In a fresh escalation of his criticism toward the current administration, US President Donald Trump has branded the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine as “Biden’s war,” suggesting that former President Joe Biden’s alleged incompetence and lack of strategic foresight are directly responsible for the war’s eruption and devastating consequences. Trump’s pointed remarks were delivered to reporters aboard Air Force One on April 13 and come as the 2024 election season heats up, with foreign policy once again taking center stage in political debates.

The president argued that the conflict in Ukraine, the ongoing Middle East crisis, and the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan were all preventable events-failures that, according to him, stem from Biden’s weak leadership on the global stage.

“This is not my war,” Trump declared emphatically. “He [Biden] gave them billions and billions of dollars. He should have never allowed – if he had any brain, which he didn’t have and doesn’t have – that war to start.”

Trump attributed the outbreak of hostilities to what he described as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s total lack of respect for Biden. The implication was clear: deterrence failed because American leadership under Biden projected weakness rather than resolve. “I think frankly he [Putin] had so little respect for Biden that he started it for that reason,” Trump said, further asserting that “millions of dead people… should be alive right now.”

Since Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine in February 2022, the Biden administration has committed an estimated $175 billion in assistance to Kiev. This includes shipments of advanced weaponry, tactical and strategic support, training for Ukrainian forces, and direct financial assistance to help keep the country’s economy afloat amid war.

Biden has repeatedly insisted that the United States will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” framing the conflict as a battle for the survival of liberal democracy in Europe and the rules-based international order. However, this open-ended commitment has drawn mounting criticism from both Republican lawmakers and voters who question the sustainability of indefinite foreign aid while domestic problems remain unaddressed.

Trump has been among the loudest voices opposing the policy of unconditional support. While not sympathetic to Moscow’s military campaign, Trump has consistently criticized what he views as a reckless and escalatory US posture that risks drawing America into a wider war-potentially even direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia.

“We are dealing with a deeply seated war,” Trump admitted, but he framed a negotiated settlement as both desirable and achievable. He has long claimed that, had he remained in office, the war would not have happened in the first place.

Perhaps the most dramatic development following Trump’s return to office in January has been the quiet resumption of diplomatic engagement with Moscow. Multiple rounds of high-level talks between US and Russian delegations have taken place in recent months, focusing on resolving the Ukraine conflict and reestablishing functional bilateral relations after years of heightened tensions.

These developments stand in sharp contrast to the Biden administration’s refusal to hold direct, top-level talks with the Kremlin following the invasion. While Biden imposed sweeping sanctions and rallied NATO allies to isolate Russia, he consistently declined to meet with President Putin, arguing that diplomacy should only follow Ukrainian battlefield success.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has acknowledged the renewed dialogue under the Trump administration, describing the process as “productive” but cautious. Speaking on April 13, Peskov warned that trust between the two nuclear superpowers has been badly eroded.

“We are now walking down this road together, very patiently. We have many more steps to take, but one just needs to understand how serious the damage is that was done to bilateral Russia-US relations under the previous administration,” he said.

He added that “painstaking work” is underway to restore normalcy and reduce the risk of further escalation, both in Ukraine and globally.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has remained defiant in the face of mounting pressure, both from battlefield realities and shifting Western priorities. While the Biden administration continues to back Ukraine publicly, there are growing signs of impatience within NATO as the war grinds into its third year with no clear path to victory or peace.

Zelensky, who enjoyed strong bipartisan support early in the conflict, now finds himself navigating increasingly turbulent political waters. Trump’s open skepticism toward him, combined with a changing mood in Washington, may foreshadow a pivot in US policy if Trump secures a second term in office.

Trump’s comment that Biden “didn’t get along very well with Zelensky or anybody else” also hints at his belief that Biden’s failure to build trust with both sides made diplomacy impossible, leaving war as the only path forward.

As Trump seeks to contrast his foreign policy record with Biden’s, the Ukraine war has become a defining issue in the 2024 campaign. While Biden portrays himself as a stalwart defender of freedom and European security, Trump is presenting an alternative vision-one rooted in transactional diplomacy, strategic restraint, and renewed pragmatism.

With American voters increasingly wary of endless wars and ballooning deficits, Trump’s framing of the Ukraine war as “Biden’s war” may resonate beyond the Republican base. It places the burden of nearly every international crisis-from Afghanistan to the Middle East-squarely on the shoulders of the incumbent.

The Biden campaign, however, is likely to counter with warnings that Trump’s approach would empower authoritarian regimes and undermine American alliances. But with diplomatic channels reopening under Trump, and both Moscow and Washington showing willingness to talk, a new path toward de-escalation could change the calculus for many Americans.

As the world watches closely, the question remains: will Trump’s rhetoric translate into a sustainable peace plan, or will the conflict prove too deeply entrenched to be reversed, even with a dramatic shift in US leadership? Either way, the former president has made his position clear-he wants no part in what he calls a preventable war born of weakness and miscalculation.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel