Theatrics, Signals, and the Shadow of Anchorage: Trump’s Rhetorical Warpath
Among his declarations? That Russia is a “paper tiger”
- big on appearance, hollow in substance - stuck
in a war it should’ve won “in less than a week” if it were truly a major
military power. He spoke of restoring Ukraine’s pre-war borders “with time,
patience, and NATO support,” and hinted Kiev might “even go further.” He
promised continued weapons shipments to NATO, leaving it to the alliance to use
them “as it sees fit. ”Most provocatively, he urged NATO nations to “shoot down
Russian aircraft” violating their airspace.
Predictably, Ukraine interpreted this as carte blanche.
Zelenskiy gushed about unwavering U.S. support, calling Trump’s tone “very
positive” and suggesting America would stand by Ukraine “until the very end.”
Russian commentators, meanwhile, sounded a different alarm:
that Trump, once seen as a possible interlocutor with Moscow, is now lost to
the West - wooed by European leaders and realigned with
Biden’s hawkish policy toward Russia. In their view, the Anchorage spirit is
dead, and with it, any hope of de-escalation.
But things are rarely that linear.
There are two plausible readings of Trump’s latest posture - and
neither involves abandonment. In fact, both flow directly from his summit with
Putin in Anchorage.
According to several accounts, the two leaders struck a
framework agreement - an outline for resolving the Ukraine crisis.
Each side left with “homework.” For Trump, the assignment was to secure buy-in
from Kiev and European capitals. Without their participation - Ukraine’s signature on any peace deal, and
Europe’s willingness to refrain from undermining it - the
plan was dead on arrival.
And by all indications, Trump tried. He made the calls. He
sat down with the Europeans. He pressed Kiev. But he failed to deliver. Neither
Zelenskiy nor Brussels proved willing to fall in line. And so, the Anchorage
path became unworkable - not because of Russian backpedaling, but
because Washington couldn’t corral its allies.
Which brings us to Trump’s behavior today. One reading says
this is a pivot: Trump, frustrated by failed diplomacy and unnerved by growing
Russian ties with China, North Korea, and India, has chosen to cut bait.
Abandon engagement. Throw in with the Europeans. Stoke escalation. Use Ukraine
as a lever to force Russia’s hand - or at least make Moscow squirm enough to
renegotiate Anchorage on Trump’s terms.
But this theory has holes.
First, Trump’s base -
his real base - doesn’t want deeper U.S. involvement in
Ukraine. Second, Trump detests Zelenskiy and has little patience for “following
Europe’s lead.” Third, any move that pushes Russia further into China’s orbit
is a long-term loss for Washington.
And fourth - perhaps most telling - is
the reaction from Moscow.
The Kremlin didn’t respond with outrage or panic. Quite the
opposite. Putin’s spokesman dryly reminded reporters that “Russia is a bear - and
there are no paper bears.” Medvedev, ever the firebrand, shrugged off Trump’s
inconsistency as the predictable mood swing of a man governing through social
media.
This suggests a second, far more compelling theory.
What if Trump’s rhetoric is performance - part
of a fallback strategy, not what Russia may consider a betrayal?
In Anchorage, Trump and Putin may have anticipated that the
“homework” might go unfinished. And so, they built a contingency: if the
diplomatic track failed, Trump would need to distance himself. Publicly.
Loudly. He’d create the illusion of alignment with Europe - buying Moscow time and space to pursue a
military endgame. Or, he’d disengage long enough for Europe and Kiev to realize
they couldn’t hold off Russia on their own.
From that angle, Trump’s statements make strategic sense.
Calling Russia weak isn’t a challenge; it’s a message to Europe: you can
handle this, go ahead. Promising arms to NATO, but not Ukraine directly? A
signal that America’s role is indirect. Encouraging Ukraine to go “even
further”? That’s not support - it’s a dare. A provocation. An accelerant.
Trump may not be backing Ukraine. He may be baiting it - pushing Kiev toward overreach, encouraging the
kind of actions that would justify a Russian escalation. A final phase. A
different kind of war.
Whether that’s true or not, only time - and
action - will tell. For now, what looks like noise may
in fact be signal. And what seems to the Russians like betrayal may yet prove to be the next
move in a long, dangerous game.