming for.
I will be forever stunned by the sheer arrogance and stupidity of the neocons/americans who thought they could just swoop in and plunder Russia like it was Haiti. I was in Russia for a bit after the Soviet Union collapsed. the way the americans acted toward the Russians sickens me to this day. not one bit of empathy for what they had endured under communism.
None of this is rocker science. Russia's primary objective in negotiations with the US is elimination of the threat of nuclear armed missiles located 5 minutes flight time from Moscow. That's like holding a negotiation with someone who is holding a loaded 45 caliber pistol 2 inches from your forehead. The US would not accept this situation if it were reversed. Trump knows and will comply, but he wants something in return. That is what's being negotiated now. The only losers in this are the Europeans, who aren't getting any of the resource booty they have been scheming for.