Nothing will change until Trump sees the truth about Putin

From Radio Moldova:

"General Shirreff: Trump-Putin summit was a failure

Published 16.08.2025

"Joining NATO is the only way to end the war in Ukraine," asserts General Sir Richard Shirreff, as quoted by Sky News.

The former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO said he was disappointed with the outcome of the Trump-Putin summit. Shirreff stated that the United States would have had "every right" to arrest Vladimir Putin upon his arrival in Alaska, "stuff him in an orange jumpsuit, and send him to The Hague in chains."

Instead, the general contends, the Americans "rolled out the red carpet" for the Russian leader, even though Putin "did absolutely nothing" to end the war in Ukraine.

Shirreff maintains that the only way for Ukraine to get a guarantee to stop Russia from continuing its plans is by joining NATO.

"Will Putin accept that? No. No way. No chance. The only way he'll accept it is if he's forced to," he said.

"This means Russia must suffer a hard blow and be defeated. And that is, at this moment,a million miles away. I don’t see any prospect of the war ending," the general noted, adding that "the war will continue."

"Ukrainian cities will continue to be attacked with drones and missiles, and Ukrainian civilians will continue to be killed. Meanwhile, the diplomatic dance will continue. Until Trump acknowledges that the only way to stop this war is to force Russia to accept what the West and Ukraine want, nothing will change," underscored General Richard Shirreff, according to Sky News.

Despite the unusually warm welcome extended by Donald Trump to the Kremlin leader—including a red carpet, smiles, handshakes, and a shared limousine ride—Vladimir Putin made no concessions and appears to be maintaining harsh conditions for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Most German commentators believe the Alaska summit was a failure for Trump, Deutsche Welle reports.

According to the source, pressure on Ukraine is increasing: In an interview with Fox News, Trump stated that he advises Ukraine "to accept a deal." This could reflect Moscow's demand for the withdrawal of Ukrainian Armed Forces from four regions that Russia "included in its composition" in 2022 but did not fully conquer: Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.

Media outlets also highlighted Putin's statements, made after closed-door negotiations with Trump, in which he expressed hope that "in Kyiv and European capitals," Russia's "path to peace" would be seen constructively and that "obstacles would not be placed." Analysts interpret these statements as an attempt by Russia to create divisions between the US and Ukraine along with its European partners.

At the same time, pressure on Europe seems to be growing after the Alaska summit: Trump briefly mentioned that a "modest agreement" from the Europeans is necessary to resolve the disputed issues. Many officials in Brussels and European capitals perceived this as a cause for concern.

"Let’s not fool ourselves," remarked political scientist Nico Lange. "The Trump–Putin negotiations have destabilised the situation to the detriment of Ukraine and European security." The expert urged German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to travel to Washington with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on August 18 to "prevent further pressure" on Ukraine to capitulate.

European and liberal American media are calling the meeting of the two leaders a victory for Vladimir Putin, the Russian service of BBC News headlines.

"The meeting at Elmendorf-Richardson military base in Anchorage transformed Putin from a pariah of the West into a guest of honor on American soil," writes the British publication The Economist.

"Putin got what he wanted from this meeting," the Spanish publication El País agrees: a warm welcome and honors from the leader of a world power, the United States, all without any concessions on his part."

 

After Alaska, it will become only worse

Oleksander Kovalenko in the Obozrevatel, Aug. 16:

"Things won't get any better after the meeting in Alaska

If anyone expected a breakthrough from Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's meeting in Alaska, they were the same people who sincerely believed the 47th US President could stop the war in 24 hours. But, as a result of the meeting, not only did we fail to see any results, but we also saw signs of a worsening overall situation, and here's why. 

I've been tirelessly repeating for the last week that the meeting will have zero efficiency, but I didn't specify. Zero efficiency for the entire civilized world, but for Putin himself and all totalitarian regimes, it's just the opposite.

The level of the meeting, with its red carpet, handshakes, smiles, and compliments, legitimized Putin—or, more accurately, legitimized his war crimes. Donald Trump continued to open his chest of demons, some of which had already had a chance to briefly escape—Kashmir and the Philippine Sea.

Those like Putin, and Putin himself, have clearly seen that you won't be arrested or punished with isolation, sanctions, or police missions for bloodshed and crimes; instead, you'll be negotiated with, the red carpet will be rolled out for you, American taxpayers' money will be spent on you, and you'll be fed halibut.

This night, totalitarian regimes once again saw the weakness of what was once a beacon of democracy, but today is an amorphous, overseas partner.

The meeting went brilliantly – for Putin, who will continue the bloodshed in Ukraine, with no plans to stop it, but with even greater zeal and conviction of his impunity. Any ceasefire is a step toward an even more brutal and bloody war. It is precisely the lack of any meaningful consequences over the past six months that has led dictatorships, sensing Donald Trump's weakness, to increasingly display force. Impunity and the lack of accountability for crimes are the worst features of the modern world.

The Alaskan meeting didn't just bring the world to a dangerous point; it crossed it. Things won't get better. They'll only get worse."      

In Alaska, Putin got his way

From the Telegraph / Yahoo!News:

"Putin got exactly what he wanted from Trump

Dominic Nicholls, August 16, 2025 

 

 The press conference was called after about three hours of talks... Putin spoke first and went out of his way to list as many examples of common ground he shared with Mr Trump as he could. In a speech that could have been written a year ago, we were treated to a canter through shared Soviet and American experiences in the Second World War... Mr Trump, whether he liked it or not, was reminded of the “common enemy” Russia and America had fought together, of their “common heritage”... 

This was a “long overdue meeting” Putin enthused, thoroughly in his stride. There were opportunities for bilateral trade, space and arctic exploration, loads of stuff, if only we could get past the pesky issue of Ukraine, he seemed to be saying. “It is important for our countries to turn the page,” he said.

Of course he did, he’s desperate for the page titled ‘war’ to be turned. He took a swipe at Joe Biden (‘I tried to reach out, I was rebuffed’) and said there would be no problem in Ukraine if Mr Trump had been in charge in 2022. It was all as obvious as it was depressing.

In his (very short) response, Mr Trump called Putin “the boss” at one point, which sent a ripple through the audience. This was not what those wanting Putin to be held to account for his war wanted to hear...

To finish, Putin, speaking in English, invited his “neighbour” Donald to another meeting in Moscow. He was speaking over the heads of Ukrainian and European leaders; they were irrelevant to him, he wanted to make it clear they were to Trump as well.

And then it was over. The two men exited stage right... 

The White House had laid on the full dog and pony show – on the ground, a red carpet for Putin’s first steps in ten years on US soil followed by a ride with Mr Trump in The Beast. In the air, a five-ship formation flypast of a B-2 bomber flanked on either side by a pair of F-22 Raptor fighters. Coming just hours after Russian forces in Ukraine had bombed a market in the northern city of Sumy, the images will be hard to stomach for many people around the world...

The sight of American soldiers kneeling before Putin’s plane to secure the red carpet to the Tarmac is an image that will appall many.

Critics of Mr Trump, Putin or both will see it as a craven act by a weak president courting favour with a man considered a war criminal... As the circus drew to a close, Putin had succeeded in getting his handshake with the US president. He would feel he had shown the world Russia was back where it belongs - at the top table of global politics. He would be glad his actions had drawn no consequences.

If European leaders don’t act to support Ukraine after this, they will have to answer to history." 

 

ISW: Putin has not changed his imperialist ideology since 2021

From the Institute for the Study of War:

"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 15, 2025

...Putin said nothing in the joint press conference to indicate that he has moderated either his war aims or his willingness to compromise on them and reiterated language he has used since 2021 to justify Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Putin again demonstrated that he has not changed his views on Ukrainian sovereignty since 2021 and remains disinterested in serious peace negotiations with Ukraine. Putin used the joint press conference following the August 15 Alaska summit to evoke the Kremlin’s long-standing narrative that Russia and Ukraine share the “same roots” and that Russia considers Ukraine to be a “brotherly” nation.[8] Putin published an essay on the “Historic Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” in July 2021, in which he similarly ideologized that Ukrainians and Belarusians have always belonged to the Russian nation because of their shared “historical and spiritual space.”[9] ISW previously assessed that the essay, which Putin published less than a month after meeting with then-US President Joe Biden in Geneva in June 2021, was an ultimatum to Kyiv as it openly questioned Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Putin stated in the essay that Ukraine was a ”product of the Soviet era shaped on the lands of historical Russia,” and reiterated these arguments in his February 2022 declaration of war against Ukraine as a justification for his full-scale invasion of Ukraine.[10] The continuity between Putin’s statements at the August 15 press conference with Trump and his previous statements demonstrates that he remains committed to the view that Ukraine’s existence as a state and territorial integrity depend on Ukraine’s alignment with Russia..."

Negotiating with Hitler vs Putin

From the Hill, just before the August summit in Alaska:

"Trump must not give anything away in Alaska

by Dov S. Zakheim, opinion contributor - 08/14/25

Many commentators have likened President Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to the 1938 Munich meeting between Adolf Hitler, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Eduard Daladier over the fate of Czechoslovakia. There certainly are similarities.

The Munich meeting took place without the presence of Czech President Edvard Benes, and the Alaska summit will not include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And there is widespread fear, especially in Europe, that Trump will yield to Putin’s demands for Ukrainian territory — both that which his armed forces have already seized in Crimea and the oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, and those still held by Ukraine there and in the oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

As the Institute for the Study of War points out, should Putin successfully obtain control of all four oblasts — and especially all of Donetsk, which contains what the Institute terms Ukraine’s “fortress belt” — he would control several potential vectors of attack on the remainder of Ukraine. This would enable Russian forces to seize the country, just as Hitler ultimately took all of Czechoslovakia.

Yet there are significant differences as well. Hitler was determined to seize the Sudetenland, and ultimately all of Czechoslovakia, without firing a shot. He had already effectively incorporated Austria that way in the 1936 Anschluss. And he succeeded in doing so.

While Putin also wants to be handed over territories that his forces have not yet occupied without having to fight for them — in this regard following Hitler’s precedent — he faces a very different set of circumstances.

Russian forces have been fighting a determined Ukrainian military since February 2022. Moreover, despite ceaseless and heavy bombardment of Ukrainian formations and military infrastructure, coupled with terror attacks on cities and civilian institutions, Russia has gained remarkably little territory over the past three years of intense combat.

Furthermore, just as Putin mistakenly thought that a Spetsnaz (special forces) attack on Kyiv at the start of the war would decapitate the Ukrainian leadership and install a pliant pro-Russian regimen, he also appears to have erroneously thought that Russian-speaking Ukrainians, many of them in the four provinces he seeks to annex, would also take Moscow’s side. Yet Russia’s attacks have actually united most of Ukraine’s population, most notably those selfsame Russian speakers who once held positive attitudes toward Moscow.

For its part, Ukraine not only has limited Russian advances in over three years of war, it has inflicted severe damage to Russia’s military infrastructure, hit targets deep inside Russia including Moscow and has killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers and North Korean personnel.

Still another difference relates to Ukraine’s neighbors and partners. Whereas the leading European powers in 1938 hastily acquiesced to Hitler’s demands, France, Germany, Britain, the Nordic and Baltic states and the European Union have all made it clear that they stand by Kyiv’s determination to preserve its territorial integrity and that Ukraine must have a seat at any table that would determine its future.

In addition, NATO has not closed the door on the prospect, however remote, of Ukrainian accession; Putin wants that door shut tight and permanently.

That Trump has spoken of concessions in the form of land swaps, while Putin has never indicated anything like an exchange of territory, has deepened European concerns that a deal would legitimate a Russian land grab. It also worries Europeans that Trump is so eager to achieve an agreement, regardless of how its terms affect Ukraine, because he covets the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian parliament; since Norwegians generally view Trump unfavorably, it is highly unlikely that the Committee would ever award him the prize.

Hitler interpreted Daladier and Chamberlain’s willingness to fold at Munich as a signal that he would not encounter British opposition to either his seizure of all of Czechoslovakia or his planned attack on Poland. He viewed both men as “poor worms,” and Nazi documents released subsequent to World War II reveal that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as so weak that he worried that British prime minister would preemptively give away Poland, thereby robbing Germany of the ability to seize the country by force.

Trump needs to demonstrate to Putin when they meet in Alaska that he is no Neville Chamberlain. He must avoid any giveaway to the Russian dictator, which would only whet Putin’s clearly insatiable appetite for more conquests, be they remainder of Ukraine, neutral Moldova or one of NATO’s Baltic members.

As Hitler sought “lebensraum” — “living space” for Germans — Putin seeks to restore the Czarist Empire. Whatever the term, the objective was and is the same: territorial expansion.

It took a global war to stop Hitler. Hopefully, a strong-willed Trump will obviate the prospect of another devastating conflict.

Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987."

Trump calls his abuse of weaker parties "deal"

From the Bulwark / Yahoo!News:

"Trump’s Message to Victimized Countries: You Know You Want It

Will Saletan, August 13, 2025

ON MONDAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED a federal takeover of law enforcement in Washington, D.C. He said the director of the U.S. Marshals Service would take control of police operations, get “tough,” and clean up the city. As reporters in the White House briefing room looked on, saying nothing, Trump concluded: “Everybody in this room, they may not express it, but they all want that to happen.”

That’s how Trump thinks about consent: Even if you don’t grant it, he presumes it. He has talked this way about women he allegedly groped, countries he tariffed, and foreign populations whose lands he tried to annex. Now, as he prepares to meet with Vladimir Putin, he’s applying the same coercive arrogance to the country Putin wants to dismember: Ukraine...

This year, as he returned to the White House, Trump set out to grab land, starting with Canada and Greenland. In polls, Greenlanders said they didn’t want to be annexed. But Trump tried to take their territory anyway. He claimed that “the people of Greenland would love to become a state of the United States of America.”

Likewise, Canadians said overwhelmingly that they didn’t want to join the United States. But Trump tried to pressure them into submission. “A lot of people in Canada are liking becoming our beautiful, cherished fifty-first state,” he insisted.

Meanwhile, Trump strong-armed Ukraine into giving the United States a share of its mineral wealth. To extract this agreement, he temporarily choked off Ukraine’s access to military aid and intelligence as it battled the Russian invasion.

On Truth Social, Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “move fast or he is not going to have a Country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia.” In an outrageous Oval Office confrontation in February, Trump warned Zelensky to cough up the minerals: “You’re either going to make a deal, or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.”

THEN TRUMP TURNED HIS BULLYING to America’s trade partners. On April 2, he announced extortionate tariffs. When the markets plunged, he changed his plan, promising what the White House billed as “90 deals in 90 days.” But the “deals” turned out to be another case of Trump pretending to get consent.

By April 22, there was no visible progress on trade agreements. Nevertheless, in an interview with Time, Trump said he was done. “I’ve made all the deals,” he asserted. “I’ve made 200 deals.” The interviewers asked him when the deals would be announced. “Over the next three to four weeks,” he replied. “We’ll be finished.”

By May 6, there were still no deals. Trump said reporters should “stop asking” about them. Soon, he predicted, “We’ll give you a hundred deals.” (What happened to the other hundred?) “And they don’t have to sign.”

They don’t have to sign? What kind of deal is that?

Gradually, it became clear that Trump was redefining the term. By May 23, more than four weeks after the Time interview, only Britain had confirmed a trade agreement. But Trump claimed that he also had a deal with the European Union. “We’ve set the deal. It’s at 50 percent,” he said. By 50 percent, he meant his unilateral tariff on the E.U. And by “we,” he meant himself. The E.U. had agreed to nothing.

Trump defined “deal” to mean whatever tariff rate he dictated. On June 17, he declared, “We’re actually finished with every deal, if you really think about it. Because all I have to do is say, ‘This is what you’re going to pay.’” On June 29, he added, “We’ll send a letter, and we’ll say . . . ‘You’ll pay a 25 percent tariff, and we wish you a lot of luck.’ And that’s the end of the trade deal.”

Through this ruse, Trump pretended to meet his ninety-day deadline. He issued tariff letters in early July and announced, “The letters are the deals. The deals are made.” By continuing to export products to the United States, he argued, other countries were, in effect, consenting: “They pay that tariff, and that is a contract, essentially.”

At various points in the trade standoffs, when other countries seemed to be retaliating or holding out, Trump—with the same confidence he has often expressed about women’s interest in him—assured the world that the uncooperative countries secretly wanted to please him. When China slapped him with retaliatory tariffs in April, he insisted, “China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how quite to go about it.”

NOW UKRAINE IS BACK in the crosshairs.

Last week, after talks with Putin, Trump began to dictate terms for a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. “There’ll be some swapping of territories,” he said. Zelensky rejected that idea, but Trump brushed him aside. On Monday, the American president repeated, “There’ll be some land swapping.”

Trump said he would “reveal” a proposed agreement crafted by Putin: “I’m going to meet with President Putin, and we’re going to see what he has in mind. And if it’s a fair deal, I’ll reveal it to the European Union leaders and to the NATO leaders and also to President Zelensky.”

If Zelensky didn’t accept the deal or find a way to appease Putin, he’d be in big trouble, Trump warned. “I’ve seen a poll coming out of Ukraine,” said Trump. “Eighty-eight percent of the people would like to see a deal made.” The real number, according to Gallup, is 69 percent. But exaggerating it is part of Trump’s strategy. He’s trying to undercut Zelensky and force him to settle.

Trump also signaled that if Zelensky didn’t agree to a deal, Trump would blame the war on him. “I disagree with what he’s done—very, very severely disagree. This is a war that should have never happened,” said Trump. He accused Zelensky of having chosen “to go into war and kill everybody.” It’s victim-blaming, plain and simple.

This is how Trump has lived his whole life. He stiffs contractors and makes them accept whatever he’ll pay. He announces tariffs and calls them “deals.” He shakes down an ally for its minerals and calls it a “partnership.” He tells a victim nation to cede land and calls it a “swap.”

When you’re the president of the United States, they let you do it."

***

I wonder, however, after such "deals", how many allies America will have when it needs them. 

Zelensky: America is pressuring Ukraine to cede territory while offering no guarantees

Zelensky's statement to journalists - from UNIAN, Aug. 12 but could be today as well:

"Of course, I'd like to see America's position given how it all began: our territory was occupied, Ukrainians were being killed, and then they told me, "To stop them from killing you again, you need to leave." But what security guarantees? Withdraw from Donetsk Oblast? What's the compromise? Will we join NATO? The EU? I haven't heard anything—simply not a single proposal—that would guarantee that a new war won't start tomorrow and Putin won't try to occupy Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, or Kharkiv. He's already started two wars under different American presidents. What's to stop him from starting a third?

The Russian Federation is the largest territory in the world. So, it's not a territorial issue. What is Putin doing? He wants to occupy our country, not for territorial reasons. He doesn't want a sovereign Ukraine. And if kilometers aren't the issue, then what's the point of withdrawing from the nine thousand square kilometers of Donetsk that we currently control? Is it simply to help him prepare a new military operation? That means we need security guarantees that will, first and foremost, preserve our state, our sovereign state, our independence.

These questions need to be answered by those making the decisions, and then it will be easier. Then the conditions Putin sets will be perceived differently.  For example, I perceive them differently. He wrote Ukrainian land into his Constitution: so what? He wrote the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions into his Constitution. So, he will continue? No, he says he won't continue. What do you mean, 'he says'? And why won't he? And who's standing there? What fence? 'America, will you stand here, will your bases be here?' 'No,' the 'Russians' say, 'there can't be bases there.' It can't? So, are you afraid of American bases? Afraid the Americans will attack? 'The Russians say, 'No, we're not afraid of that.' Oh, you're not afraid? You just want to attack and don't want the Americans there? 'Yes.' What are we talking about?"

Trump: Russia can defeat the USA in a war

From Ukrainska Pravda, Aug. 11:

"Trump described Orbán as "a smart man that some people like and some people don't like".

He said that he asked Orbán whether Ukraine could defeat Russia.

"He looked at me like, 'What a stupid question.' He said, 'Russia is a massive country and they win their country and they win their life through wars. They fight wars. That's what they do.' He said, 'China beats you with trade. Russia beats you with war.' That was a very interesting statement," Trump said."

***

Both "smart men that some people don't like" seem to have forgotten that e.g. Afghanistan defeated Russia. But I am sure that Russia can indeed defeat the USA as long as Trump is US president.

Trump falsely blames the mud for the Russian failure to take Kyiv

From the CNN:

"Fact check: Trump falsely claims no other president has ever ended a war

By Daniel Dale, Oct 17, 2025

...Trump repeated his previous fake history about Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, saying that Russia failed to win the war in a mere week because it decided to invade through muddy ground rather than simply using highways.

“They got stuck in the mud. They would’ve been in Kyiv very quickly. They were heading to Kyiv,” adding moments later, “That was a very interesting moment. When the tanks started rolling and some brilliant general said, ‘Let’s go through the mud instead of going down the highway.’ Right? So they got a little bit lucky.” 

This is not what happened, as military analysts and various Ukrainians have pointed out since the president began making similar claims earlier in the year. In reality, Russia tried and failed to make it to Kyiv using roads and highways. Its tanks were thwarted by fierce Ukrainian resistance and logistical problems in addition to muddy conditions. 

“Russian forces used roads and highways as much as possible during the initial invasion, and took heavy losses on many of them. Russian tanks did get stuck in the mud during the initial invasion, but this was often after they struggled to advance along roads,” said Rob Lee, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Eurasia Program who has closely followed military tactics during the war. “One of the factors that hindered Russia’s invasion is that there were not many good highways and roads leading from Belarus to Kyiv, which canalized their forces.” 

When CNN asked the White House for comment in August, an official responding on condition of anonymity noted that Russian tanks did get stuck in mud during and even before the invasion. The official provided links to some articles that mentioned this happening. 

When CNN asked the White House for comment in August, an official responding on condition of anonymity noted that Russian tanks did get stuck in mud during and even before the invasion. The official provided links to some articles that mentioned this happening.

But even one of those articles clearly contradicted Trump’s claims that Russia didn’t make it to Kyiv because it chose not to use highways. The article said, “The Russians invaded using Ukraine’s major highways expecting a blitzkrieg-like attack that would leverage speed and overwhelming firepower to capture the capital city of Kyiv.”"

The same author adding on Aug. 15: 

Trump’s phony narrative about the Russian invasion is only the latest in a long line of false claims from the president about the war. Among other things, Trump has this year:

• Repeatedly used imaginary figures to incorrectly make it seem as if the US has provided far more aid to Ukraine than Europe has; the opposite is true.

• Falsely said he was speaking “in jest” and being “sarcastic” when he solemnly promised dozens of times during his 2024 campaign to immediately end the war if he was elected.

• Used inaccurate numbers to understate Ukrainians’ support for President Volodymyr Zelensky early in the year and overstate their support for a negotiated end to the war today.

• Falsely claimed Ukraine started the war that was actually started by Russia.

• Falsely claimed Zelensky admitted half of US aid money went missing, though Zelensky made no such comment..."

 ***

Trump is not going to acknowledge that it was the heroic resistance of Ukrainians that stopped the Russian invaders, because he hates Ukrainians and wants them destroyed. 

Trump accused Zelensky in "going into war and killing everybody"

From the Hill / Yahoo!News:

"Trump knocks Zelensky for resisting ‘land swap’ with Russia

Ellen Mitchell, August 11, 2025

President Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday over the leader’s resistance to cede territory to Russia, saying he disagrees “very, very severely” with Zelensky.

“I get along with Zelensky, but, you know, I disagree with what he’s done. Very, very severely disagree. This is a war that should have never happened,” Trump told reporters at the White House, referring to Russia’s more than three-year war in Ukraine.

In an attempt to broker an end to the conflict, Trump announced last week he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.

Trump has said the meeting will touch on some territorial swapping for “the betterment of both” countries, a proposal Zelensky staunchly opposed Saturday.

“Of course, we will not give Russia any awards for what it has done. The Ukrainian people deserve peace,” he said, adding that “all partners” must understand peace and that “Ukrainians will not give their land to an occupier.”

Trump said he was perturbed by the Ukrainian leader’s resistance.

“I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelensky was saying, ‘Well, I have to get constitutional approval.’ I mean, he’s got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap — because there’ll be some land swapping going on,” Trump said.

He added that the land swap will be “for the good of Ukraine”...

Zelensky has not been invited to the summit with Putin."

***

Of course the proposed swap of Ukrainian territories for Ukrainian territories would NOT be good for Ukraine. And it was Trump's beloved Putin who "went to war to kill everybody", Zelensky only led his country's defense.

As a commenter said, "There is a serious issue with the way this is being handled, any negotiation that doesn't include Ukraine is going to fail. Trump so far is only negotiating with Russia and telling Ukraine what they are going to do. That's not going to work." 

 

 

Ukraine giving up land to Russia would lead to a catastrophe

Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Portnikov in the Dialog:

"Western partners are interested in Ukraine fighting to the end

If Russia gains Ukrainian territories without even seizing them, it will become a major problem for the entire world, as Putin and his ilk will realize that they can not only take what belongs to others with impunity, but also achieve their land-grabbing goals even through non-military means, explained Vitaly Portnikov. Portnikov spoke about this on the "And Graham Came" YouTube channel. 

The publicist first explained why territorial compromise with Russia is absolutely unacceptable: "If Trump accepts the idea that the Ukrainian army can abandon territories controlled by the legitimate Ukrainian government without a fight, where there isn't a single Russian soldier, this will only expand the aggressor's appetite, and not just at Ukraine's expense, because it will become clear to everyone that it is possible to seize territory and then legitimize its efforts not only by force but also legally."

"This is a very dangerous path, and I have always been convinced that it is in the West's interests to support Ukraine's desire to fight, even if Ukraine itself were willing to cede territory to Russia. It would have to be restrained with all possible force. We would have to say, 'We will help you, we will give you weapons, but please fight for your territories, because preserving international law is important to us.' If the Ukrainian leadership said we don't have the strength, then the response should have been, 'We will help you with strength, we will help you with money. Please fight, because otherwise there will be a catastrophe,'" Vitaly Portnikov expressed his view of the situation."  

Russian propaganda using the misery in occupied Donetsk to make Russians feel happy by comparison

 Translating from the Dialog:

"Media: Russia has begun using Donetsk in a new way as a negative example for Russians

Occupied Donetsk, once one of Ukraine's most prosperous regions, has become a zone of communal collapse, now used by Russian propaganda as a bogeyman and an example that life in Russia is "not that bad." Russian propagandists are urging Russians to tolerate domestic problems, "since things are much worse in Donetsk." This is according to journalist Denis Kazansky, who drew attention to the confessions of Russian propagandist Alexander Kots on Komsomolskaya Pravda radio. 

"Kots calls on Russian residents not to complain about disruptions to air travel and internet service and to be patient. He says that in Donetsk, they've been living for 11 years without planes, without water, or decent internet, and nothing's happened. First, they turned Donbas into a cesspool, and now they're threatening their own citizens with it. Amazing..." the journalist writes... 

According to Kazansky, Russian propagandists are exploiting the situation in Donetsk for domestic audiences, claiming that amid the devastation in the occupied city, Russians must "endure" flight cancellations, communication outages, and declining living standards. This approach, according to the journalist, demonstrates the cynicism of the authorities, who promised prosperity to Donbas but turned it into a survival zone."

JD Vance: We Americans will no longer fund the war we enabled, we'll profit from it

 US Vice President JD Vance on X:

"Americans, I think, are sick of continuing to send their money, their tax dollars. If the Europeans want to step up and actually buy the weapons from American producers, we're OK with that — but we're not going to fund it ourselves anymore."

In other words, after the USA disarmed Ukraine with the Budapest Memorandum, enabling Russia to attack it, not only has the US aid been woefully insufficient but now it is stopped altogether. But the USA will mercifully sell weapons to Europeans in order to profit nicely from the war that would not have started if it (the USA) had not disarmed Ukraine. Land of the free and home of the brave? No, land of evil losers and backstabbers, preying on their allies like hyenas or vultures.

Journalist Michael Sheitelman commented: "Is Vance a friend of Ukraine? No, he's not. More like "enemy." That's a fact. Then he says, "We are stopping funding this war." Let's put it this way: Vance, even before he was vice president, said, "We will not fund this war." He wrote it, and America doesn't actually fund it. We know that Europe is paying for the weapons. We must get used to the idea that Vance exists and that he thinks this way. Yes, he's an influential man, but he's already used all his influence to stop arms supplies to us. He's achieved his goal. So much for Vance. We've already had all the negatives from Vance. They're already there. There won't be any more. They're already like this. He's taken everything he could from us."