Spyke
world·World NewsbyMicroWave

Trump suggests Ukraine shouldn't have fought back against Russia

Summary

In a Fox News interview, Donald Trump argued that Ukraine should not have resisted Russia’s 2022 invasion, claiming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy should have made a deal with Vladimir Putin.

Trump criticized Zelenskyy for choosing to fight, compared the military strength of Russia and Ukraine, and said he could have ended the war quickly through negotiations.

Trump’s stance contrasts with Joe Biden's strong support for Ukraine, including aid and sanctions on Russia.

Trump suggests Ukraine shouldn't have fought back against Russiahttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-suggests-ukraine-not-fought-back-russia-rcna189071Open linkView original on lemmy.world
lemmy.world

So Ukraine, hear me out... Eliminate Trump and Putin during the negotiations, blame it on someone else. Everyone will thank you, and we'll get over it.

216
HikingVetreply
lemmy.ca

I'm sure at this point if Zelenskyy pulled out a wellrod, popped both of them and said "Slava Ukraini" there would be a round of applause.

127

If he does this, I'm getting Heroiam Slava tattooed on my chest.

60
slrpnk.net

i honestly don't think anyone would put him to trial. like suddenly everyone you know was with the president of ukraine at the time of the incident. and sure, that's not what questions the ICC would be asking, but that's what we'd all be saying

26

Exactly I mean, the USA isn't going to start a war with an ally over a shitbag placeholder president like Trump. As for Russia they're already fucking war so what are they going to do? If anything set it up so it looks like a Russian assassination attempt on Z went wrong and got Putin and Trump instead. United States should have been at war with Russia since 2016 anyway. Now would be a great time to join in considering Russian combat capacity is at nearly zero, and they're currently utilizing the zap branigan meat wave tactic.

At this point if that actually happened China would take a long hard look and go no thank you sir. They ain't doing shit to defend Russia. Hell, if we promised them a portion of it, they'd help us take it

6
fedia.io

It would almost certainly be a requirement to prosecute and then likely lock Zelenskyy up if he did that, even if he might be doing us all a favour. And even the nicest prison is still a prison.

It would be better if there was a way to have the targets neutralise each other.

9
Nollijreply
sopuli.xyz

Requirement from whom? Who would enforce it?

I know the obvious answer is the ICC, but they currently have warrants for both Putin and Netanyahu, so clearly that's not an effective threat.

20

Vance. I think he and his puppet masters would love the excuse to join with putin's past allies. Russia gets the land, united states of stupid gets half the resources contracts to aid in building the 'infrastructure' and such to process the resources.

5

Straight up killing a known criminal is not the accepted way to mete out justice, no matter how right it seems. We have (international) courts for a reason, even when the case is open and shut, and even if the same courtesy would be unlikely if the situation was reversed.

0

Nah, make the entire operation look like a Russian assassination plot on Z went wrong. People in US intelligence that are currently involved with Ukraine would definitely help facilitate that story.

3
lemmy.world

Vance has a brain, which is both scarier and more reassuring at the same time.

47
Corkyskogreply
sh.itjust.works

Vance has no political capital like Trump. He doesn't have a cult he can use to threaten to primary people. Once Trump is gone all of this loses momentum.

71

Will be interesting to watch the power vacuum when Trump dies. It will be a great opportunity for the democrats to make progress. I’m sure they’ll find a way to fuck that up too.

21
Absarokareply
lemmy.world

I'm not sure anybody would rally behind him. He had the lowest likability score of any VP pick since 2000 - even below Sarah "I Can See Russia From My House!" Palin.

22

Palin was rocking the MILF vibe and, for better or worse, took her conservative creds mostly seriously.

Vance is date rapey, nakedly ambitious, and completely owned by Thiel.

9
lemmy.world

You'll have millions/billions of people willing to be your alibi. "According to people calling in, Zelensky was at 300,000 bars, sleeping on 1,250,000 couches, and attending 13 Bar Mitvahs that night, so he couldn't have killed Trump and Putin."

25

"Absolutely top-notch guy. Literally omnipresent.

Like me and all my friends were having individualized, concurrent, and meaningful bottle episodes with the guy.

Just the consummate gentleman."

12
Nollijreply
sopuli.xyz

The problem is who will replace them. Does Putin even have an official successor (like the US VP), or would this create a power vacuum?

4

The Prime Minister is de jure the acting president in case of a vacancy. Given the strength of legal institutions in Russia Mikhail Mishustin would have some work ahead of him to actually hold power.

8

So believe it or not back when the USA had its shit together we had this thing called the CIA and boy were they pretty good at identifying and exploiting power vacuums to the advantage of our country.

4

Oh. Wow. You win.

If that rooftop guy could hit the mark like this comment did, we wouldn't be having to listen to his chaotic-evil nonsense right now.

14
lemmy.world

Ukraine HAD a deal with Russia ensuring its peace and its borders. It was called the Budapest Memorandum. Russia was the one violating the deal Russia had agreed to.

154
lemmy.world

I think you're confused that was the treaty that said NATO couldn't come within forty thousand miles of its borders and what about Biden's Ukrainian money laundering bio-facilities?

-78
GoodEye8reply
lemm.ee

In case anyone is thinking of taking this troll seriously, there is no treaty that prevents NATO from expanding east. There was something like it between NATO and the USSR but Russia officially is not the successor to USSR so they have no claim to that guarantee. It's all Russian propaganda.

20

Okay. This is a bit more nuanced and what I gave was my opinion, as in they're not the successor. They are the successor in some cases, but whether they're actually the successor or not depends on which option is beneficial to Russia. When it comes to NATO Russia likes to act like it's the successor, but when it comes to reparations for the atrocities the USSR committed that's when Russia says they're not actually the successor to the USSR and can't be responsible for the atrocities committed by the USSR. I'm my eyes you can't have it both ways and as such I'm just taking cues from the Russian playbook. Whatever guarantees were given they were given to the USSR and not Russia, especially when those guarantees were never on paper.

2
discuss.tchncs.de

There was something like it between NATO and the USSR but Russia officially is not the successor to USSR so they have no claim to that guarantee.

Like, if you seriously believe that, you should check your reasoning skills.

This isn't the ship of theseus. Not everything was exchanged. USSR changed one small thing which is its name and became Russia, that does not invalidate all prior agreements.

0

USSR dissolved in 1991 when its last member state, Khazakstan, left. Russia, which had left the union prior, found itself with a lot of nuclear warheads. Other ex-member states agreed to hand the nukes they had to Russia. Having nuclear weapons and having the means to maintain them and launch them, Russia naturally joined the Security Council in 1991.

12
GoodEye8reply
lemm.ee

So why isn't Russia taking responsibilities for the atrocities and illegal occupations done by the USSR? It's as if it's not just a name change.

Also what agreement do you think gives Russia that guarantee? There's no paper that says NATO won't expand east.

4

Russia's not taking responsibility for the atrocities and illegal occupations done by Russia.

6
Miaoureply

Which empires actually gave reparations to former countries though? Sadly Russia doesn't seem to do worse than the rest of the world in this area

2
lemmy.world

This is literally all the “anti war” arguments. George Washington should have just stopped resisting the red coats.

121
EvilBitreply
lemmy.world

Washington was part of a revolution. This is an invasion. More like Russia should have just let Napoleon have it.

43
danc4498reply
lemmy.world

Sure, but that makes it entirely unrelatable to the Americans making these arguments.

15
EvilBitreply
lemmy.world

Fair enough. How about this?

It’s like letting the SCARY EVIL (mysteriously suddenly nonexistent) IMMIGRANT MEXICAN CARAVAN INVADERS just come in and have the US.

20

Obviously. That’s what brown people do, right? The clearly authoritative (checks notes) rich white Nazi on TV told me.

9
lemm.ee

Not if you eat them first!

I wish I could eat my puppies and have their scruffy faces and waggy tails with me all the time! Petting them would be difficult...

2

How to eat Your Dogs

By @[email protected]

  1. Stop crying
  2. Seriously, stop crying. If you don't stop crying in gonna start crying
  3. WHY ARE WE DOING THIS??? THEY'RE SO CUTE AND INNOCENT!!!
  4. I'm vegan now

The end.

1

It's kind of a revolution though because it all started with Maydan and the ousting of Russian puppet Yanukovitch.

4
CircuitGuyreply
lemmy.world

It sounds right in content and in him not knowing that lay is a transitive verb.

20
lemmy.world

The annoying orange should not be discussing matters he knows shit about...

51
lemmy.world

But then the only things he can talk about are rape, treason, paying for sex, and shitting his pants

45

Of course he did. Trump would never stand up to a bully, he would never defend the weak against the nasty. That would take courage, but Trump has only cowardice and sycophacny for bullies.

Trump is a person who sucks up to bullies, and punches down on the bullied, through and through.

48

Ugh. I guess it’s starting. Anyone placing bets on how long before Trump does a complete about-face on the situation and starts running joint missions with Russia against Ukraine? I’m morbidly suspicious that might really be how things end up.

43

This isn't exactly a secret. Remember in the debate when he said he'd end the war, and refused to say which side he'd be on?

30

Trump is a little bitch. Doesn't know what being a man is, because if he did, he'd do the opposite of this.

42
lemm.ee

So president of a nation that has the motto "give me liberty or give me death" is saying this.

41
dubvee.org

The people who voted for him tend to prefer "Don't tread on me" which makes it even more ironic.

28

Well yeah, the full saying is "Don't tread on me, tread on ukraine instead". They just shortened it

15

Any time I see those stickers, flags or license plates I have a deep urge to reenact the curb stomping scene from American History X using the person who has it/them.

2

Of course the convicted felon would say that Ukraine should just lie down and let Russia grab 'em by the country.

40
lemmy.world

You might not believe me but anyone can just walk into maralargo. Trump won't have you trespassed, he will offer you a cash deal to leave. Trust me, it's true. Ez money.

39

This is why he's having such a hard time getting Musk to leave. How do you make a problem go away when your only problem solving skill is bribery and your problem is a higher degree of wealth than your bribing power?

19
lemmy.world

Honestly I'm more worried about the NATO 5% thing which is blatantly designed to fracture the alliance.

The number was 2%, and many didn't hit that. 5% is never going to happen and is going to be Trump's cause to pull out, mark my words. Thankfully Congress put some stops in there, but doesn't mean Trump can't fuck things up bigly.

Ukraine can schlump along with NATO sans USA, but no NATO and Ukraine is finished.

32

As a Canadian, good. I'll worry a lot less about American invasion if we have our own separate NATO with blackjack and hookers.

2
lemmy.world

If European countries somehow manage 5 percent, it’s Europe that should step out of NATO. At this moment I am half convinced it’s better to have a strategic alliance with China than with Trump.

1
lemmy.world

America hasn't had to deal with the recieving end of Imperialism for almost 250 years. (its been on the giving end of it for the last century) America is in no position, not Trump, not Elon, not Biden, not the dude that just wants to grill. None of them are in a position to tell someone not to fight for freedom, when there is an actual threat of losing ones freedom and sovereignty. Most western countries have long forgotten what the struggle is all about because they've had their freedom for centuries.

Ukraine's fight has been going on for centuries, but 2022-Present has been the defining moment of that fight.

If you aren't going to help, shut the fuck up, and fuck off and let the rest of us handle it. Ukraine isn't going to stop fighting for its existence just because Part of America is tired and upset about superficial things like egg prices. If America isn't going to carry the torch of Liberty, there are plenty of others willing to take it from here.

32

Europe is having its issues too. It seems like the people are mad about taxes already, and aren't keen on the prospect on increasing them for military spending. They've already run huge deficits for COVID.

Many other powers are either not interested in this particular fight or can't afford to be.

I hate to sound so cynical, but I think Zelensky is smart to "work with" Trump (aka manipulate him) instead of denouncing him and kicking him to the curb like his country has every right to, because the drive to fight only goes so far against a truly genocidal adversary.

11
lemmy.world

Really? So, Mexico can take back what they lost and the USA will not resist.

30

golf states

What about states where they play other sports ?

6

“They’re saying ‘the war is tomorrow’ – this causes panic on the market and elsewhere," Zelensky, Jan 2022 in response to US warnings of imminent Russian invasion.

Zelensky didn't "choose to fight" because Russia insisted there would be no fight right up until it crossed the border. It would've been considered a sneak attack but for the US telling everyone Russia was invading for a full month in advance. There was no choice offered to Zelensky and never has been since, unless you count Russia's current stance of basically "give us all your weapons and maybe then we'll negotiate"/

27

if only he hadn't fought back against being prosecuted.

he'd be in prison... or on death row... and we wouldn't be in this mess---again.

23
lemmy.sdf.org

Does he really believe this, or is this redirected anger because he's finally figured out that he can't, in fact, just solve it?

Probably, Putin told him to pound sand, and then OPEC basically just ignored him when collapsing oil prices was the next idea.

23
blarthreply
thelemmy.club

Putin didn’t tell him to pound sand. Putin holds the leash. Everything Donald Trump says and does is to advance Russian interests.

14
CanadaPlusreply
lemmy.sdf.org

I see little evidence of that. At most Putin has a small amount of leverage on him. Basically, there's just a lot of stuff good for Putin Trump could do but doesn't.

0
CanadaPlusreply
lemmy.sdf.org

He also has been publicly threatening to economically destroy Russia for the last week, so there, a bit of evidence both ways.

Meanwhile, he could order assassinations in Ukraine if he wanted to and nobody could stop him.

-4
blarthreply
thelemmy.club

Trump says a lot of shit. He also said Ukraine shouldn’t have fought back.

Actions speak louder than words.

15
CanadaPlusreply
lemmy.sdf.org

His pro-Russia actions are way more weak than I would allow if I were Putin and actually controlled him, though.

-4

Because of the separation of powers and checks and balances we have in the US, he doesn’t have unilateral power to do whatever he wants. He can typically only inch toward Putin’s goals. Why do you think he is trying to weaken our relationships with our allies through tariffs and talk of land grabs?

6

In less than a week, he's fucked up relations with Mexico, Canada and the EU. California had proposed secession. In less than a week. This is all Putin's marching orders, being enacted in broad daylight, and your response is "kinda weak"?

At least you've kept your head warm this winter, placing it firmly up your backside as you've obviously done.

1

"Trump suggests Ukraine shouldn't have fought back against Russia"

"Trump demostrates how little he understands about the conflict in Ukraine"

FTFY

No deal can be made with Putin when the ruthless conquest of rebuilding a Russian empire is Putin's goal.

22
slrpnk.net

Preparing the people of Greenland....

21
lemmy.today

And freaking why? When people are still struggling with basic shit like food insecurity in the borders we already have.

I know I'm asking this rhetorically and it's all ridiculous it's just...why???

3
Jackreply
slrpnk.net

The one common thread I see is trading routes and security.

There are articles suggesting new trade routes will open in the antarctic so that maybe explains Greenland and Canada.

As for Mexico, maybe the gulf of Mexico?

At the same time he is trying to start a trade war. Maybe in his mind American is so unavoidable market that china for example will pay the tariffs, but as European is it easy to see the time of America market supremacy is going away fast.

All my opinion and speculation of course.

3

Thanks for your insight. That at least sheds a tiny bit of logic on this insanity.

Yeah. As a U.S person it's unsettling watching an empire crumble around you without much way out when you wanted to just do your thing and get along in life like anybody else. * Sigh*

2

Why?

In his mind size of territory is a measurement for the success of a civilization. And he views the U.S. as the greates civilization. He stated that in his inauguration speech. Access to the arctic circle controls trade routes, or this is what his advisors told him.

::: spoiler how this might have happened speculation In my mind it went like this:

  1. Advisor: Mr. Trump the antarctic will be extremely strategically important.
  2. Trump: Nods
  3. Trump (in his mind): He is saying I should take over the entire Northern territory of Canada and Greenland.
  4. Advisor (in his mind): I wonder what he is thinking? :::
2
lemmy.world

Glad to see the ghost of Neville Chamberlain is still around.

16

C'mon, if we're doing WWII analogies he doesn't get to be an allied leader, even if Chamberlain was a really bad one.

8

Trump is a malignant narcissist, and I'm pretty sure that's a requirement to have that opinion.

15
fedia.io

It's easy to say don't fight back when you're not the one getting beaten up and mugged

15
lemm.ee

I assume he would have said the same to Poland at the start of WWII?

14

Well, this is not the best argument given Poland's history of being nonexistent for 123 years until a deal was made. On the other hand, the German-Russian invasion of 1939 is the prime example of a war of aggression.

0

I can't imagine what would have satisfied Russia other than complete surrender. Ukraine had few other options than to fight. Uphill as their battle may have been.

12
lemm.ee

Why would he say something so easily disproven at this point? If Ukraine should not have fought back they would have been defeated already.

10

Why would he say something so easily disproven at this point?

His reputation for honesty and good judgement is ruined!

8
fedia.io

What American doesn't jump at the chance to fight Russia?

9

'Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?'

'It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.'

2
Todayreply
lemmy.world

There are days when the nukes would be preferable to the endless news cycle of stupidity. Would you like to play a game?

3

As in 'becoming a part of Russia isn't too bad actually'? Because that's what would have happened if they hadn't fought back.

9

Donald Trump argued that Ukraine should not have resisted Russia’s 2022 invasion

*Trump was an idiot as usual, arguing (...)

7

Well yeah, and now he's taking this move from Putin's playbook for Greenland. He's at the "people in Greenland would rather be US citizens" stage. Putin did the same thing in the beginning when talking about the territories in Ukraine he wanted to take.

6

Our President. By election. He isn't wanted by many, and is definitely no leader.

5
lemmy.world

Why people keep listening to what that being says? Just respond to his actions, anthing else is useless...

5
IsoSpandyreply
lemm.ee

That being controls almost 50% of the world's nuclear arsenal. That's why.

4

So? He will do as he pleases, doesn’t he? Why even answer when he changes the name of a geographical landmark, threat with invasions or economic punishments? He is a bully, the most useless thing to attempt with a bully is trying to speak him into reason or concede him the recognition of dialogue capability, it just let him to probe the breaking point of the abuse, there should be zero tolerance to such being, and urge to back up all the dependencies with other allies asap, the alternative is submission up to nearly the breaking point of the abuse. That’s my opinion…

1

Why people keep listening to what that being turd says? Just respond to his actions, anthing else is useless...

ftfy

3

I'm kinda getting a "if you're getting raped just lay back and take it" vibe from this.

4
lemmy.world

Trump is chose to continue giving aide to Ukraine. This is just bullshit so he can appear to be trying to lower taxes

3

I wouldn't be so confident about that, considering that Trump is known to spew so much bullshit that the truth is hard to parse from it.

5
lemm.ee

OTOH, I also heard him quoted trying to get Saudi Arabia to flood the market with cheap oil to try and force Russia to the table. Makes sense, since oil has been the last big export Russia has to make money on. I'm opposed to Trump and his stupid fucking Nazi pals on pretty much everything, but I guess even broken clocks can be right twice a day. It'd be nice to see this meat grinder closed down with a treaty, instead of the US deciding to do a rugpull on Ukraine. Ofc, I support the Ukrainian people's right to self determination. If they want to keep fighting, that's their right, but putting Russia on an economic back foot would probably meaningfully help negotiations.

Source (didn't read, heard about it on NPR)

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/oil-turns-lower-after-trump-says-hell-ask-saudi-arabia-and-opec-to-bring-the-price-down.html

1
feddit.org

But this just makes sense if russia would be sanktioned before. Because if russia wouldnt have started a war, russia could still sell and buy everything. So if the oil price dumps there wont be the same effect as now.

1
lemm.ee

Aren't the Biden era sanctions still active? IIRC, sketchy off grid oil sales and sales to India/China are basically what's keeping Russia going at this point. If the market gets flooded with cheap OPEC oil, that would be a major baseball bat to the knee.

4

Yeah, but for Trump to use the strategy of flooding the market with cheap oil, there had to be a war. Without the war and the sanctions it wouldnt be possible to cripple russia with cheap oil.

I just say this because it sounds like you mean, that Trump is smart to come with this idea. But it still didnt happen and it wouldnt be so effective if there was no war.

1