The war in Ukraine is becoming very inconvenient for Trump

This article generally aligns with a Center point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

• The column argues that, despite shifting battlefield tactics and technologies, the fundamental moral reality of the war has remained constant: Ukraine is the victim of a lawless, brutal and unprovoked invasion by an autocratic Russia that continues to occupy about one‑fifth of Ukrainian territory and has caused immense casualties and destruction^[1][3].
• Building on this, the piece contends that Russia’s campaign systematically targets civilians and critical infrastructure, as seen in repeated large‑scale missile and drone strikes against cities, energy facilities and everyday economic sites in Kyiv and other regions, which independent assessments describe as designed to demoralize the population and disrupt normal life^{[3][4][13][14]}.
• The column suggests that the war’s duration has led many in U.S. politics to treat it as background noise, even though ongoing Russian offensives and Ukrainian counterattacks show a highly dynamic conflict in which Russia gains little new territory at high cost while Ukraine actively contests the front and strikes Russian logistics^[3][5][12].
• The article argues that Jared Kushner’s recent role as a U.S.-backed peace envoy, emphasizing “creative solutions” and economic deals, wrongly frames Ukraine as the obstacle to peace by implying it should accept withdrawal to lines laid out by Vladimir Putin, even though Ukrainian leadership has agreed only to explore peace principles that include security and economic guarantees rather than unilateral territorial concessions^[1][2][13].
• In describing Kushner’s approach, the piece contends that downplaying territorial integrity in favor of prospective business opportunities risks rewarding aggression, undermining Ukraine’s hard‑won defensive positions in areas such as the “fortress belt” in Donetsk, and inviting future attacks by signaling that conquest can eventually be legitimized^[3][6].
• The column further argues that this administration’s posture, including Vice President JD Vance’s long‑standing public indifference to Ukraine’s fate, reflects a broader narrative that blames Ukrainians for prolonging the conflict rather than focusing on Russia’s stated determination to keep fighting until its expansive territorial demands are met^[9].
• The article criticizes President Trump’s recent demand that Volodymyr Zelensky stop drone strikes on Russian oil refineries and diesel infrastructure, noting that Trump publicly warned those attacks were “hurting the world” by contributing to diesel shortages, yet did not call on Russia to stop attacking Ukraine or withdraw forces^{[1][10][11][15]}.
• Expanding on this criticism, the column portrays Trump’s stance as a form of geopolitical victim‑blaming that prioritizes fuel prices and personal political convenience over Ukraine’s military need to degrade Russia’s refining capacity and fuel logistics, which analysts say have already been seriously damaged by Ukrainian strikes on refineries and transport hubs^[1][5][8].
• The piece emphasizes that Ukrainian drone and missile campaigns against Russian oil infrastructure are a strategic response to ongoing Russian bombardment and a means of constraining Russia’s ability to wage war, aligning with military assessments that these operations are central to Ukraine’s effort to stall Russian advances and regain initiative^[5][7][8].
• Finally, the column insists that honor remains a vital element of foreign policy: it suggests that Ukraine’s refusal to accept erasure, Iran’s refusal to capitulate despite pressure, and the ethical obligations of the United States all demonstrate that questions of national dignity and moral responsibility should outweigh the calculations of “dealmakers” focused on profit and short‑term economic stability^[1][7].

Different views on the topic

• In contrast, Trump has publicly urged Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries and diesel‑related infrastructure, arguing that these attacks are causing a global diesel shortage, driving record prices in the United States, and “hurting the world,” an argument that prioritizes economic stability and consumer costs over Ukraine’s chosen methods of waging war^[10][11][15].
• Moreover, Trump’s comments at a golf event in Ireland, echoed in subsequent coverage, present Ukraine’s targeting of fuel infrastructure as the primary source of current diesel scarcity, downplaying the role of Russia’s invasion and the parallel conflict involving Iran, and casting Ukraine’s actions as needlessly disruptive when “plenty of other targets” supposedly exist^{[1][10][11][15]}.
• Building on this line of reasoning, some U.S. officials and analysts cited in major outlets point to Ukraine’s long‑range drone campaign having knocked out a substantial portion of Russia’s refining capacity and strained energy supplies, contending that while these strikes may be militarily effective, they also risk wider economic fallout that could undermine public support for Ukraine in the West^{[1][5][8][11]}.
• From the perspective of Russian leadership, the war is framed as a necessary struggle until Moscow’s territorial goals are met; officials such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have stated that Russia will continue fighting until its demands are satisfied and that Western peace initiatives cannot be trusted, thereby presenting Ukrainian resistance and Western backing—not Russian aggression—as the main obstacles to peace^[1][9].
• In a different register, U.S. peace envoys including Kushner have described recent meetings with Zelensky in Kyiv as having generated “new momentum” toward ending the war, emphasizing negotiations over post‑war economic and security guarantees and signaling openness to compromise formulas that could involve adjusted territorial arrangements in exchange for reconstruction funding and investment^[1][2][13].
• Related commentary from diplomatic and business circles sympathetic to Kushner’s approach highlights “creative solutions” that would leverage international capital to rebuild Ukraine and re‑integrate Russian economic interests, suggesting that focusing less on precise borders and more on shared economic gains might produce a quicker settlement than insisting on full Ukrainian territorial restoration^[1][2].
• Additionally, some foreign policy voices describe Ukraine’s sustained campaign against Russian energy infrastructure—including refineries, gasoline tankers and fuel transport routes—as potentially escalatory and destabilizing, warning that these operations, while they impede Russian logistics, also deepen global fuel shortages and raise the risk of broader economic or security shocks beyond the battlefield^[5][8][14].
• Finally, officials and commentators wary of a long war argue that the current trajectory—marked by near‑zero net territorial change since early 2026 despite intensive combat—supports the case for a negotiated end that might involve difficult compromises by Ukraine, on the grounds that indefinite conflict drains Western resources, prolongs civilian suffering and increases the chance of miscalculation or wider regional escalation^[1][3][5].