Trump officially blames Ukraine for starting the war with Russia
- Thread starter Mister_Man
- Start date
Why are you tagging me?
BTW, I saw the press conference. Maybe you should watch it for yourself.
It's indefensible
I watched the press conference and Trump clearly stated that Ukraine started the war. What an idiot! Trump just gave away the farm for any peace negotiations. Putin has to be jumping with joy right now and laughing his butt off at Trump's utter stupidity!
What were your impressions?
He thinks Putin is a real straight shooter. He also thinks Putin is pissed off that Trump is the POTUS because everything will be much more difficult w/ Trump in office.
So Trump didn’t say what he said?
I get confused about the MAGA-to-English translation rules. Please help a brother out.
He’s going to try to rebuild the Russian economy. He’s compromised fo sure
Ukraine broke the Minsk agreement and then started talking about NATO when they knew that was Putin's redline. So you could say they provoked it or some see it as starting it.
President dumb**** has no morals. Great combo. Good job American voters.
Trump is a horrible human being.
Pardon me, could you repeat that? I couldn’t quite understand you over the sound of you gurgling Trump’s balls.
Anybody paying attention to him basically already knew this. I believe he had intimated such more than once.
What?? In 2014 -15 and on those were russian soldiers and weapons there at war in Dombas, Russia is the total aggressor and cheater here. Trump is an idiot for saying this outloud prior to peace talks.
February 2022: MAGAts claim Putin invaded Ukraine because Biden was weak.
February 2025: MAGAts claim Ukraine started it.
🙄
February 2025: MAGAts claim Ukraine started it.
🙄
Institute for the Study of War
Some peace deals lead to peace, others to more war. The Minsk II deal aimed to end Russia’s limited invasion of Ukraine in 2015 but instead laid the groundwork for the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022. The United States must learn from the Minsk deal o
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- Theodore Roosevelt
Base and servile are the words that describe you best in this context.
It’s almost like the American electorate are dumb mother f’ers.
And they want us to not call them dumb m’fers.
Ain’t gonna be me that starts that trend.
If mother ****ers don’t like being called stupid, there’s a simple solution: stop being stupid.
Putin wanted to make a land grab because he saw Ukraine as part of the “Russian Empire”. He also thought they’d be an easy mark and the “west” wouldn’t do anything about it.
TBTF.....Ukraine was scantily clad, and hanging out at the Black Sea Bar drinking Mai Tais....
The only reason he didn't do it under Trump is because Trump is considered unpredictable. The reason for the war is the same then as it is now.
Also: Bonus points for being president and not understanding how much your own government spent on Ukraine aid. He claims he has never seen an accounting of it. You can't make this stuff up.
Link to Ukraine funding from gov website:
Link to Ukraine funding from gov website:
Here's another gem from ol finance. I think this thread topic answers the last part of his question. Putin is making Trump his bitch right now.
Last edited:
Lies straight out of the Kremlin.
It’s beautiful guys. Cheeto Jesus was PISSED!
What does that mean?
It means the guys with 69 hours of CCTV footage of Trump drilling underage girls are not at all happy how peace “negotiations” are going and realizing Epstein’s BFF can’t save Putin no matter how much Kompromat they threaten him with…
PS - not hyperbole either, think what I said is 60-70% accurate.
What does that mean?
It means the guys with 69 hours of CCTV footage of Trump drilling underage girls are not at all happy how peace “negotiations” are going and realizing Epstein’s BFF can’t save Putin no matter how much Kompromat they threaten him with…
PS - not hyperbole either, think what I said is 60-70% accurate.
This was published the day before the invasion.
Vladimir Putin’s Revisionist History of Russia and Ukraine
The historian Serhii Plokhy discusses the Russian President’s “very imperial idea” of his country, and the potential for Ukrainian resistance.In the past several days, Russian military activity in eastern Ukraine has escalated, with threats of a larger invasion looming. Vladimir Putin has made clear that he believes Ukraine has no historical claim to independent statehood; on Monday, he went as far as to say that modern Ukraine was “entirely created by Russia.” Putin’s statements bristle with frustration with American and European leaders for what he perceives as bringing Ukraine into the Western orbit after the end of the Cold War. But at the heart of his anger is a rejection of the political project embodied in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For years, Putin has questioned the legitimacy of former Soviet republics, claiming that Lenin planted a “time bomb” by allowing them self-determination in the early years of the U.S.S.R. In his speeches, he appears to be attempting to turn back the clock, not to the heyday of Soviet Communism but to the time of an imperial Russia.
I recently spoke by phone with Serhii Plokhy, a professor of Ukrainian and Eastern European history at Harvard and the author of “The Gates of Europe,” an account of the emergence of Ukrainian identity. (His forthcoming book is “Atoms and Ashes: A Global History of Nuclear Disasters.”) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the long-standing sources of Russian fears about Ukrainian language and identity, how Ukrainians might respond to further Russian incursions, and what Putin’s speech tells us about the complex relationship between the two nations.
How far back do you trace a type of Ukrainian identity that we would recognize today?
It depends on what element of that identity you are speaking of. If you are talking about language, that would be pretty much primordial. In terms of an identity with religious components, that would be more than a thousand years old. But the first modern Ukrainian political project started in the mid-nineteenth century, as with many other groups. The problem that Ukraine had was that it was divided between two powers: the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary. And, very early, the Russian Empire recognized the threat posed by a separate and particularly literary Ukrainian language to the unity of the empire. So, starting in the eighteen-sixties, there was a more than forty-year period of prohibition on the publication of Ukrainian, basically arresting the development of the literary language. That, along with the position between the two powers, was a contributing factor to the fact that, in the middle of World War One and revolution, with other nationalities trying and in some cases gaining independence, Ukrainians tried to do that but were ultimately defeated.
Why was Russia so threatened by Ukrainian identity and, specifically, language? Was it just typical imperial distrust and dislike of minority groups or languages?
The Russians were looking at what was happening in Europe at that time—in France in particular, where there was an idea to create one language out of different dialects or languages, which was seen as directly related to the unity of the state. So that is global. What is specific and certainly resonates today is the idea that there is this one big Russian or Slavic nation, with maybe different tribes, but, basically, they are the same nation. That is the model, from the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, which Vladimir Putin now subscribes to when he says Ukraine has no legitimacy as a nation. There is a direct connection with what is happening today.
You recently wrote, “The Soviet Union was created in 1922-1923 as a pseudo-federal rather than a unitary state precisely in order to accommodate Ukraine and Georgia, the two most independent-minded republics.” Can you talk more about this?
The Bolsheviks took control of most of the Russian Empire by recognizing, at least pro forma, the independence of the different republics that they were including. And, until 1922, Ukraine was briefly an independent country or state. When the Bolsheviks signed a 1922 agreement with Germany, the Treaty of Rapallo, questions emerged from Ukrainians as to why the representatives of the Russian Federation had any rights to sign agreements for them. They decided that something had to be done, and so they discussed creating a unified state. Stalin’s idea was to have unity with different republics joining. Lenin sided with the Ukrainians and Georgians who protested against that, saying that they should create a “union state,” because his vision was for world revolution.
The rest….
Vladimir Putin’s Revisionist History of Russia and Ukraine
The historian Serhii Plokhy discusses the Russian President’s “very imperial idea” of his country, and the potential for Ukrainian resistance.
Ok. How about Russia attacked Ukraine.
Can I live in your world? Are the colors brighter?
I can't believe the Democrats did this!!
Dude you need to stick to maggot subjects, like hating minorities and gay people.
Leave history for the big boys.
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
Someone needs to study the Minsk agreements and the history of Russian aggression. As to wanting to join NATO, here is an analogy:
Let’s say your little brother is getting the shit kicked out of him by a much older, larger bully. The little guy says he wants to hang out with you (the big brother) so he stops getting beat up. But you refuse to let him join you. Your argument is that the little guy is to blame and not the bully? What kind of warped world do you live in. Ukraine didn’t start this war…this is all on Putin.
Yeah Putin literally wrote a manifesto on this before he invaded. It’s all in that writing on why he invadedThis was published the day before the invasion.
Vladimir Putin’s Revisionist History of Russia and Ukraine
The historian Serhii Plokhy discusses the Russian President’s “very imperial idea” of his country, and the potential for Ukrainian resistance.
In the past several days, Russian military activity in eastern Ukraine has escalated, with threats of a larger invasion looming. Vladimir Putin has made clear that he believes Ukraine has no historical claim to independent statehood; on Monday, he went as far as to say that modern Ukraine was “entirely created by Russia.” Putin’s statements bristle with frustration with American and European leaders for what he perceives as bringing Ukraine into the Western orbit after the end of the Cold War. But at the heart of his anger is a rejection of the political project embodied in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For years, Putin has questioned the legitimacy of former Soviet republics, claiming that Lenin planted a “time bomb” by allowing them self-determination in the early years of the U.S.S.R. In his speeches, he appears to be attempting to turn back the clock, not to the heyday of Soviet Communism but to the time of an imperial Russia.
I recently spoke by phone with Serhii Plokhy, a professor of Ukrainian and Eastern European history at Harvard and the author of “The Gates of Europe,” an account of the emergence of Ukrainian identity. (His forthcoming book is “Atoms and Ashes: A Global History of Nuclear Disasters.”) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the long-standing sources of Russian fears about Ukrainian language and identity, how Ukrainians might respond to further Russian incursions, and what Putin’s speech tells us about the complex relationship between the two nations.
How far back do you trace a type of Ukrainian identity that we would recognize today?
It depends on what element of that identity you are speaking of. If you are talking about language, that would be pretty much primordial. In terms of an identity with religious components, that would be more than a thousand years old. But the first modern Ukrainian political project started in the mid-nineteenth century, as with many other groups. The problem that Ukraine had was that it was divided between two powers: the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary. And, very early, the Russian Empire recognized the threat posed by a separate and particularly literary Ukrainian language to the unity of the empire. So, starting in the eighteen-sixties, there was a more than forty-year period of prohibition on the publication of Ukrainian, basically arresting the development of the literary language. That, along with the position between the two powers, was a contributing factor to the fact that, in the middle of World War One and revolution, with other nationalities trying and in some cases gaining independence, Ukrainians tried to do that but were ultimately defeated.
Why was Russia so threatened by Ukrainian identity and, specifically, language? Was it just typical imperial distrust and dislike of minority groups or languages?
The Russians were looking at what was happening in Europe at that time—in France in particular, where there was an idea to create one language out of different dialects or languages, which was seen as directly related to the unity of the state. So that is global. What is specific and certainly resonates today is the idea that there is this one big Russian or Slavic nation, with maybe different tribes, but, basically, they are the same nation. That is the model, from the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, which Vladimir Putin now subscribes to when he says Ukraine has no legitimacy as a nation. There is a direct connection with what is happening today.
You recently wrote, “The Soviet Union was created in 1922-1923 as a pseudo-federal rather than a unitary state precisely in order to accommodate Ukraine and Georgia, the two most independent-minded republics.” Can you talk more about this?
The Bolsheviks took control of most of the Russian Empire by recognizing, at least pro forma, the independence of the different republics that they were including. And, until 1922, Ukraine was briefly an independent country or state. When the Bolsheviks signed a 1922 agreement with Germany, the Treaty of Rapallo, questions emerged from Ukrainians as to why the representatives of the Russian Federation had any rights to sign agreements for them. They decided that something had to be done, and so they discussed creating a unified state. Stalin’s idea was to have unity with different republics joining. Lenin sided with the Ukrainians and Georgians who protested against that, saying that they should create a “union state,” because his vision was for world revolution.
The rest….
Vladimir Putin’s Revisionist History of Russia and Ukraine
The historian Serhii Plokhy discusses the Russian President’s “very imperial idea” of his country, and the potential for Ukrainian resistance.www.newyorker.com
I just don’t get the motivation for taking Russia’s side. You don’t support funding Ukraine, fine, You think Ukraine is corrupt, fine. But taking the step of actually attempting to justify Russia invading Ukraine is bizarre.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep 126 Iowa Women COMPETE w/ OSU, Will MBB Make the B1G Tourney?- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
