“This is my last peace proposal for Ukraine and, if you don’t like it, I have others.” Paraphrasing Groucho Marx coherently describes Donald Trump’s absurd wandering along a path that, ultimately, the only thing it confirms is what the former British spy Christopher Steele wrote in the dossier where he explains why the New York tycoon is at the service of the Russian president.
As soon as he presented the 28 points to end the war, the head of the White House heard voices throughout the United States and much of the world saying that this was, in reality, an order for Ukraine to capitulate. While Trump warned Volodymyr Zelensky that he had to accept it or be left without the trickle of ammunition and intelligence information he receives from Washington, it was clear that no one took the plan he had presented seriously. That is why he later had to say that he could prepare “a new peace proposal” if it is not accepted.
As he did in Gaza, where he first proposed an absurd and cruel proposal that included the deportation of Gazans and the repopulation of that territory devastated by the bloodthirsty Netanyahu, to repopulate it and turn it into a paradise for high-end tourism, and then he had to turn it into a serious proposal because, except for the extremist ruler of Israel and his lunatic ultra-religious partners, no one took such an idea seriously. Since he couldn’t think of anything serious, Trump appropriated what former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had been proposing for some time.
Regarding Ukraine, it does not have a plan at hand to take over, because its mission is to impose what Vladimir Putin demands or to obtain from kyiv and Brussels the agreement that most closely resembles what was dictated to it by the Kremlin. With the same zigzagging firmness, one day he tells Zohrán Mamdani that he is “a communist” and will cause the mass emigration of “New Yorkers to Miami, as Cubans have done since 1960,” but shortly after he receives the elected mayor of New York in the Oval Office and praises him, adding that he will surely do a “fantastic” job in the Big Apple.
“As I tell you one thing, I tell you the other,” says Joaquín Sabina in “19 days and 500 nights,” as if he were interpreting the New York tycoon’s way of reasoning.
Regarding Ukraine, although an acceptable agreement was finally reached, it sounded ridiculous to call a “peace plan” a compendium of impositions on a single party, including the absurd demand that it not only renounce the territories that are currently occupied by Russian forces, but also hand over the neighboring territories that the Ukrainian army maintains under its control, containing the advance of the invading army.
The world did not see Trump as a mediator seeking to end a war, but as a spokesman for Putin announcing the Russian leader’s demands that Ukraine stop bombing cities, destroying homes, power plants and hospitals, in addition to massacring civilians.

Nor was the head of the White House seen as a president who negotiates as a statesman with the criminal prince who runs Saudi Arabia, but rather as a lobbyist for Mohamed bin Salmán, determined to cleanse his image stained with the blood of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
It generated astonishment to see and hear Trump dirtying the image of the dissident hanged and quartered by order of the Saudi prince, whom he crudely defended and attacking the American reporters who, at the press conference, asked about that crime perpetrated in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
If his plan to force Ukraine’s surrender exhibited his dark submission to Putin, his defense of the criminal Arab prince exposed the interests his companies have in Saudi Arabia. In the political arena and in journalism, many voices were also heard relating the interests of Trump and Scott Bessent with banks and investment funds, in the great chorus of criticism of what the North American president did to save Javier Milei from a financial collapse and, immediately afterwards, from a probable electoral defeat.

That bailout of 40 billion, of which half will never reach Argentina, was in part to force the local government to reduce the strong economic ties it maintains with China, until they disappear completely. But there are many voices that speak of exorbitant financial gains for groups close to the Republican leader and his Treasury Secretary.
In any case, the bailout that prevented a financial collapse and the phrase with which he conjured a defeat for the ruling party in the legislative election by making it clear that if Argentines vote against Milei “we will withdraw” (that is, forget about the 40 billion), were Trump’s moves that achieved his goals. No one explained better to the voter that, if La Libertad Avanza backed down at the polls, the next day would be a “black Monday” of those that so terrify small, medium and large merchants and small and medium businessmen. In the electoral match that Milei was about to lose, Trump reversed the result with a free kick from Washington, which entered the angle of Argentine economic panic.
In contrast to this millimeter aim, on other issues Trump is seen in an erratic wandering, plagued by inconsistencies and absurd initiatives that usually end in countermoves.
Applies and eliminates tariffs; It increases them and then reduces them. While maintaining an indecent silence in the face of the massacres in Sudan, he denounces a genocide against Christians in Nigeria and says that he will attack that African country militarily. But then he doesn’t say anything else and acts as if he had never talked about it.
What is clear is that his praise and defenestration of other leaders is becoming less and less valued. No ruler can boast of being praised by Trump, and none can consider himself affected if Trump criticizes or repudiates him.
Why would praise or defenestration have value in the mouth of a leader who acts as a representative of the serial killer who rules Russia and the Saudi prince who ordered the murder, dismemberment and disappearance of the body of a respected Arab journalist who had American citizenship?


