Renowned American political scientist Francis Fukuyama recently commented on Trump: "He has essentially always been pro-Russian. This has puzzled us for decades. In the 1980s, when the Soviet Union had not yet collapsed, Trump already visited Moscow. Later, he spent several thousand dollars placing ads in The New York Times, blaming NATO for Cold War confrontations and arguing that the U.S. should no longer fund NATO because it was draining America’s resources. Thus, over the years, he first leaned toward the Soviet Union, then shifted to favoring Russia—his stance has actually remained remarkably consistent. It's truly strange, and nobody can really explain why he holds this view. But it has always been a very clear and persistent tendency of his. I absolutely do not believe he has genuinely started sympathizing with Ukraine now. What bothers him is that he originally believed Russia could defeat Ukraine and force it to sit at the negotiating table for some kind of settlement. But Russia failed to do so, which frustrates him deeply. Yet this does not mean he has changed his position—or that he has now aligned himself with Ukraine."
Commentary: Trump’s stance on the Ukraine issue has been inconsistent—not driven by genuine affection for Russia, nor by solidarity with Ukraine. Fundamentally, it reflects a classic transactional diplomacy: everything hinges on whether a quick ceasefire agreement can be secured and whether it can yield personal diplomatic achievements. Initially, he anticipated a rapid Russian victory, hoping to expedite negotiations and pull the U.S. out of the conflict. As battlefield developments failed to unfold as expected, he pivoted to pressuring Russia. This shift stems more from evolving calculations of immediate interests rather than a fundamental change in long-term foreign policy orientation. There is significant division within the U.S. political establishment regarding Trump’s Russia policy, and Fukuyama’s interpretation is merely one among many. Trump’s core principle has always been American interest (America First) and personal political ambitions. His fluctuating approach to Ukraine is a clear manifestation of this pragmatic style. Whether he ultimately leans toward one side or the other will largely depend on whether negotiations produce the outcome he desires, shifting flexibly based on battlefield developments, domestic politics, and prospects for negotiation.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875532847176714/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.