Sadly, Trump is right on Ukraine | Generated by AI
Below is a summary and analysis of the opinion piece “Sadly, Trump is right on Ukraine” by Alan J. Kuperman, published in The Hill on April 5, 2025. The article argues that former President Donald Trump’s controversial statements about the Ukraine conflict are largely accurate, challenging the predominant Western narrative by attributing significant responsibility for the war’s outbreak and continuation to Ukraine and former U.S. President Joe Biden, rather than solely to Russian President Vladimir Putin. As the user has provided the full text of the article, this response will address its key points, assess their credibility, and provide a balanced perspective.
Summary of Kuperman’s Argument
Kuperman, a professor of military strategy and conflict management at the University of Texas at Austin, structures his argument around three main claims:
- The 2014 Maidan Violence and Russia’s Response
- Kuperman asserts that Ukrainian right-wing militants initiated the violence during the 2014 Maidan protests, which led to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbas region.
- He describes how Ukraine’s democratically elected pro-Russia president, Viktor Yanukovych, faced protests in 2013 after choosing economic ties with Russia over Europe. While these protests were initially peaceful, Kuperman claims that right-wing militants escalated the situation by shooting at police and protesters, falsely blaming the government. This triggered Yanukovych’s ousting and Russia’s military actions, which he frames as a reaction rather than an unprovoked aggression.
- Zelensky’s Failure to Honor the Minsk Agreements
- Kuperman criticizes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for not implementing the Minsk agreements, which were intended to end the Donbas conflict by granting the region limited autonomy.
- Although Zelensky campaigned in 2019 on fulfilling these accords, he later reversed course, increasing weapons imports from NATO countries instead. Kuperman argues that this defiance provoked Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, suggesting Zelensky prioritized political image over peace.
- Biden’s Role in Escalating and Prolonging the War
- Kuperman blames Biden for failing to pressure Zelensky into complying with the Minsk agreements, which he believes could have prevented the 2022 invasion.
- He contends that Biden’s pledge of strong U.S. support if Russia invaded emboldened Zelensky to resist Russia, while Biden’s subsequent reluctance to provide decisive aid—due to nuclear escalation fears—prolonged the war unnecessarily. Kuperman contrasts this with Trump, who he believes would have conditioned aid on compliance, potentially averting or shortening the conflict.
Kuperman concludes that a peace deal akin to the Minsk accords could have ended the war earlier, saving lives, and predicts that any future agreement will be less favorable to Ukraine than the original terms Zelensky rejected.
Analysis of the Claims
1. The 2014 Maidan Events
- Factual Basis: It is true that Viktor Yanukovych was elected in 2010 in a vote deemed free and fair by international observers, and his 2013 decision to pivot toward Russia sparked the Maidan protests. Evidence exists of right-wing groups, such as the Right Sector, participating in the protests, and some reports suggest snipers fired on both protesters and police. A Kyiv court ruling in 2015 acquitted a suspect in the Maidan shootings, but it did not conclusively prove that right-wing militants initiated the violence.
- Interpretation: Kuperman’s claim that these actions directly provoked Russia’s invasion oversimplifies a complex situation. The Maidan uprising involved a broad coalition of Ukrainians, not just right-wing militants, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for Donbas separatists were strategic moves with deeper geopolitical roots. The “unprovoked” label is debated, but Putin’s actions also violated international law, a point Kuperman downplays.
2. Zelensky and the Minsk Agreements
- Factual Basis: The Minsk agreements (Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015) aimed to resolve the Donbas conflict through ceasefire, decentralization, and autonomy measures, but Ukraine never fully implemented them. Zelensky did campaign on peace but faced significant domestic opposition from nationalists and ongoing skirmishes with Russian-backed forces. Ukraine’s increased military cooperation with NATO is well-documented.
- Interpretation: Kuperman’s assertion that Zelensky’s actions were the “last straw” for Russia’s invasion assumes Putin’s decision hinged solely on Ukraine’s behavior. Russia’s recognition of Donbas independence and subsequent invasion suggest broader ambitions, including preventing Ukraine’s Western integration, which the Minsk agreements alone might not have addressed.
3. Biden’s Responsibility
- Factual Basis: In late 2021, as Russia amassed troops on Ukraine’s border, Biden emphasized support for Ukraine without mandating Minsk compliance. His administration promised a robust response to any invasion, and U.S. aid has since been substantial but cautious, avoiding direct escalation with Russia.
- Interpretation: Kuperman’s speculation that Biden could have prevented the war by pressuring Zelensky is plausible but unprovable. It assumes Russia would have accepted a Minsk-based resolution, ignoring Putin’s stated goals of “denazification” and neutralizing Ukraine as a NATO threat. Biden’s pledge may have emboldened Ukraine, but attributing the war’s prolongation solely to this overlooks Russia’s agency and the conflict’s stalemate dynamics.
Credibility and Context
- Author’s Background: As a professor with expertise in military strategy, Kuperman brings an informed perspective, but this is an opinion piece, not a scholarly article. Opinion pieces are inherently subjective and lack the rigorous fact-checking of news reports or peer-reviewed studies.
- Evidence: Kuperman cites “overwhelming forensic evidence” and a Kyiv court ruling for his 2014 claim, but these are not detailed or universally accepted as conclusive. His other points rely on historical events but are framed with speculative causality (e.g., “if Biden had insisted”).
- Bias: The article aligns with a contrarian view that challenges Western narratives, echoing some of Trump’s skepticism about U.S. involvement. This does not invalidate it but suggests a selective lens.
Broader Perspective
The Ukraine conflict is a multifaceted geopolitical crisis involving Russia’s imperial ambitions, Ukraine’s pursuit of sovereignty, and Western strategic interests. Kuperman’s focus on Ukrainian and U.S. missteps provides a provocative counterpoint to the dominant narrative of Russian aggression, but it risks oversimplifying Putin’s role. For instance:
- Russia’s annexation of Crimea violated international norms, regardless of the Maidan trigger.
- The Minsk agreements were fragile, with both sides accused of violations, and their feasibility as a long-term solution is questionable.
- U.S. policy under Biden aimed to deter Russia, not just enable Ukraine, though its effectiveness remains debated.
To fully assess Trump’s “correctness,” as Kuperman claims, one would need to compare his specific statements—unstated in the article—to these events. The piece implies Trump foresaw Ukrainian and U.S. errors, but without direct quotes, this remains vague.
Conclusion
Kuperman’s article argues that Trump’s views on Ukraine align with a reality obscured by Western disinformation: that Ukraine’s right-wing militants, Zelensky’s defiance, and Biden’s miscalculations share blame for the war. While grounded in some factual events, the piece relies heavily on subjective interpretation and speculation. It offers a valuable alternative perspective but should not be taken as definitive. For a comprehensive understanding, readers should consult diverse sources—academic analyses, primary documents like the Minsk texts, and firsthand accounts from 2014 and 2022—to weigh the competing narratives surrounding this ongoing tragedy.