Sorry for the bad English, I use chatgpt translate from Chinese.
"The main reason why people find Trump outrageous is that he actually claimed this war was all Zelensky's fault. Some even misinterpreted him as saying, "Ukraine is the real aggressor." If you haven't followed the whole context from Putin's invasion of Crimea, you might see a sensational headline and immediately call Trump delusional—after all, Putin is the invader! How could he turn things upside down and blame Zelensky?

No matter how crazy Trump might be, he surely knows that it was Putin who ordered the invasion of Ukraine. He has repeatedly emphasized that "this war should never have started" and boasted that if he were in office, Putin wouldn't have dared to act. The key issue is: What did he mean when he said Zelensky "started the war"?

People are attacking him for this statement, accusing him of being irrational and favoring Russia in his peace plan. He even suggested that Ukraine should hold elections soon, seemingly pushing the "war hero" Zelensky out of office. Overnight, Trump became the ultimate villain.

But "start the war" does not refer to February 24, 2022, when Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine. Instead, it echoes an opportunity in March 2022 that could have "ended the war." At that time, peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia had reached the sixth round. Zelensky had already agreed, in principle, to give up Donbas and Crimea, accept Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, and abandon its pursuit of NATO membership. In return, Russia agreed that Ukraine could join the EU.

Both sides had agreed in Istanbul, Turkey, to sign a draft peace agreement. However, Boris Johnson and Antony Blinken then intervened, persuading Zelensky not to sign the deal. They assured him that if Ukraine fought Russia to the end, the West would fully support Ukraine in this war.

Around the same time, the Bucha massacre occurred. Within a week, Zelensky's stance shifted from being open to negotiations to an outright refusal to cede any territory. He declared that he would never negotiate with Russia again unless Putin stepped down. The war was truly set in motion—and now, nearly three years later, it continues.

I won’t criticize Zelensky for making the wrong political decision. At that time, Biden had offered extremely attractive military aid conditions, and Zelensky believed that with Western support, Ukraine could reclaim all lost territories, including Crimea. Remember that Germany initially refused to send military aid to Ukraine and was still clinging to Nord Stream 2? It was only after the pipeline was bombed that Germany and Poland, despite knowing the truth, blamed Russia. It wasn’t until November last year that an official investigation revealed the attack was carried out by the U.S. and Ukraine to force Europe into fully committing to the war.

War is supposed to be a clear-cut struggle—one side invades, the other defends. But once these geopolitical agendas get involved, everything plunges into darkness. Even Boris Johnson admitted that the real reason they were so desperate to stop Zelensky from signing a peace deal was that the U.S. and UK wanted to "use the Ukraine war to deplete Russia’s military strength as much as possible."

They gambled with Ukrainian lives to weaken Russia, while Europe achieved its security objectives without shedding a single drop of its own blood. That’s why Biden never sought a quick victory over Putin. He deliberately limited the range and capabilities of weapons sent to Ukraine, forbidding attacks on Russian territory. The goal was to force Putin to deploy more troops into Ukraine, slowly grinding down Russia’s military power over time.

But the strategy failed. Russia weathered its setbacks and regained strength—not just in Donbas, but also by capturing Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. The major counteroffensive Zelensky promised NATO never materialized; instead, Ukraine resorted to symbolic strikes on Crimea to secure more media victories and request additional military aid. It wasn’t until last year that Biden finally allowed Ukraine to target Crimea and even Russian territory while deploying F-16s. However, NATO gradually realized that no amount of military aid could secure victory. Europe was running out of resources faster than Russia. As their own military analysts put it, Russian forces had proven that World War II-era trench warfare tactics could defeat NATO's fourth-generation weaponry.

Putin has mastered Stalin’s strategy. From the very beginning, he was prepared to sacrifice 500,000 troops in this war. Ukraine, however, cannot sustain such a level of losses, and NATO refuses to send its own soldiers.

In the face of an impending defeat, does anyone doubt that if NATO were willing to intervene directly, Ukraine would have a fighting chance? Zelensky has been pushing for NATO’s involvement—even falsely accusing Russia of bombing Poland to trigger Article 5 (it was later revealed to be a Ukrainian Patriot missile accident). But NATO remains cautious, as it has always intended for Ukrainian soldiers to bear the brunt of the war against Russia.

Even now, NATO believes the war hasn’t "drained" Russia enough. Blinken has repeatedly urged Ukraine to lower its conscription age to 18-25, pushing more young men onto the battlefield. But at least Zelensky did one thing right—he refused Biden’s request. If manpower is lacking, shouldn't Europe step in instead?

Two days ago, the EU held an emergency meeting where Macron suggested sending troops—only to be scolded by Scholz. The final consensus? Deploying 30,000 soldiers, but only in rear positions, not for combat.

For the latter half of last year, European leaders deceived Zelensky, making him believe Ukraine could join NATO. But it was all an illusion. NATO's Article 5 states that an attack on one member requires collective defense, and they simply don’t want to be dragged into this war. They used NATO membership as a false promise to keep Ukraine fighting. Now, Trump is demanding that Ukraine remain permanently neutral, reverting to the original peace deal terms, yet somehow he is the villain.

Zelensky still dreams of trading Russia’s Kursk region for Ukraine’s four eastern provinces. But the U.S. has shifted from Biden’s "war nihilism" to Trump’s "peace realism." The reality is: Ukraine has lost. By refusing a peace deal in spring 2022, Zelensky expanded the scope of defeat. The strategy of using Ukrainian lives to exhaust Russia’s military was a mistake. Ukraine’s alliance with Europe was nothing but a scam. (When 6 million Ukrainian refugees were distributed across Europe, German corporations were already pressuring their government to allow them to work.)

Ukraine has become another Afghanistan. And Putin isn’t the only beneficiary.

The EU wants to seize Russia’s frozen assets while setting an oil price cap that allows them to continue buying Russian oil. BlackRock is eyeing a monopoly on Ukraine’s reconstruction financing. The WEF wants to turn Ukraine into a testing ground for digital authoritarianism. And who knows how many people have profited along the way—Zelensky himself admitted that "$100 billion has gone missing."

As long as everything goes according to plan—no matter how sinister the plan—nobody panics. But the moment Trump blurts out a few shocking words, suddenly everyone loses their minds.

That’s why some people would rather have Kamala Harris on Ukraine policy—they want this war to continue until Putin is dead.

If you see this conflict purely as Ukraine vs. Russia, then the moral framework is simple: we should oppose any aggressor.

But if you understand it as a proxy war between the deep state and Russia, the perspective changes. It also explains why Trump appears to be on the same side as Putin.

Putin sees this as a war for Russia’s survival. He believes he is the only leader left in Europe capable of resisting globalist forces. He fears that once he falls, Russia will be carved up by international capitalists and globalists. That’s why he chose to invade Ukraine—to resist NATO expansion.

His perspective may be twisted, and even if true, it does not justify invading Ukraine. But to negotiate, you must first understand the enemy’s mindset.

If you need a new mental framework to process this war, consider it a battle between expansionist evil and selfish evil. Ukraine is the battlefield and the victim—millions have died in vain, for nothing.

Trump believes America is also a victim because his real enemy isn’t here. You don’t have to agree. Maybe you think true justice means "standing with Ukraine."

But justice comes at a cost. If America won’t pay it, will Europe?"


The original in Chinese 
他們覺得特朗普離譜的主因是他竟說這場戰爭都是澤連斯基的錯，有人甚至曲解他說「烏克蘭才是入侵者」，假如你沒有從普京入侵克里米亞起了解整個脈絡，見到聳動的標題當然會罵特朗普精神錯亂——普京才是入侵者！怎可以指鹿為馬說是澤連斯基呢？

任特朗普多瘋狂，也未至於不知道是普京下令入侵烏克蘭，他多次強調「這場戰爭本就不該開始」，吹噓假如自己在位，普京根本不敢這麼做。關鍵話是，他說澤連斯基「Start the war」是什麼意思？

人們正是憑這句話罵他失去理智，不滿停戰計劃都向俄羅斯傾斜，還要求烏克蘭盡快大選，逼「戰爭英雄」澤連斯基下台，特朗普一日之間被打成大反派。

「Start the war」不是指2022年2月24日普京進攻烏克蘭，而是呼應2022年3月一個本可以「End the war」的機會。當時烏俄和談來到第六輪，澤連斯基已初步同意放棄頓巴斯和克里米亞，同意烏克蘭永作中立國，不尋求加入北約，而俄方同意烏克蘭可以加入歐盟。

雙方在土耳其伊斯坦布爾已約定簽草約，這時約翰遜和布林肯卻遊說澤連斯基不可簽停戰協定，應承他只要烏克蘭肯跟俄軍抗戰到底，西方就會全力支持烏克蘭打這場仗。

那時還發生了布查屠殺案，短短一個星期，澤連斯基立場由萬事有商量改成寸土不讓，表明不會再與俄羅斯進行任何談判，除非普京下台——戰爭開始了，至今即將三年。

我不會批評澤連斯基做錯政治決定，在當時的時空拜登開出非常吸引的軍援條件，他相信在西方支持下烏軍可以收復所有失地，包括克里米亞。還記得當時德國還攬住北溪二號，不肯軍援烏克蘭，初時只肯送一批頭盔嗎？到北溪被炸，德國和波蘭在知道內情下，仍然幫烏克蘭屈是俄羅斯所為，到去年11月才公開調查指認是烏美所為，目的是逼歐洲決意支持烏克蘭戰爭。

戰爭本來是你攻打我，我拚死守國，正邪很分明，但一牽涉這些，就落入「戰爭議程」的黑暗之中。約翰遜都認了，他們當時如此急於阻止澤連斯基簽割地和約，他和美國民主黨政府的真正目標是「利用烏克蘭戰爭盡可能消耗俄羅斯戰力」。

人頭博芋頭，用烏克蘭人的命跟俄羅斯換血，自己歐洲卻不費兵卒完成安全戰略目標。所以，拜登一開始不尋求快速戰勝普京，在軍援武器級數和射程處處設限，不准攻打俄羅斯本土，逼使普京調動更多軍力進入烏克蘭戰場，想用時間將俄羅斯戰鬥力削弱至零。

事實證明戰略失敗，俄軍渡過了低潮，不只在頓巴斯轉強，還攻取赫爾松和扎波羅熱兩州，澤連斯基向北約保證的夏季大反攻沒有發生，只能侵襲克里米亞贏取媒體勝利，以要求解禁更多軍援。拜登到去年才允許烏克蘭擁有攻擊克里米亞和俄羅斯本土的射程，以及F-16加入戰鬥，但北約聯盟慢慢意識到再多軍援也不能換來勝利，歐洲比俄羅斯更快彈盡，套用他們的軍事專家解釋，俄軍證明了用二戰時期的古老溝壕戰術可以戰勝北約的第四代武器。普京深得史太林精粹，打從入侵起他已準備好死50萬紅軍來打這場仗，而烏軍經不起這個級別的死亡，北約也不願意派兵。

面對敗局，誰不知道北約肯落場就有得打？澤連斯基也在催戰，甚至誣告俄軍炸死波蘭兩人，想觸發北約參戰（後來證實是烏軍愛國者誤炸），但北約仍是惜身，打從開始就只想利用烏兵替歐洲打殘俄軍。他們還不滿「消耗」未達標，布林肯多次催促烏克蘭將徵兵門檻降至18-25歲，推年輕人上戰場。而澤連斯基總算做了一件對事，拒絕拜登要求——兵源不足理應歐洲馳援啊。

歐盟多國前日緊急會議，施紀賢搶說要派兵，慘遭舒爾茨罵，而多國最後共識竟然是：合共派兵3萬，只在大後方執勤！去年下半，他們都在騙澤連斯基可以加入北約，全都是虛以委蛇，因為北約第五條表明一方被打要行使集體防衛權，而他們根本不想拖下水嘛！他們只是用北約希望誘烏克蘭望梅止渴。特朗普要求烏克蘭永不加入北約，返回初期和談條件，他卻成了大衰人。

澤連斯基還在奢望可用俄羅斯庫爾克斯換回烏東四州，美國卻從拜登的戰爭虛無主義換成特朗普的和平現實主義，現實是：烏克蘭戰敗了，澤連斯基因為拒絕在2022年春季和解而擴大了敗果，用人命消耗俄軍戰力是戰略錯誤，歐洲與烏克蘭站在一道只是一宗欺詐案（當烏克蘭600萬難民從波蘭分發到歐洲各國時，德國企業卻在催政府何時可以補充勞力）。

烏克蘭變成阿富汗，普京不是唯一得益者。歐盟想侵吞俄羅斯凍結儲備，玩「價格上限」來允許自己繼續買俄羅斯石油，貝萊德集團想包辦烏克蘭重建融資，WEF想將烏克蘭變成第一個數字新常態實驗場，還未計當中多少人過河濕腳，未計澤連斯基說「有1,000億美元不知往哪裡去了」。所有事只要按計劃進行，儘管是恐怖計劃，沒有人恐慌，但只是特朗普跳出幾句駭人話，所有人都理智斷路！

所以這些人在烏克蘭問題上，寧願要一個賀錦麗嘛，希望可以繼續下去，打到普京斃命為止。

如果站在烏克蘭vs俄羅斯的層次，這種正邪觀沒有錯，我們應當反對任何入侵者。

然而，當它是一場深層國家vs俄羅斯的代理人戰爭，格局就不同了，亦導致特朗普彷彿與普京同一陣線。普京把這一切視為俄羅斯的存亡問題，他說整個歐洲只剩他可以對抗那勢力，他死後亦將無人為繼，俄羅斯是國族主義的最後防線，而深層國家正是以消滅國族主義為宗旨，他看到歐洲各國行那一套後如何失去己國，被「一體化」，而俄羅斯不肯行那一套就成了北約東擴的針對對象。你可以說普京思想扭曲，就算是真也不能成為入侵烏克蘭的正當理由，但你要清楚普京眼中的敵人從來不是澤連斯基，他正正看到自己這個獨裁者一倒下，俄羅斯就會如何被國際資本和全球主義者所瓜分，才會決定出兵反抗北約東擴。這種獨裁者的心聲很礙耳，你可能覺得都是歪理，「打人就是不對」，但談判的基礎，正需要了解敵人的想法。

如果你的理智需要新的斷路器，大可將這場戰爭理解為擴張邪惡vs自私邪惡，烏克蘭是磨心，是受害者，百萬死亡是無辜，死得不值得，亦不明不白。特朗普也認為美國是受害者，因為他的真正敵人不在這裡，你亦可以不認同，認為他要「Stand with Ukraine」才算正義。正義需要付出代價，美國不付，歐洲付嗎？