Last Thursday, following a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he plans to meet with Putin in the near future in Hungary, in an effort to bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine. Some may say he will be seeking to make a “deal” to end the war. Trump has used that term. But for some reason, Trump’s choice of that word to describe possible peace, rubbed Fredricka Whitfield the wrong way during the Saturday edition of CNN Newsroom.
Whitfield’s guest for the segment was Evelyn Farkas, current Executive Director of The McCain Institute, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine under Barack Obama, and that obviously isn’t a helpful resume item.
Whitfield acknowledged early on that Trump seemed to be prioritizing “peace over Tomahawks,” a reference to the fact that the President has reportedly turned down Ukraine’s request for our advanced long-range missiles, in favor of trying to make peace between the sides. She then asked Farkas what she thought about Trump’s statement that the two sides should lay down their arms and accept the current battle lines. Farkas called that “completely unrealistic…a nightmare scenario.” And after Whitfield asked if Putin would be happy with that scenario, Farkas answered “right,” and then said this.
“I mean I think if you’re trying to negotiate a peace deal here, even a ceasefire, you have to be mindful of both sides’ objectives.”
Wait, Farkas said peace “deal”? Did Whitfield hear that, did it bother her? She made no mention of it to Farkas, of course, but she would raise the issue of the dreaded word “deal” a bit later in the interview, after it came out of the mouth of Donald Trump. Whitfield played a clip of the President from Friday, where he addressed a question on the possibility that Putin was playing him.
“I’ve been played all my life by the best of them. And I came out really well, so it’s possible…But I think I’m pretty good at this stuff, I think that he (Putin) wants to make a deal…” And that led Whitfield to ask Farkas, “How do you interpret this and why do you suppose that the President keeps making a reference to, you know, cutting a deal when we’re talking about war?”
First of all, what? Peace deals are what often end wars. Add to that, that her guest had previously said, “negotiate a peace deal,” and Whitfield’s objection is even more bizarre. But that’s not the end of this. Farkas responded to Whitfield’s objection over the use of the word “deal,” even though she herself had used it earlier, by saying, “Yeah, this isn’t real estate and the stakes are really high.”
So it’s not a “deal” that Trump should be after to solve this war, because he was in real estate? Or he should pursue one but not use the word? It just sounds like CNN needs to object and sound negative about Trump, no matter which policy he pursues.
