Trump Says Ukraine Should Hold Elections

49 thoughts on “Trump Says Ukraine Should Hold Elections”

1. Lord knows the Fake News media in the US is never going to call for elections in Ukraine.

   1. That will not matter much, because Trump will require elections for further assistance. Zelensky is going to be properly removed before any final agreement is reached.

      1. It's going to depend on how badly insulted Rump feels when the Russians treat his "peace proposal" like the non-starter it is. They have absolutely no reason to make any concessions at this point, no matter what Rump thinks. He may well throw a temper tantrum and give Zelinsky B-52s.

2. Trump to Zelensky:
   "..You should have never been there. You should have never started it. You should have made a deal.”
   This is beyond insane.
   Did this war not start when Putin invaded Ukraine?

   1. But you can blame the media for calling the facts that there are no elections in Ukraine "Russian disinformation." Their president has canelled elections and remained past his legal term. What's the diff beteeen Ukraine and a banana republic? Wheat.

      1. Are you insinuating that Putin should be voted out?

         1. Your nonsense will never work here. Ukraine lost.

   2. This was not an invasion but a defense against NATO lining up on Russia's borders. Would you or any president like it if China or Russia would install their military bases on the Canadian/US and Mexico/US border?

      Plus the whole thing started under the coup during Biden with Nuland, overthrowing a duly elected president and installing their own pet comedian.

      1. Zelensky won an election, for “peace”.

      2. “invasion” and “defense against NATO lining up on Russia’s borders” are not opposites.

         The former absolutely happened; the latter is a justification/excuse for the former which some people buy and some don’t.

      3. Invasion is not invasion and black is white, sure.
         Russia literally sent troops, weapons, tank across the border but this is not an invasion.
         Bibi should take a page from the Trump/Putin tag team and continue invading Lebanon, Syria and the rest.

   3. You lack basic reasoning ability. Ukraine started the war with its repeated violations of the 2 neutrality agreements. Zelensky could have easily prevented the war.

      1. Sorry, I missed the part where Ukraine started firing at Russia first. What date was that? The next thing you will claiming is the US started the war with Japan.

         1. The legislators of Donetsk and Luhansk voted to join the Russian Federation, and Moscow accepted, so yeah, they did, kind-of-sort-of-almost.

      2. That's called provoking. There was no war until Russia invaded.

   4. Of course Putin did. Facts don't matter to trump or his supporters.

   5. There is no history before 2022. /s

      Zelensky was never in charge. Trump shouldn’t have blamed him. It was Biden, Blinken, Nuland and other assorted ghouls.

      It’s amazing that you read on a site like this but remain clueless.

      1. Once again: Putin INVADED Ukraine.

         All the talks about how Zelensky should have made a deal and Ukraine need elections can by directed to Russia

         Isn't Putin in power for nearly a quarter of a century?
         Shouldn't Russia made a deal to keep NATO of its borders?

         Now when a Putin Shill is in control of the white house, what keeping Russia from annexing the rest of Ukraine?

         1. Russia has been speaking out against NATO encroachment since Mikhail Gorbachev: repetitively and consistently since. What are you talking about?

            1. Using Trump words against Russia instead of Ukraine, can be annoying..

         2. Nonsense, leftist propagandist. Zelensky alone decided to illegally block elections, just as he decided to ignore international neutrality agreements.

            Does or did USAID pay you for this propaganda?

            Russia and NATO agreed to keep NATO off its borders. NATO officials have now admitted they never intended to abide by that, propagandist.

            Oh sure blah blah blah Trump is a Russian agent blah blah blah.

         3. Once again, learn some history and context. Stop being a zombified fool of legacy propaganda.

            1. I’ve said this before. For some, facts don’t matter. Only perception matters.

         4. Not really. The UN Charter says that sections of a country can vote to leave the parent, Ukraine agreed to that when it joined. Three oblasts voted for independence from Ukraine after the 2014 coup, Crimeans also immediately voted to join Russia. Ukraine invaded Donetsk and Luhansk, which requested aid from Russia.

            There's your history lesson for the day.

   6. Only if your world started in 2022

3. This will be long. Apologies. But I dug up some history for the uninitiated. It relates to current events, ie USAID, and how Bill Clinton destroyed the common Russian people and created the Russian oligarchy, that morons on legacy media talk in frenzied tones about:

   AID TO RUSSIA
   September 1, 1998

   https://fpif.org/aid_to_russia/

   Key Points
   Since 1992, the U.S. and other donors have provided Russia billions of dollars in aid for radical economic “reforms,” largely defined as privatization of state-owned assets.

   The chief beneficiary of these reforms has been a small clique of political and economic powerbrokers.

   The Chubais clique typically instituted reforms through top-down presidential decree and a network of aid-funded “private” organizations which has circumvented Russia’s legislature.

   ….U.S. support for Anatoly Chubais, Yegor Gaidar, and the so-called “Chubais Clan” (a group of savvy operators dominated by a clique from St. Petersburg) has bolstered the Clan’s standing as Russia’s chief brokers with the West and the international financial institutions. This support continues to the present. And, the Chubais Clan–not the Russian economy as a whole–has been the chief beneficiary of economic restructuring funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)….

   Problems with Current U.S. Policy

   Key Problems
   U.S. officials and a team of Harvard advisers have embraced the “reformers'” dictatorial political methods, arguing they alone are capable of instituting swift privatization and other economic restructurings.
   While professing to support simply economic reform, U.S. policies have consolidated political and economic power in the hands of one clique.
   The $11.2 billion IMF bailout in July 1998 will intensify these abuses and has failed to stem Russia’s financial crisis….
   The U.S. role in creating a system of tycoon capitalism and the current economic meltdown, coupled with military policies such as NATO expansion, have fueled anti-American sentiment in Russia. The first thing we should do, as Joseph Stiglitz, a leading World Bank economist, correctly suggests, is to adopt “a greater degree of humility…. (and) acknowledgement of the fact that we do not have all of the answers.” Washington must also accept that the future shape of Russia society will and must be determined by the Russian people. U.S. policy should at least try to adhere to some of the principles that it preaches, such as participatory democracy and the rule of law or even “no taxation without representation.” In line this with, the U.S. must stop its policy of support-at-all-costs for Yeltsin and the Chubais Clan, not only in USAID targets but also in U.S. influence in IMF and World Bank lending.

   1. US Senator Bill Bradley explained it this way:

      30% unemployment, rampant inflation, pensions gone, savings gone, 30 or 40 years… it’s all gone. No jobs. A few people doing very well, who bought all assets from the state, but the average person, no. An entire population of people who had lived with guaranteed employment, guaranteed healthcare, old age pensions, and a planned economy saw the social safety net swept from underneath them, as widely unpopular policies, backed by Washington, were imposed on the country. US Senator Bill Bradley describes the tone of US diplomats in their interactions with Russia, saying Clinton administration officials spoke of “stuffing shit down Boris’ throat,” gleefully taking pleasure in ordering him to wreck his country’s economy

      1. More Bill Bradley: 5 Steps for Peace in Ukraine

         From 2015, (a Democrat, believe it or not)

         At the end of the Cold War, the prevailing view in Washington was that the U.S. was strong, and Russia was weak and did not count in a unipolar world. We disregarded Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion, the Iraq War, and the U.S.-led military intervention in Serbia for the independence of Kosovo. We went back on our assurances to Russia that the air war on Libya was limited to saving civilian lives and did not include regime change. We withdrew from the ABM Treaty and even suggested that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO.

         With each rejection, Russia’s resentment grew. Confronted by the West’s support for the pro-Europe protests in Independence Square in 2013 (Euromaidan) and the unlawful deposition of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, Russia’s accumulated uneasiness over the West’s intentions increased, and its military intervention in Eastern Ukraine soon began. The U.S. actions in Kosovo—carving out an independent state based on ethnicity from within a sovereign nation—provided the precedent for Russia to carve Crimea out of Ukraine.
         …
         Such efforts must recognize, in retrospect, that all parties are responsible for the current situation: Russia, in its military interventions; the U.S. and Europe, in attempting to bring Ukraine exclusively into the Western sphere, especially NATO; and Ukraine itself, in not taking advantage of opportunities over the last 20 years to improve its governance, reduce corruption, and create greater national unity.

         Accepting this shared responsibility for the crisis in Ukraine, we can pursue an understanding that recognizes both the legitimacy of Russia’s concerns about security threats on its border and the importance of self-determination by the Ukrainian people. Such a deal would have five features:

         Russian forces would withdraw from eastern Ukraine, and Russia would accept Ukraine’s current borders in a binding treaty.
         Ukraine would agree never join NATO.
         Ukraine would be allowed membership in both the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.
         
         A new, internationally supervised referendum would be held in Crimea on whether to join Russia, remain part of Ukraine, or become independent.
         All economic sanctions on Russia would be lifted.

         https://time.com/3916035/ukraine-u-s-russia/

         additional info:

         George H.W. Bush, James Baker, and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. All had promised NATO would not push its troops up against Russia’s border, an obvious national security threat for Russia. It does not have similar troops and war materiel lined up against the borders of Canada and Mexico.

         In a speech delivered in 2007, well before the current crisis, Vladimir Putin “reserved his bitterest complaints… for the US drive to expand Nato into former Soviet eastern Europe and for the plans to deploy parts of the missile shield in central Europe. ‘Why do you need to move your military infrastructure to our borders?’” he asked.-global research

         1. Bradley has always impressed me as a "lesser evil" Democrat, never embracing the leadership's positions completely but still a member because the Republican Party was even worse.

            1. Compared to today’s lesser evil equation, much much less evil. Mike Gravel, too.

   2. Thank you that is a very detailed description. The shorter more common version which the media did not acknowledge was after the fall of the Soviet Union the US meddled too much and while the safety net was abruptly removed it was replaced with Russian oligarchs calling the shots while the people suffered even more than before. When Putin came in he started to change some of it and the majority of Russians like and support Putin.

      But the Leftist media are still hung up on the Old Soviet Union. they despise today's Russia.

      1. It’s about economics, natural resources and empire control.

         Hating Russia (villainy) is the method of manufacturing consent of the public for war.

         This doesn’t make Putin a saint, it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t maneuver for advantage, or that the invasion was a judicious decision.

         But context and history is always memory holed.

         And also, there is no “leftist media”.

         1. The plan, since the Revolution at least, has always been to break Russia up into myriad competing 'X-stans' in order to more easily control and loot the natural resources and population. Pretty much the same rationalization as the 'states rights' astroturf groups in the US.

   3. Russia's Chubais resigns as Putin's special representative due to war – sources

      ….Putin calls the action in Ukraine a "special military operation" that he says was necessary because NATO's enlargement threatened Russia, and to halt what he called the "genocide" of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine since Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea….
      As Putin began his rise to power by moving to Moscow, Chubais cancelled the job in the Kremlin that Putin had been offered, Putin said in a series of interviews in 1999.
      In recent years, Chubais continued to call for economic reform and was one of the most high-profile liberals associated with the Russian government.
      Chubais was one of small group of influential economists under Yegor Gaidar who tried to cement Russia's post-Soviet transition that threw tens of millions of former Soviet citizens into poverty.
      https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-reformer-chubais-leaves-post-122515608.html

      1. Report: Ex-senior Kremlin official who quit amid Ukraine war gets Israeli citizenship
         https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-ex-senior-kremlin-official-who-quit-amid-ukraine-war-gets-israeli-citizenship/

         Chubais was a member of the Advisory Council for JPMorgan Chase from September 2008 until 2013.[15][16] He is a long-time participant and speaker of the Bilderberg Club-Wikipedia

         The Bilderberg Meeting (also known as the "Bilderberg Group", "Bilderberg Conference" or "Bilderberg Club") is an annual off-the-record forum established in 1954 to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. The group's agenda, originally to prevent another world war, is now defined as bolstering a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe.-wikipedia

         Why we shouldn’t dismiss Bilderberg conspiracies so lightly
         
         The official line is that the informal discussions concern megatrends and major issues facing the world. Last year, the topics discussed included artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, chemical weapons threats, Greece, Iran, NATO, Russia, terrorism and the US elections. Because the meeting is private, the people who take part don’t have to worry about repeating particular policy or party lines. They can instead explore scenarios and say what they really think, because there are no agendas, no resolutions, no votes and no statements issued at the end of the meeting….
         most of the invitees tend to be from a narrow spectrum of occupations and positions – CEOs, finance ministers and heads of state…(top politicians from different parties and countries could chat with each other, as well as executives from Google, BP, Shell, Deutsche Bank and other big companies)

         Conspiracy theorists give conspiracy theories a bad name. Conspiracies do exist, and this is one of them. Politics, at this sort of elite level, is precisely a conspiracy in the sense that Adam Smith meant it. When these people gather once a year, they do not engage in withering self-criticism, but instead reinforce the assumptions that they collectively make about the best sort of economic and political order. This is exactly the sort of process that the psychologist Irving Janis described as “groupthink”, where dissent is marginalised and consensus amplified.
         https://theconversation.com/why-we-shouldnt-dismiss-bilderberg-conspiracies-so-lightly-60653

         1. Idiots in legacy complain about “money laundering” while it was long part of the US/Chubais scheme. If it bothered US govt so much, why was he on a board of JP Morgan and a speaker at Bilderburg?

            LA Times:

            How the Chubais Clan, Harvard Fed Corruption
            BY JANINE R. WEDEL
            SEPT. 12, 1999 12 AM PT

             — As more becomes known about Western participation in the laundering of Russian money, the Washington establishment will likely try to hide behind stories of faraway organized crime and distance itself from any culpability.

            But U.S. policy toward Russia has contributed to that country’s sorry conditions. Russian “reformers,” including many under investigation for allegedly laundering billions of dollars through the Bank of New York, have long been embraced by the Clinton administration and international financial institutions.

            Among them are current and former members of Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin’s government, to which the West pinned its hopes for a new relationship with Moscow and entrusted hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. For years, despite accounts of massive capital flight, money laundering and Russians buying up the French Riviera, the money kept flowing. Yet, no Russian dollar can be deposited in a Western bank account without the knowledge and participation of a Western institution. As former Russian Prime Minister Viktor S. Chernomyrdin, who is accused of corruption, recently asked: “What has suddenly made them [the Americans] wake up?”….

            Among those under investigation in the West for money laundering is longtime Yeltsin aide Anatoly B. Chubais, the chief architect of Russia’s economic reforms. While under investigation in Russia for matters ranging from suspect banking deals to bribery, Chubais and his clique of political and financial power brokers, known as the “Chubais clan,” were the darlings of the U.S. Treasury and international financial institutions. With Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers the key architect of U.S. economic policy toward Russia since 1993, the administration gave the Chubais clan much control over hundreds of million of dollars in aid.

            The clan worked closely with the Harvard Institute for International Development, whose Russia project was headed by economist Andrei Shleifer, Summers’ coauthor and protege. Citing “foreign policy considerations,” Clinton administration policymakers largely bypassed the usual public bidding for foreign-aid contracts. Harvard principals with ties to the Chubais clan were given “substantial control of the U.S. assistance program,” according to a 1996 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office. Since 1997, Shleifer and another Harvard principal have been under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for misuse of funds.

            The Harvard Institute, together with the Chubais “dream team,” as Summers called it, presided over Russia’s economic “reforms,” many of them U.S.-funded, including privatization. But the reforms were more about wealth confiscation than wealth creation. The first stage of privatization, which had substantial input from U.S.-paid Harvard advisors, fostered the concentration of property in a few Russian hands and opened the door to widespread corruption….

            Did the Russians do all this alone? Clearly, the administration consistently backed a small group of self-interested insiders by giving them the “dream team” seal of approval and a blank check in the form of billions of dollars in Western aid and loans, while neglecting to encourage the development of a legal and regulatory backbone for Russia’s nascent market economy. In 1996, Chubais was placed on Harvard’s (U.S.-assistance-funded) payroll. Even his admission, after the Russian economic crash last August, that he had “conned” from the IMF its most recent $4.8-billion installment, the details of the deal having been worked out with Summers, brought administration officials to Chubais’ defense. As we now know, the IMF money disappeared in short order.

            https://archive.ph/VvzJR

4. Mr. Trump also told reporters he and Russian leader Vladimir Putin had discussed Ukraine before the full-scale invasion in 2022.

   "President Putin and I would talk about Ukraine, and it was the apple of his eye, I will tell you that," he said.

   "But he never, there was never a chance of him going in. And I told him: 'You better not go in, don't go in, don't go in.' And he understood that and he understood it fully."

   https://news.sky.com/story/trump-hints-zelenskyy-election-may-be-needed-for-peace-as-he-addresses-ukraine-being-left-out-of-russia-meeting-13312044

   I'm curious as to why Trump was talking to Putin before the invasion. And why didn't Putin take Trump's advice about not going in? Especially if he "understood it fully". Just more babble.

   1. Trump is the automaton at the traveling carnival. Put a quarter in, and it will spit out words: some of them strangely true, some nonsensical and some with no place in reality.

      It’s hard to know if he ever truly spoke to Putin before any inkling that an invasion was coming because first, and foremost, Trump wants the appearance of being a wise sage and a man of accomplishment. Chalk it up to childhood trauma of an emotionally distant mother and a father short on praise, but big on money, creating toxic narcissism (A prerequisite for the presidential position).

   2. "I'm curious as to why Trump was talking to Putin before the invasion. And why didn't Putin take Trump's advice about not going in? Especially if he "understood it fully". Just more babble." Excellent point.

   3. Putin fully understood what he was going to do.

      It's just that the Empire West seriously underestimated Putin.

      Now the Empire understands it and they understand it fully.

5. If Zelensky is unacceptable then someone else should represent Ukraine. The idea that the people of Ukraine shouldn't be represented is just flat ass bullshit.

   1. The Empire created this mess. It will be interesting to see how it's going to be cleaned up.

6. We need Regime change at home–America First!

7. Trump calling for elections is funny. His supporters forgot what the tried to due on Jan 6.

   1. Running on that old treadmill, you don’t go far. Try running at a country side.

8. If elections do happen, they will be the Oligarch Olympics.

   1. True, just like they are in the US, Russia, etc.

9. Trump probably said 4% instead of 16% because he took into account the margin of error of – 12%.

10. One thing Trump does know, words are cheap, any conman knows this.

Comments are closed.