CaliToday (03/1/2026): The political sphere was set abuzz this week after Donald Trump shared a scathing New York Post editorial characterizing Vladimir Putin as a "dictator," a liar, and a figure driven by malice. The move immediately sparked a wave of speculation: Is Trump executing a sharp U-turn? Is he finally distancing himself from the Kremlin to stand firmly with Ukraine?
The short answer, according to veteran observers, is that there is no reason to believe the hype—yet.
The Art of the "Share" vs. Policy
First, it is crucial to draw a sharp distinction between the content of the New York Post and Trump’s actual stance. Trump did not pen the op-ed; he did not deliver a primetime address condemning Moscow, nor did he unveil a concrete policy shift.
He simply hit "share."
In the Trump playbook, social media sharing is a calculated act of ambiguity. It allows him to send a signal—perhaps to test the waters or pressure a rival—while maintaining plausible deniability. He can easily distance himself from the sentiment later if the political winds shift. For Trump, rhetoric is a tactical tool, not a binding promise.
A History of Contradiction
Skepticism is warranted given Trump’s systematic history of inconsistency regarding Russia. The world remembers Helsinki, where he famously sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies. Yet, whenever backlash reached a boiling point, he would issue "clean-up" statements or approve sanctions to quell domestic critics.
The established pattern is clear: "tough talk" when he needs to appease public opinion, followed by "soft action" or a return to transactional diplomacy. Trump is a man who measures reactions, not a leader bound by ideological rigidity.
The Hawk vs. The Dealmaker
The New York Post editorial represents the voice of the traditional, hawkish Republican establishment—a faction that views Russia as an adversary and holds Moscow entirely responsible for the stagnation of peace talks. The article argues that while Kyiv is ready for painful concessions to stop the bleeding, Putin is fabricating pretexts—such as the alleged UAV attack on his residence in Novgorod—to avoid the negotiating table and justify military escalation.
This logic aligns with battlefield realities and Russia’s historical behavior. However, the Post is not a proxy for Trumpism. Trump’s sharing of the piece likely serves specific, momentary interests:
- Reassuring NATO Allies: Calming European fears about his commitment to the alliance.
- Domestic Optics: Appeasing conservative voters who remain wary of Russia.
- Leverage: Signaling to Putin that Washington has other options if Moscow refuses to cut a deal.
The Novgorod Pretext
The editorial’s analysis of the Novgorod incident is compelling. With no independent evidence, the claim that Ukraine launched a drone attack on Putin’s residence collapses under scrutiny. Ukraine gains no strategic advantage from such a provocation, whereas Moscow has a clear motive: derailing peace talks and rallying domestic support for a prolonged war. The hypocrisy of Russia feigning outrage over an unverified attack, while simultaneously pummeling Ukrainian civilians, is stark.
Conclusion: Watch the Hands, Not the Mouth
Observers should not confuse a shared link with a shift in political DNA. Trump is not known for stable geopolitical stances; he prioritizes personal leverage and transactional wins. Talking tough on Putin today does not guarantee he won’t offer concessions tomorrow.
Trump’s "U-turn" is easy to execute on a keyboard. Whether it translates to reality can only be judged by tangible actions increased aid to Kyiv or stricter enforcement of sanctions. Until then, credibility remains at zero.