DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ukraine: The Saga Concludes

Trump calls Zelensky ‘a dictator’ after Ukraine’s leader accuses him of living in ‘disinformation space’

US President Donald Trump called Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky “a dictator,” escalating a public war of words between the two leaders that started when Trump falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war with Russia.

Trump’s accusation, posted on his social media network Truth Social, came just hours after Zelensky accused him of repeating Russian disinformation.

Speaking to reporters in Kyiv, Zelensky pushed back on several unfounded claims the US president made on Tuesday, while reinforcing Ukraine’s position that a deal to end the war needed its involvement.

“Unfortunately, President Trump – I have great respect for him as a leader of a nation that we have great respect for, the American people who always support us – unfortunately lives in this disinformation space,” Zelensky said.

Trump has made it clear he wants the war to end as soon as possible – even if it means further territorial losses for Ukraine. And much to the horror of Kyiv and its allies, Trump has at times adopted Kremlin’s narrative and blamed Ukraine and NATO for the conflict, even saying that Ukraine “may be Russian some day.”

But Trump’s boosting of Russia goes well beyond rhetoric. The president raised many eyebrows last week when opting to hold a 90-minute phone call with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin before speaking to Zelensky.

Then on Tuesday, US and Russian officials held high-level talks on ending the war in Ukraine in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, excluding Kyiv from the meeting.

Putin praised this new US attitude towards his country. Speaking about the talks in Riyadh, Putin said he was told the atmosphere was “friendly.”

“There were completely different people on the American side, who were open to the negotiation process without any bias, without any condemnation of what had been done in the past,” Putin added.

The US and Russia agreed in Riyadh to appoint high-level teams to negotiate the end of the war and said they were working to reestablish diplomatic channels.

Zelensky reiterated on Tuesday Ukraine was not happy with the exclusion, saying that while any country has the right to discuss bilateral issues, the fact that the US held direct talks with Russia “helped Putin out of his long isolation.”

The US was one of Ukraine’s closest allies under the Biden administration, providing the country with tens of billions worth of military aid. But Trump has made it clear that he thinks the US should no longer send aid to Ukraine without getting anything in return.

Earlier this month, he suggested the US should get access to Ukraine’s mineral richest in exchange for aid. Zelensky said on Tuesday that the US has asked Ukraine to “give away” 50% of its rare minerals, without offering any security guarantees in exchange. He said he rejected that idea, saying: “I cannot, I cannot sell our state.”
Trump repeats false claims

It was Kyiv’s initial complaint about being shut out of the talks that sparked Trump’s tirade of falsehoods on Tuesday.

Speaking late on Tuesday, Trump said: “Today I heard, ‘Oh well, we weren’t invited. Well, you been there for three years. You should’ve ended it after three years. You should’ve never started it. You could’ve made a deal.”

The incorrect claim that Ukraine somehow started the war has long been repeated by the Kremlin and its supporters. The conflict began in 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea, the southern Ukrainian peninsula, and began sponsoring pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Moscow then launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, attacking its smaller neighbor at night, sending tanks across the border, bombing Ukrainian cities and sending special forces into Kyiv to assassinate Zelensky.

But Trump did not stop at questioning who started the war in Ukraine. Repeating another line often pushed by the Kremlin, Trump appeared to question Zelensky’s legitimacy.

“We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort, incorrectly claiming that Zelensky’s approval rating was “at 4%.”

Zelensky won more than 73% of the vote in the second round of the 2019 presidential election. While his mandate was meant to end last May, a new election was not held because Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia launched its unprovoked invasion of the country. The martial law prohibits elections.

Speaking on Wednesday, Zelensky specifically said the claim that his approval rating was at 4% comes from Russia, and that Kyiv has some evidence that the numbers were discussed between the US and Russia.

He referred to a poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) earlier this month which showed that while his popularity dropped significantly since the early days of the war, his approval rate has never dropped below 50% and currently stands at 57%.

Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation Mykhailo Fedorov went even further, pointing out on Telegram that Zelensky’s current approval ratings are higher than those of Trump.

Trump and Zelensky’s relationship has been fraught since Trump’s first term in office when he pressured Zelensky to investigate his political rival Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in a phone call. That call led to Trump’s first impeachment.

Trump earns Kremlin’s praise

Trump’s comments sparked outrage across Ukraine, with some people saying the US president is not to be trusted.

Speaking to CNN in central Kyiv, psychologist Valeria Valevska said Trump was “very wrong.”

“I believe that Trump is a narcissist, he is very unpredictable, and Ukrainians cannot trust him or count on his support at all. I don’t like Trump’s policies, and I think most Ukrainians and Europeans don’t either,” she said.

Meanwhile, pensioner Oleksandr Mykhailov told CNN he believed Trump “obviously doesn’t understand what he is talking about.”

“If this continues, Europe must intervene and set its own conditions. Because wherever America has stepped in, they have done damage and then left, as they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on,” Mykhailov added.

Trump’s comments were well received in Moscow, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov praising the US president for echoing the Kremlin’s narrative, telling the Russian parliament, the Duma, that Trump seemingly “understands our position.”

“Trump, I think, is the first Western leader to publicly and openly say that the cause of the Ukrainian conflict was the efforts of the previous administration to expand NATO,” Lavrov told lawmakers on Wednesday. “No Western leader has actually said that before. So that is already a signal that he understands our position.”

At the same time, Russia continues its brutal assault on Ukraine, inching ahead along the eastern front lines and attacking from the air. Moscow launched a massive drone attack against multiple Ukrainian cities on Tuesday, just hours before the meeting in Riyadh. Despite the assault, the talks went ahead as planned.

Russia has long argued that the eastward expansion of NATO put its security under threat, falsely claiming that NATO leaders promised Russia that the defensive alliance would not enlarge after the end of the Cold War. NATO has always had an open door policy with any European state welcome to join as long as it meets the entry criteria.

Ukraine deepened its cooperation with NATO after Russia first started attacking it in 2014.

Putin used the NATO argument to justify his invasion of Ukraine, even claiming, falsely, that NATO troops were fighting in Ukraine.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/19/europe/zelensky-trump-reaction-intl/index.html

Ukraine law on wartime elections..........

Elections under extreme conditions: what does Ukraine’s Constitution say?

The prohibition of wartime elections is established in statutory law. Article 19(1) of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” prohibits the holding of elections for the President of Ukraine, as well as elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and local self-government, under martial law. The Electoral Code of Ukraine also provides for the suspension of any electoral process from the moment martial law is introduced (Article 20).

https://verfassungsblog.de/wartime-elections-as-democratic-backsliding/

Well done comrade trump.

Least surprising information of the day. Everyone knows that Trump would hang Ukraine out to dry.

We knew it and we know it. They either didn't know it or refused to admit it.

The same as warning them about Project 2025 while trump lied pretending he had no idea what it even was.

It appears to me they weren't listening to the people that tried to warn them about it. They were too busy calling it fake news.

47 will always pick on those he sees as vulnerable and side with those he sees as stronger.

See Ukraine, Exhibit A.

Bullies will bully.

This is really unconscionable. I also never really knew there could be so many toadies.

Seems like Trump is saying that Ukraine started it... How he comes up with that lie I just don't know.

That's a Russian line, straight from Putin's mouth.

Sooo the nazis have been eliminated from Ukriane ? I thought trump liked nazis. They sure did vote for him

these comments are how civil wars start

I was just pointing out putins reason for starting the war. And I can guarantee there are American nazis and they voted for trump. Sooo truth hurts?

Then shut up and start it. Nobody is going to listen to that BS here.

You don’t need to apologize nor explain, if he wants people like him dying for Trump in the streets, I’m good with that. Maybe a few red ball caps exploding in their faces will put some perspective on their rhetoric. We don’t live in the twilight zone, they just want us to think they do. That’s bullying BS. This is the US, we have laws for that. We have a history of dealing with bad actors on the field. You can tell they have no fight, just bluster. Putin’s apron isn’t big enough for all their mouthy asses to hide behind.

And here I am trying to be more even tempered when along come “civil wars start like that” … BFND.

Here are the facts on Ukraine, Trump, and Putin. Nobody calls Bernie a liar. 69% approval rating, most liked politician in America.

Thats a simple and straightforward and accurate message from Bernie. Kudos. Regardless of how left he is on the political spectrum we'd be in a much better place if he had been the nominee and beaten trump when the Dem gerryrigged the primary and had Hilary run. I can live with policies that I personally don't 100% align with (left or right) if the people in charge are smart, transparent and stand for something other than making themselves wealthy/powerful.

The decision to only talk to Russia/Putin in the "negotiations" is moronic / or weak / or subserviant to Putin.

The idea of claiming to trust Putin is foolish.

The idea that before you begin negotiating you state Ukraine will never join Nato and that Russia will keep (saome/all) the territory it has gained is stupid.

Calling Zelenski a dictator is wrong on a lot of levels.

Using Putin's propaganda to say Zelesni's approval is 4% makes him a puppet.

Saying Putin is 'holding the cards' in regards to the position of power in the negotiations is weak.

Saying Ukraine started the war is factually wrong and weak/stupid/putin puppet again.

I already posted the facts on support for Ukraine and how Europe has contributed more than the USA ... Trump again, lying.

Zelenski is 100% right to call out the disinformation world Trump is living in and spewing - albeit that he's in a precarious place knowing what a lil biatch Trump is when people don't comply with his whims.

The link I posted earlier on myths and misconceptions about Russia is an outstanding read. Again recommend you give it a MYTHS :

These are the headlines/smmary. There is a lot of depth and explanation on each topic. More than most will want to know for sure !

The myths
Myth 01: ‘Russia and the West are as “bad” as each other’
This pervasive view ignores significant differences in policy and conduct. ‘The West’ is a community of shared interests and values; NATO and EU enlargements have been demand-driven. Russia instead seeks to impose ‘firm good neighbourliness’ on other states whether they agree or not, and regards a ‘sphere of privileged interests’ as an entitlement. Controversies over Western military interventions bear no comparison to the duplicity, the absence of diplomacy and the wholesale abrogation of treaties that preceded Russia’s interventions in Georgia and Ukraine. The West requires greater clarity in presenting its own policies, but there is no equivalence to acknowledge.

Myth 02: ‘Russia and the West want the same thing’
Western policies that aim to engage with Russia fail if they are founded on the notion that at some level Russian and Western interests must align or at least overlap. The drive to normalize relations without addressing the fundamental causes of discord makes things worse not better. Both strategically and in detail on specific issues, Russian objectives and underlying assumptions about relations between states are incompatible with what Western states and societies find acceptable. Recognizing that Western and Russian values and interests are not reconcilable, and adjusting for that reality in the long-term conduct of the relationship, is key to managing these conflicts and contradictions.

Myth 03: ‘Russia was promised that NATO would not enlarge’
Contrary to the betrayal narrative cultivated by Russia today, the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990. Moscow merely distorts history to help preserve an anti-Western consensus at home. In 1990, when Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to a united Germany’s incorporation into NATO, he neither asked for nor received any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR transformed the security situation in Europe. Russia’s new leaders did not question the principle that countries in Europe were completely free to make their own security arrangements. Similarly, the NATO–Russia Founding Act signed in 1997 recognized the ‘inherent right’ of all states ‘to choose the means to ensure their own security’.

Myth 04: ‘Russia is not in a conflict with the West’
Euro-Atlantic policymakers may be reluctant to admit it, but Moscow’s natural state is one of confrontation with the West. A key feature of the conflict is the use of unconventional hostile measures that remain above the threshold of accepted peacetime activities but below that of warfare. The Kremlin seeks to undermine Western interests through a well-established toolkit, such as election interference, targeted state-sanctioned assassinations, and information warfare. Crucially, unconventional hostile measures and indirect actions are not just features of this conflict, but contribute to the (mistaken) perception of there being no conflict.

Myth 05: ‘We need a new pan-European security architecture that includes Russia’
Russian leaders advocate a treaty-based and continent-wide European security system that would replace existing ‘Euro-Atlantic’ structures, particularly NATO. This proposal is problematic: it ignores basic differences between Russia and Western countries over the issue of sovereignty. Russia wants ‘great power’ privileges for itself, limits on the sovereignty of neighbouring countries, and agreement that states should not be criticized if they run their domestic affairs in ways inconsistent with the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This perspective clashes with core Western interests and values. As such, even if a new pan-European security architecture were to be established, the fundamental differences in outlook between the two sides would stop such a system from functioning. Western policymakers should be clear that disagreements with Russia over the European security architecture are profound and unlikely to be reconciled soon.

Myth 06: ‘We must improve the relationship with Russia, even without Russian concessions, as it is too important’
This myth rests on the premise that a combination of supposedly self-evident geopolitical weight, mutual economic interests and compensation for losing the Cold War are overriding imperatives for a successful reset with Russia – leading to a necessarily fully functional relationship. That this may leave ‘lesser powers’ more vulnerable to intimidation or influence is, according to those who subscribe to the myth, an unfortunate side effect and/or a price worth paying. Yet quite apart from the deep ethical ambiguities such an accommodation implies, the arrangement simply would not work.

Partly, this is because the presentation of the West, and the US in particular, as a threat to ‘Fortress Russia’ is an essential support to the Kremlin’s increasingly authoritarian domestic rule. Few areas show promise for cooperation with Russia. Efforts in those most frequently mooted – cybersecurity, the Middle East and North Africa, trade – have all failed so far because of Russia’s illiberal approach to each subject. It is also worth remembering that Moscow itself is not putting forward cooperation wishlists; they are invariably the work of Western politicians and diplomats. Western policymakers must expect that the Kremlin’s vision of Russia as a fortress entitled to a commanding role in the world yet threatened by outside powers, and by the US in particular, will remain at the heart of its beliefs.

Myth 07: ‘Russia is entitled to a defensive perimeter – a sphere of “privileged interests” including the territory of other states’
The idea that Russia should be entitled to an exclusive sphere of influence in other states, notably in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, is deeply problematic. It is incompatible with professed Euro-Atlantic values around states’ sovereignty and rights to self-determination. It is detrimental to geopolitical order and international security, as it implicitly gives licence to Russian actions – territorial aggression, annexation, even outright war – that risk creating instability in Russia’s neighbours and Europe more widely. It effectively entitles Russia to dominate neighbouring states and violate their territorial integrity. And it misconstrues contemporary geopolitical realities, such as Russia’s grudging acceptance of a second player in its vicinity – China (specifically, in relation to the expansion of China’s influence in Central Asia). Betrayal aside, it is doubtful that it is even within the gift of the West to concede a sphere of influence to Russia – or that such an understanding would work if somehow established. Failure to critically re-examine geopolitical doctrines on this subject risks reproducing reductive Cold War-era postures. And while some post-Soviet and Eastern European states – and even their populations – may desire closer relations with Russia, none of them want to sacrifice their sovereign rights.

Myth 08: ‘We must drive a wedge between Russia and China to impede their ability to act in tandem against Western interests’
The notion that the West can exploit tensions between Russia and China both misunderstands the nature of the relationship between the two countries and overestimates its susceptibility to external leverage. A corollary of the myth is the assumption that Russia and China form a single strategic entity that was somehow ‘allowed’ to develop by negligent Western policymakers. Yet just as the West did not join Russia and China together, it cannot put them asunder. The two powers have a natural ideological compatibility as well as complementary economies and interests in a range of spheres, including technology, cyber cooperation and defence. At the same time, the myth distorts the nature of the Sino-Russian relationship by ascribing to it a behavioural convergence and a grand conspiratorial character, while overlooking each state’s commanding imperative to retain full autonomy in decision-making. Given that the two powers currently have more to gain from cooperation than competition, both Russia and China have chosen to push their differences to the background for the foreseeable future. But latent bilateral tensions could come to the fore in the future as China’s ascendancy continues. The emergence of an ‘axis of authoritarianism’ is thus not in prospect.

Myth 09: ‘The West’s relations with Russia must be normalized in order to counter the rise of China’
Rapprochement with Russia as a strategic means of countering China would likely take place on the Kremlin’s terms, and would mean sacrificing the hard-won sovereignty of other post-Soviet states. Moreover, to subscribe to this myth is to assume that the Kremlin even wants normalized relations with the West, and to forget that a better relationship with Russia, whatever its price, would do little to prevent China’s reach and capabilities from continuing to grow. Most importantly, while China’s transgressions of international law and violations of human rights are no more to be excused than those of Russia, an alliance with the Kremlin implicitly removes the possibility of China and the West having sustainable relations in the longer term. Western nations do not have the luxury of focusing solely on the challenges posed by China while somehow glossing over Russia’s aggressive behaviour.

Myth 10: ‘The Eurasian Economic Union is a genuine and meaningful counterpart to the EU’
Russia presents the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as a partner for the EU in a proposed free-trade area stretching ‘from Lisbon to Vladivostok’. In reality, the EAEU is a political project lacking the features of a true common market. Russia disregards the rules of the very organization through which it seeks to reassert its power, and with which it wants the EU to cooperate. Trade policy does not constitute a separate, non-politicized track in Russia’s foreign policy; it is subordinated to it. Due to this instrumental use and deep politicization of economic diplomacy, the EAEU is functionally unable to act as an integration body in Eurasia, not least because Russia has no economic interest in comprehensive trade liberalization either inside the EAEU or via a free-trade area with the EU.

Myth 11: ‘The peoples of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are one nation’
The Kremlin misrepresents the region’s history in order to legitimize the idea that Ukraine and Belarus are part of Russia’s ‘natural’ sphere of influence. In fact, both countries have stronger European roots than the Kremlin cares to admit. It is historically inaccurate to claim that Russia, Ukraine and Belarus ever formed a single national entity (indeed, the latter two countries also have political and cultural roots in intrinsically European structures such as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). The Kremlin’s narrative, which served to justify Russia’s claim to the status of primus inter pares among post-Soviet republics, acknowledges Russia’s right to interfere in the internal affairs of its neighbours to this day. The idea of a ‘triune’ Russian nation downgrades the uniqueness of historic indigenous cultures. Moreover, in questioning the authenticity of Ukrainian identity and the viability of ‘Belarusianness’ as national building-blocks, it seeks to entrench in international public opinion stereotypes that would make it harder for the two countries to pursue greater integration with Europe.

Myth 12: ‘Crimea was always Russian’
The Kremlin propagates the fiction that Crimea legitimately and willingly ‘seceded’ from Ukraine and ‘rejoined’ Russia in 2014. If unchallenged, this myth risks further undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity and encouraging expansionist powers elsewhere. The subsequent drastic militarization of Crimea by Russia, and the latter’s unlawful restrictions on navigation in the Sea of Azov, increase the vulnerability both of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean to Russian security threats.

Yet the reality is that Crimea has been in Russian hands for only a fraction of its history. Historically (before 2014), Crimea belonged to Russia for a total of only 168 years, or less than 6 per cent of its written history. Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, no major separatist movement has existed in Crimea. Ukrainians, Russians and Crimean Tatars co-existed peacefully, with wide-ranging autonomy provided by the constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The ‘referendum’ organized by Russia and held under duress on 16 March 2014 was in fact merely a smokescreen to formalize Russia’s military takeover of the peninsula.

Myth 13: ‘Liberal market reform in the 1990s was bad for Russia’
The myth is that in Russia in the 1990s liberal market reform created a prolonged recession. It is true that liberal reform was attempted and that output fell heavily over six years, but the former did not cause the latter. Liberal reform as originally conceived was never fully or adequately implemented in Russia. In Poland, in contrast, where reform was carried out, the decline in output was brief and modest. In Russia, politically weak authorities failed to follow through on stabilizing the economy (including getting inflation under control and managing the public finances), while another key strand of reform, privatization, was marred by corruption. The false belief that a well-functioning market economy is somehow incompatible with Russia weakens Western policy.

Myth 14: ‘Sanctions are the wrong approach’
Economic sanctions have already demonstrated practical and normative value as responses to unacceptable Russian behaviour – but they need to be allowed time to work, and their effectiveness should not be judged against impossible tests. Despite claims to the contrary, sanctions have influenced Russian actions and have taken effect despite the challenges of their use on a large and resilient target. Sanctions also demonstratively condemn unacceptable behaviour and reaffirm collective commitment to the norms and principles of international order.

Myth 15: ‘It’s all about Putin – Russia is a manually run, centralized autocracy’
Governance in Russia is not a one-man show. Contrary to widespread thinking, many different actors and institutions can play a meaningful role in decision-making and policy implementation in the country. The president’s personal role is often exaggerated, with external observers overlooking or misunderstanding the roles of collective bodies (for example, the Presidential Administration and the Security Council), overestimating the degree of managerial competence and discipline (presidential orders are, for instance, frequently not fulfilled), or failing to take into account the self-interested behaviour of actors beyond Putin. Although Putin may have the ability to intervene in all types of decision-making, that does not mean that he always does or wants to. To understand how governance actually works in the country, we need to take into account the power and complexity of the Russian bureaucracy – which will only continue to grow in importance.

Myth 16: ‘What comes after Putin must be better than Putin’
This myth again reflects the triumph of hope over experience and analysis. Russia has structural issues that go beyond the difficulties associated with Putin’s rule. As a result, the likelihood of a post-Putin Russia building a viable democratic political system is now lower than it was during the 1990s. In particular, the country will need a new professional cadre of elite bureaucrats and policymakers if it is to deliver accountable and effective governance. Yet conditions for the cultivation of such a cadre do not exist in today’s Russia. Irrespective of who eventually succeeds Putin, Russia’s political culture is certain to continue to impede the development of more constructive relations with the West.

Hope I'm reading you wrong, but are you defending Trumps lies? Or is it Russian Propaganda that you defend?

I mean you had to have listened on that February Day when every news agency (including Fox and Newsmax) reported that Russia had invaded Ukraine without provocation. Even Mike Pence is telling everyone that will listen that it was Russian Aggression that started that.

Please don't tell me you condone the actions of Russia, Putin and now Trump spreading Russian Propaganda!

He’s just dramatic is all.

In the dreams and fantasies of trumpian minds. Like OCD said.... Then start it. Russia thought Ukraine was weak too. Have you learned nothing? As per usual you talk a big game when you really don't have the stomach for it.

Careful Pit, there can’t be two IDGAF souls on the board at the same time and I’m supposed to be the radical lunatic left, remember? Smh. I wish we were all at the IDGAF moment with these fools fleecing us and creating all this chaos and controversy. I had an epiphany on this topic; WE ARE ALL DOING EXACTLY WHAT PUTIN WANTS. Even here on DT. Let that sink in…

I won't be one of those starting or threatening to start a civil war. But I'm prepared for one. I've been telling people to be prepared for that on this very board for many years now. My dad always taught me it's much better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it.

I don't think we disagree about many things. I simply think we have a different way of sending that message. I'm not saying who does it better nor am I saying which one is right or which one is wrong. I'm just saying it's different.

Yep. I was raised to talk softly but carry a big stick. Somewhere along the line I became a brawler with a hair trigger temper, and became the big stick for those I care about. Never a bully always a defender. Physically, I’ve deteriorated, but mentally I’m still that big stick.

And now I’ll wait for a mallet recipient to fix “Big Stick” for me with St for D.

I do have to give Trump credit for that long drawn-out "Truth" he issued. That was perhaps the longest written lie I've ever seen.

I want to find a Luke Skywalker GIF from that dud Star Wars sequel he was in where he went "Amazing! Everything you said was wrong."

Something has occurred to me. trump reason for ending the war is all the millions of deaths the killing has to stop. I have no idea what trumps reasons are but I know he does give a rats ass about one single person that has been killed in that war.

He’s going to profit off of it in some way. He’s already shown interest in the minerals, could be what Putin is really after. Trump working both sides against to get some for himself and his elite buddies. Borders don’t really matter to Billionaires. They think everything is fair game, if it makes them richer.

He even bounced the same kind of idea for GAZA. You want that to end, let the elite profit from it ending.

Sen.Thom Tillis (R-NC) joins in with Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) To Eviscerate Putin For Overseeing Atrocities And Terror Attacks In Ukraine.....................



The actual heat begins with Republican Tillis at the 12:46 mark.

There have been a few Rs express their concern over Trump cozying up to Vlad.

I do find it kinda interesting that Ukraine seems to be one of the few topics where MAGA and the old guard Repubs really can't get on the same page at all.

His polling is dropping like a rock. I’m thinking placing a large (for me) bet on him getting removed before his term ends. I think he’s doing that well just a month in.

Yeah, but when Trump puts them down and threatens them, they fold like a cheap suit. So it don't mean much.. The only ones that stand up to him are those that don't care about being reelected. Notice how Mitch McConnell is standing up to him now that he's made it clear that he's not running again. I'm sure there are many that have misgivings about some of Trumps actions but they don't seem to have any courage at all.

I won't vote for a republican unless I'm sure they won't buckle under to trump or the rest of the MAGA portion of the party.

Oh, I know. But until this they didn’t say crap.

I'm with you. Unfortunately, I won't vote Democrat because they fold just as easily to "protect the party."

If any of them worried about protecting "the People" more than their feeding trough, it'd be great.

You understand this is a thread about Ukraine, right? Which party is it that's folding again?

You wanna talk about folding....

Neither party is really looking like the good guy right now. I swear I haven't heard diddly from establishment dems.

Not voting for either is better than supporting Trump IMHO. Kamala had the votes, Trump sycophants just disqualified 3.6 million of them. Something else we need to fix.

What do you expect establishment dems to say or do?

Raise hell

Damn sure not what Chuck Schumer has done. I’d take Crocket, AOC, Moskowitz, Bernie, Swalwell, Schiff, and Raskin over all of them for standing up and speaking their minds. We all know they don’t have the votes to stop a 50% needed to pass threshold, but they can call them out and organize protests. I’m feeling the need for mass civil disobedience ‘coming soon to a town near you’ (as in everywhere).

We MUST stop these tax cuts for the elite, or we’ll really feel the pain.

They're certainly not doing enough.

What do I expect them to do? I expect them to lie to me.

What do I hope they do? Lose to Independents. Same for Republicans.

And I hope Katie Porter runs again. She’d make a damn good senator. Sherrod Brown too. I hope he’s our next governor. These imbeciles Ohio elected have got to go.