No. Why should they?
Did Truman or Eisenhower ever personally attend the Korean peace negotiations?
How about Nixon and Ho Chi Minh? Nope, neither ever showed up at the Paris Peace talks. Negotiations were led by Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.
Zelensky foolishly painted himself into a corner with his silly law banning negotiations with Russia, which he now claims does not apply to him and only him (because he’s Special).
Putin offered “direct talks” between the two sides. That means representatives of each side meet without going through a third party. It does not mean heads of state meet face to face.
Trump should not lower himself for a photo op.
Whether Putin shows up or not is meaningless.
There will be no ceasefire without a deal and the two sides are still far apart.
Nope. Trump keeps arming Ukraine. Despite saying that the US would no longer do so. Oh yah, done by the German whore proxy. The president of peace...
Some here seem to think Trump is indifferent to the outcome of this conflict or should be. He’s not. He doesn’t want to see an end to an independent Ukraine, and why should he?
People have gotten so caught up in the process, and the mis-handling of the conflict by the Biden administration that they’ve embraced the idea that a Russian takeover of Ukraine is somehow irrelevant to our national interest.
There’s a reason Trump says time and time again that Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if he had been President. That’s because he would have taken measures to prevent it from happening. From that, it’s easy to glean that Trump sees that the United States has a stake in an independent Ukraine. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have made such statements.
Having said that, that doesn’t mean there aren’t smart ways as well as foolish ways to achieve an outcome. Trump is trying to effect an outcome that is strategically good for the U.S. (Hint: An outcome that doesn’t consist of Russia permanently controlling large swathes of Ukraine) in a way that makes sense and is not wasteful of U.S. tax dollars or of lives.