To think Trump might be the right Leader for right now?

[Theemeperorsnewclothes]

I am so confused why I am starting to think that Trump might be a good thing right now. I do think he is making the right moves to end conflict right now, which of course can only be a good thing for the poor people suffering in war zones but I’m so conflicted. I was trying to search for why I felt this way and what past war and future war situations might mean with Trump at the helm. Below are notes to myself. I know you educated, worldly wise mums will absolutely be able to educate on what I am missing. I am genuinely interested to hear your perspectives.

Why do wars start?
War is caused by many different things, including competition over land, religious conflicts, and nationalism. Imperialism, racism, and slavery have also been causes of armed conflict.
Why do wars end?
Realistically, wars usually end when one side wins or the parties experience significant war weariness. Thus, World War I was only a temporary end-of-war because there was no clear-cut victory.
We need to put an end to why wars start, not why wars end. Too much devastation and destruction and loss of life when a war starts. In this case, like the war in Gaza there has been no clear “winner” there has been constant and significant “war weariness” but some other country/political party/religious group steps in. However, there is still never a “clear-cut victory”
Tackle the issues that START wars and not STOP wars in the first place. A true leader will make their priority tackling all the issues that start wars. Trump needs to prove himself in this approach.
That said, we are in a very volatile world and ENDING wars is the first priority. Trump appears to have that in his sights. I say this as far left viewer of the world, as opposed to the right take on the world, as it is today.
I don’t care if you are left or right or somewhere in between. War must end now and we must have a leader who can figure out how to stop it happening again. The end. The Leader who can STOP wars happening in the first place, is the one who can save humanity. Right now, we need the wars to end, and like it or not, that is the position we find ourselves in, and that’s why, I currently think it might be Trump.

Anyone have any idea who is the leader who can STOP wars happening in the first place? I’m thinking they would need to be free from corruption and probably not an egotistical, power hungry male.

End of my rant 😁.

Context? As in, everything the OP has said?

And the thing is I don’t even have a clear perspective. I am asking questions because I am genuinely interested to hear others thoughts and own perspectives. It’s utterly bonkers that others think they can bully people on a platform like this to not ask questions. Crazy times.

Give me your perspective rather than trying to tear me down for asking questions. Jeezo.

OK, I’ll bite.

Here’s why Trump is absolutely not the leader you’re looking for, and why he is, in fact, a puppet for Putin:

Trump Weakened NATO – a Gift to Putin

• NATO exists to deter aggression, especially from Russia. Trump repeatedly threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO, weakening the alliance and emboldening Putin.
• He even bragged that he told European allies he wouldn’t protect them from a Russian attack. That’s music to Putin’s ears.

He Withheld Military Aid to Ukraine – Helping Russia’s War Effort

• In 2019, Trump froze nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine unless they helped him dig up dirt on Biden.
• That delay signaled to Putin that the U.S. might not back Ukraine, paving the way for the 2022 invasion.

He Praises and Defends Putin Constantly

• When Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election, Trump publicly sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies.
• Even after Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Trump called him “savvy” and “smart.” That’s not leadership—it’s loyalty to a dictator.

His Foreign Policy is Chaos, Not Peace

• He didn’t end wars; he simply abandoned allies. His erratic withdrawal from Syria left the Kurds—who fought ISIS for the U.S.—at the mercy of Turkey and Russia.
• He emboldened authoritarian regimes (Russia, North Korea, China) while alienating democratic allies.

He’s Not Anti-War—He Just Prefers Dictators Winning

• Trump doesn’t want to end wars—he just doesn’t want the U.S. to be involved unless there’s personal gain.
• He’s said he would “let Russia do whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies who don’t pay up. That’s an invitation for war, not peace.

Bottom Line: Trump Isn’t a Peacemaker—He’s a Gift to War Criminals

• If you want a leader who truly prevents war, they need to stand up to dictators, strengthen alliances, and promote stability. Trump does the opposite—he empowers the very people who start wars.

HTH

excatly, they want freedom of speech yet all it seems is, only the media can tell us whats what, mere mortals have no rights to discuss topics such as war, only the media can tell us.

i would respect people more if they took part in the debate and offered their view constructive to the debate.

socrates would be turning in his grave seeing how people are these days and their debating skills and methods

That’s really insightful. Thank you for taking the time to reply with such a thoughtful post.

Waterproofed nails it

@waterproofed

1. Trump and NATO: While it's true that Trump was vocal about urging European NATO members to increase their defense spending, suggesting that this would lead to the weakening of NATO or that it emboldened Putin is an oversimplification. Trump's rhetoric was rooted in his belief that NATO members were not fulfilling their financial obligations. His position on NATO was focused on ensuring that European countries paid their fair share, not on withdrawing from the alliance or leaving Europe vulnerable to Russian aggression. Furthermore, he did not take any concrete steps to pull the U.S. out of NATO during his presidency. In fact, NATO remained strong during his tenure, and his administration continued to support the alliance's efforts in countering Russian threats.

2. Withholding Military Aid to Ukraine: The claim that Trump's withholding of military aid to Ukraine in 2019 directly paved the way for Russia’s invasion in 2022 is speculative. The aid was frozen as part of a broader political issue related to a domestic scandal, but it was eventually released. Moreover, Trump was not ideologically opposed to providing support to Ukraine; he authorized substantial military aid during his time in office, including anti-tank missiles, counter-artillery radars, and other weapons. The notion that this singular action undermined Ukraine’s security to the point of enabling Russia's invasion doesn't account for the broader geopolitical context and the dynamics between the U.S. and Ukraine.

3. Trump's Relationship with Putin: While Trump's comments about Putin may have been overly complimentary, it's important to note that he also imposed significant sanctions on Russia and expelled Russian diplomats from the U.S. His administration took actions like expelling Russian officials in response to the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, and it approved the sale of weapons to Ukraine before the 2022 invasion. Trump's diplomatic approach was often more pragmatic than ideological, focusing on direct engagement with adversaries, but it is inaccurate to claim that he was a "puppet" of Putin given the actions his administration took against Russia.

4. Foreign Policy and the Middle East: The claim that Trump's foreign policy was chaotic overlooks some of his administration's successes, such as the normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations (the Abraham Accords). In Syria, Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. forces, while controversial, was in line with his "America First" agenda, seeking to reduce U.S. military involvement in long-standing conflicts. This withdrawal was not about abandoning allies but reflecting a broader desire to shift U.S. focus to countering China and addressing domestic priorities. The argument that this decision emboldened Russia or Turkey does not fully recognize the complexity of the situation on the ground.

5. Trump’s Stance on Dictators: It’s important to recognize that Trump’s approach to foreign policy was based on a transactional view, prioritizing U.S. interests above ideological consistency. His willingness to engage with autocratic leaders like Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin was part of his broader strategy of reducing conflict through direct dialogue. While critics may see this as appeasement, others argue that it represented a new form of diplomacy that prioritized outcomes over traditional Cold War dynamics.

In summary, Trump’s foreign policy was non-traditional, focusing on pragmatism and the national interest. His actions, particularly in terms of sanctions and military aid, were more nuanced than the characterization of him as a puppet of Putin suggests. The U.S. stance on NATO, Ukraine, and Russia during his tenure was far more complex than the idea that he was simply enabling Russian aggression.

Excellent post.

TrumpII is horrifically destabilising for the world.

@Raimond if you and those like you stopped being bullies and useless in these threads we might actually get some good conversation going 👍

Don't be so ridiculous.

Also extremely insightful. Thank-you! It really helps me understand why I feel so conflicted right now and I am sure it will help others when they read how knowledgeable you are on this subject. You’ve really helped me understand some of the differing points of view.

Trump is not interested in peace. He has told Zelensky he wants to mine for rare minerals in Ukraine. It is old fashioned colonialism. He also wants rare minerals and metals in Greenland and Canada. And to build luxury real estate in Gaza. It is all about making money.

pre written, Currently doing political studies at uni

I don't know how Trumps deal with Israel and Gaza will work out, but it's not like anyone else has been able to bring peace to that region for the last 70 years+

thats true, kinda the ops point, humanity needs a way to stop the wars and fighting but seems humans being human, they need to do better as a whole

I think it's safe to assume that Trump is unlikely to prove the white saviour here.

Ethnically cleansing a people from their land and siding with the occupier is not bringing peace. There's a reason others haven't done this before. And if anyone thinks that ethnic cleansing, enabling Netenyahu, and trampling on the whole idea of a two state solution with no discussion will bring peace, they are are seriously deluded

so that will be the main interest or likely to be, those rare earth elements

who ?

Yes, who? And why?!

That was a question for @kittensinthekitchen

I'm starting to think that there are at least 3 bots (or people getting AI to write their replies for them) in this thread. (Not me, though. Beep-boop.)