Russian Propaganda—Spewed by Its Asset Trump—Is Proof That It Is Flailing as It Continues to Lose the Ukraine War
- john raymond
- Aug 21
- 4 min read
Make no mistake, this bit of Russian propaganda does not broadcast strength; it broadcasts desperation.
It seems now that every time Moscow’s proxies in the West speak, they reveal not confidence in victory but anxiety in the face of certain defeat.
The most recent example is this Truth Social post by President Trump—an almost textbook case of Kremlin narrative laundering. Sentence by sentence, it exposes both Russia’s strategic weakness and Trump’s role as its Western mouthpiece.
Trump begins with a line that poses as common sense: “It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invader’s country.”
At first glance, this sounds like military realism, but it is a false truism.
History proves otherwise. Vietnam never attacked the United States on U.S. soil, and yet America lost that war. Insurgencies and resistance campaigns throughout history have prevailed without invading their enemy’s homeland.
The statement is not analysis but noise, meant to smuggle a lie into the discussion: that Ukraine cannot win without escalating into Russia itself—something which Ukraine has already done!
Trump then extends the lie through analogy: “It’s like a great team in sports that has fantastic defense, but isn’t allowed to play offense.”
Again, this sounds supportive of Ukraine, but it encodes a falsehood—that Ukraine has no offensive capacity.
In reality, Ukraine is carrying out one of the most effective asymmetric deep strike campaigns in modern history: destroying oil refineries, disabling parts of the Black Sea Fleet, and striking Russian military infrastructure hundreds of miles from the front.
To deny this is fact not ignorance. It is deliberate disinformation.
On the back of these two false premises, Trump declares: “There is no chance of winning!”
This leap from analogy to proclamation is projection. He wants audiences to internalize despair, to accept Ukrainian defeat as inevitable, and therefore to see “peace talks” not as betrayal but as necessity. It is false—and its bluntness exposes how little actual analysis underpins it.
Trump then hammers the point with filler: “It is like that with Ukraine and Russia.”
This adds nothing. It is an empty restatement, designed to reinforce the architecture of hopelessness.
Having built his false frame, Trump pivots to wrongfully assigning blame: “Crooked and grossly incompetent Joe Biden would not let Ukraine FIGHT BACK, only DEFEND.”
This is where the projection turns to accusation. Trump deflects attention from his own record—undermining NATO, withholding aid from Ukraine, flattering Putin at every turn—and tries to paint Biden as the architect of Ukraine’s supposed weakness.
It is a double inversion: erase Ukraine’s real successes and assign the invented failures to Biden.
Next comes another mindless rhetorical jab: “How did that work out?”
This is meant to be unanswerable, a flourish of smug inevitability. Yet the answer is clear. It has worked out far better than Putin or Trump can admit.
Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb has crippled Russian oil exports. Drone warfare has reached Moscow’s symbolic and strategic core. The Black Sea Fleet has been mauled.
The very need for Trump to pose this question shows the opposite of what he claims: Ukraine is succeeding, which is why Russia and its assets are scrambling to discredit it.
Knowing that question cannot withstand scrutiny, he retreats into counterfactual absolutism: “Regardless, this is a war that would have NEVER happened if I were President – ZERO CHANCE.”
This is not analysis but fantasy. The record shows only that Putin acted when Trump was no longer insulating him. Trump’s first presidency emboldened Moscow; his weakness and complicity were green lights for Russian aggression.
To say there was “zero chance” is not just false, it is nonsense of the highest order—an attempt to erase history through boastful assertion.
The closing—“Interesting times ahead!!!”—is noise. It predicts nothing, explains nothing, and demonstrates only that Trump has no real understanding of events.
This line is narrative filler, meant to leave the audience with the mood of uncertainty and the sense that Trump holds insider knowledge, when in truth he has none.
Finally, the signature: “President DJT.”
On its face, this is boilerplate branding. But the post itself is too disciplined in its alignment with Kremlin framing to be spontaneous. It reads like the work of a propagandist feeding him lines, knowing he will stamp them with his name.
That signature is the laundering mechanism—taking a narrative designed in Moscow and presenting it to Western audiences as the voice of a U.S. president.
The irony is that the more such propaganda circulates, the clearer Russia’s true position becomes. These lies are not born of Russian strength but of its growing weakness.
Ukraine’s strikes are working. Russia’s economy is under strain. NATO unity is stiffening.
And so Moscow leans on its assets abroad, like Trump, to project the opposite: that Ukraine is flailing, that the West is divided, that only surrender through “peace talks” will end the war.
Every accusation is a projection, every denial an admission.
As such, Trump’s post is not the message of a confident leader. It is the noise of a faltering proxy, one amplifying the desperation of a regime that is clearly losing.
Comments