Media Reveals Trump's Private 'Inversion' of Ukraine War Beliefs
Another fascinating revelation has come by way of the latest FT article, whose “sources” reveal a portrait of Trump 180-degrees reversed from his ‘for-public-consumption’ persona:
Granted, I often harp on that “sources” from these mainstream mierdias should never be taken at face value, but in this case common sense and reason tells us there’s likely truth to this reporting. Contrary to his public declarations that Russia is losing untold millions of men and its economy faces collapse, Trump privately warned Ukraine that Russia would “destroy” the Ukrainian state if Zelensky didn’t immediately make major concessions by giving up Donbass.
According to a European official with knowledge of the meeting, Trump told Zelenskyy that the Ukrainian leader needed to cut a deal or face destruction.
The official said that Trump told Zelenskyy he was losing the war, warning: “If [Putin] wants it, he will destroy you.”
If that weren’t enough, Trump’s private opinion on Russia’s economic situation is also the complete opposite of his public one. Recall the video I posted just in the last article wherein Trump says Russia’s economy is “collapsing”—it seems even he doesn’t believe his own bunk:
Well, well, well; who knew that Western leaders feed total slop to their gormless masses for the sake of political expediency?
Also, don’t forget the now-famous Trump social media rant wherein he declared that Ukraine can definitely win the war and should go on the offensive. My position that this was a total troll-job on Trump’s part was considered ‘controversial’ by some, as people simply took it at face value; another of our takes on Trump’s chicanery proven accurate.
Increasingly, realists in the West are seeing this more-than-obvious reality:
Field Marshall Lord Richards—who was head of the entire British Armed Forces, the most senior leader in the command structure—believes that Ukraine has no hope of winning. While this view has become commonplace to repeat, the key difference here is that Richards believes Ukraine has no chance even with whatever resources the allies manage to scrounge up and hand over:
Reflecting on Ukraine’s chances of success against Russia, he said: “My view is that they would not win.”
“Could not win, even with the right resources?” he was asked.
“No,” he replied.
In disbelief, The Independent asked him a second time:
Pressed further by The Independent, he was asked: “Even with the right resources?”
“No, they haven’t got the manpower,” the former commando said.
Well.
In fact, Lord Richards’ further insights are even more revealing for their sense of the realpolitik:
In his first long-form podcast interview, Lord Richards, the only British officer to have commanded massed US troops at war since 1945, said the outlook for Ukraine was not good.
“Unless we were to go in with them – which we won’t do because Ukraine is not an existential issue for us. It clearly is for the Russians, by the way,” he said on World of Trouble.
“We’ve decided because it’s not an existential issue, we will not go to war. We are, you can argue – and I absolutely accept it – in some sort of hybrid war [with Russia]. But that’s not the same as a shooting war in which our soldiers are dying in large numbers.
“Despite our attraction for all they’ve achieved and our genuine affections for so many Ukrainians, I’m just still in this school that says this is not in our vital national interests.
“My instinct is that the best Ukraine can do, and you already see President Zelensky, who’s an inspirational leader … the best they can do is a sort of a score draw.”
By the way, several important things need to be said about the Budapest meeting proposal.
Firstly, as was the case last time, it has been the US side reporting the ‘upcoming’ meeting as if it’s a done deal, whereas the Russians have far more circumspectly stated that the proposal to meet will be examined. That’s not to mention the fact that Rubio and Lavrov are supposed to meet initially to first iron out the agenda long before the Trump and Putin meeting can even happen. There’s good reason to thus believe that the meeting won’t happen because it’s hard to imagine what ‘agenda’ the two sides can possibly agree upon: there is simply nothing for Trump and Putin to discuss, as the two sides are not even on the same page vis-a-vis the conflict’s resolution.
But on that topic—and this is the other most important thing—there are renewed reports that during the recent phone call with Trump, Putin had reiterated that he’s willing to give up parts of Kherson and Zaporozhye in exchange for Ukraine giving up Donbass—namely, the parts of those regions not under control by Russia. This has sent the ‘Z-Patriot’ side into tantrums of outrage or dismissal. But I’m here to tell you: the idea is not unrealistic, nor does it mean Putin’s “capitulation” or lowering of the conflict’s aims, per se—though it may seem that way on the surface.
The reason is, this purported claim must be taken within the proper context. The context here is not a total and final end to the war—Putin never offered such a thing. What Putin has offered is that he would call an immediate ceasefire—understood to be conditional and temporary—should Ukrainian troops pull out of Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
The purpose of this ceasefire—as just stated—is not the total end of the war, but a provisional abatement meant to facilitate further real negotiations on the remainder of the issues. So with that in mind, Putin’s “offer” of Kherson and Zaporozhye can be seen in the following light: to his mind, it’s a win-win because it makes him appear amenable to his ‘partners’, not least of which Trump. At the same time, it cleverly gains Russia a huge amount of territory for free in the form of Donetsk and Lugansk. Most significantly what this gains is the entire agglomerate of Slavyansk-Kramatorsk which Ukraine would have to cede.
And that’s where the guile comes in. On one hand, there’s very little chance that Zelensky or the AFU would willingly abandon both Slavyansk and Kramatorsk in this way, so it makes Putin’s offer a low-risk gambit meant to make him look amenable to negotiations.
On the other hand, Putin also knows that even if Zelensky were to call his bluff and cede Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, the gulf of disagreements between Ukraine and Russia on the various war-ending issues is so wide, that Putin knows there’s little chance the conditional ceasefire would hold. That means Russia would gain Slavyansk and Kramatorsk for free—which would now be “behind” the Russian Army—while the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions ostensibly ‘ceded’ by Putin in exchange would still again be on the table for Russia to liberate. The advantageous game-theoretic value here is quite simple to see.
On the front, big Russian gains continue rolling in.
The most notable has been on the Yanchur river zone along the Gulyaipole front. Recall Russian forces had just begun assaulting the chain of settlements there. Now they have somehow stormed across the river and swept into Novomykolaivka, capturing all of it, as well as some of neighboring Novovasilyvske:
Up near Pryviliya, which was just captured in the last report, Russian forces already expanded the zone significantly southward, widening the salient:
This Yanchur river chain is quickly being rolled up by Russian forces, proving spent Ukrainian defenses here must be in dire shape.
In Pokrovsk, Russian forces have merely been consolidating the center of the city, pulling up logistics and fortifying themselves to push ahead. In neighboring Mirnograd, Russian forces have continued wedging into the city itself in its southern outskirts:
More critically, at the moment, Russian forces took a large chunk of Rodynske from the northeast direction:
The fact that Rodynske is now half or nearly-half captured is even bigger news because the full capture of this town will mean the complete cutting off of the key supply route there, rather than mere fire control—visualized below:
Just to the north of there, on the eastern flank of the Dobropillya salient, Russian forces finally began storming Shakhove from the northwest, for the first time capturing the first section of the settlement:
In the Lyman direction, Russian forces consolidated the path towards the city itself by capturing a good amount of territory corresponding roughly to the blue-lined area below:
As you can see, that means Russian forces are now virtually at the city gates, which explains why there were reports last time that DRGs had already breached into the city itself.
Meanwhile, here’s how the Economist’s latest hit piece is billing the inexorable Russian advances:
To be honest, it’s not even worth covering the dreck above in detail. It’s the same old tired sophistry about Russia not gaining much land when you ‘zoom out from the map far enough’.
Hey look, see that squiggly line, that’s all that Russia captured, Ha Ha!
Hey, look now! See that tiny red speck? That’s all Russia managed to capture, Ha Ha!
It’s the same tired old sophistry clothed in infantile tactics. The West knows full well the Ukrainian army is being crushed and its state infrastructure is collapsing, while European and allied support has dipped to record lows—remember what I said about PURL?
Military aid to Ukraine saw a sharp decline in July and August 2025, despite the introduction of NATO’s Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL)initiative.
Military aid falls by 43 percent compared to the first half of the year
The Economist piece ends with this laughable prediction:
But Russia’s ability to fight on at today’s pace may also be coming to an end. And if Mr Putin pushes on regardless, he would be running another risk. After three years of thwarted offensives, a sudden collapse may become more likely in the Russian war economy than in Ukraine’s defensive lines.
A cursory search shows a myriad of Economist articles dating back from 2022 predicting Russia’s economic collapse. For a rag named The Economist, it sure knows embarrassingly little about economics.