Trump’s Pleas for Ukrainian Soldiers Fall Silent for Gaza

Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, he’s been quick to reopen diplomatic channels that the Biden administration shut down for four years. However, his recent diplomatic engagements over the past six weeks have revealed starkly different approaches to two major wars—eliciting both praise and criticism.

Trump’s active intervention in the Russia-Ukraine war, advocating for the safety of Ukrainian soldiers, contrasts sharply with his silence on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where his policies have aligned closely with Israeli interests at the expense of Palestinian people.

Last week, Trump publicly urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to spare the lives of Ukrainian soldiers encircled in Russia’s Kursk region. Expressing concerns over a potential "horrible massacre," he emphasised the humanitarian imperative of allowing them safe passage, claiming there was a "very good chance" that the war between Russia and Ukraine could end following "productive" discussions with Putin.

But what Trump believes and what geopolitical reality dictates are vastly different in a war the US played a key role in escalating. Putin indicated a willingness to offer safety guarantees to the Ukrainian forces, conditional upon their surrender. He stated Russia would spare the lives of Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk if Kyiv ordered them to surrender, aligning with Trump’s appeal to avoid further bloodshed.

However, Ukrainian officials denied their forces are surrounded in Kursk, labelling the claims as fabricated. So, who should be believed? The encirclement of Ukrainian forces is an undeniable fact on the battlefield, which makes Ukrainian claims a lie.

In contrast to his active engagement in the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump’s response to the war crimes and genocide committed by Israel in Gaza has been remarkably different. In February, he proposed that the US "take over" Gaza and forcibly relocate its Palestinian residents to Jordan and Egypt, envisioning a transformation of the region into a "Riviera of the Middle East." The proposal was met with global condemnation, with UN Secretary-General António Guterres denouncing it as tantamount to "ethnic cleansing."

While Trump later clarified he would "recommend" but not "force" such a plan, his naive belief that this scheme could be enforced raised alarms about the potential for mass displacement and further destabilisation in the region. His ‘Riviera of the Middle East’ proposal unequivocally supports Israel’s actions in Gaza, showing a complete disregard for Palestinian rights and humanitarian concerns.

Moreover, Trump’s refusal to pressure Netanyahu to halt military operations in Gaza has drawn further condemnation. Israel’s relentless bombardment, which has killed more than 200,000 Palestinians—including women and children—has been recognised as genocide by multiple human rights organisations. Unlike his direct appeal to Putin regarding Ukrainian soldiers, Trump’s made no demands of Netanyahu, despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes committed by the IDF.

Trump’s vastly different responses to these two wars lay bare the hypocrisy in US foreign policy under his leadership. His proactive stance in advocating for Ukrainian soldiers contrasts sharply with his policies regarding Gaza, where his actions align closely with Israeli interests while disregarding Palestinian suffering.

While Trump emphasises humanitarian concerns in Ukraine, his Gaza policy dismisses the catastrophic humanitarian crisis unfolding in the besieged enclave. Palestinians have suffered from prolonged blockades, military operations, and mass displacement, yet Trump remains silent. His selective humanitarianism serves geopolitical interests rather than demonstrating genuine concern for human life.

Trump’s appeal to Putin isn’t just about saving Ukrainian soldiers—it serves his broader strategy of repositioning the US as a diplomatic broker in Eastern Europe, countering China’s rising influence. His silence on Gaza, however, reflects the long-standing US policy of shielding Israel from international accountability, regardless of its criminal behaviour.

Trump’s appeal to Putin has been praised by some as a necessary step toward de-escalation in Eastern Europe. However, his Gaza proposal faced overwhelming condemnation from world leaders, human rights organisations, and Middle Eastern nations, who view it as exacerbating tensions and undermining any prospects for a just peace.

The overwhelming contrast in Trump’s handling of these conflicts raises serious questions about the ethical foundation of US foreign policy. Advocacy for humanitarian considerations in one war while ignoring war crimes in another exposes a dangerous double standard – weakening the US’s credibility globally and fuelling scepticism about its commitment to universal human rights.

Trump’s foreign policy isn’t a misstep—it’s a calculated contradiction designed to serve US geopolitical interests. His intervention on behalf of Ukrainian soldiers underscores a commitment to humanitarian principles—when it aligns with his strategic goals. Meanwhile, his silence on Gaza speaks volumes, highlighting how political alliances take precedence over justice and human dignity.

If Trump is willing to step in and appeal to Putin for the sake of Ukrainian soldiers, why is he unwilling to do the same for Palestinians trapped under Israeli bombardment?