Donald Trump continues to suck up to the Russian president.

If Ukraine were to suddenly surrender to Russia, everything would be “much better,” at least according to Donald Trump.

During an afternoon press conference Wednesday, the Republican presidential nominee urged the Eastern European nation to submit to the foreign power, claiming that any deal, no matter how dismal for Ukraine’s freedom, would have been better than the current state of affairs.

“Ukraine is gone. It’s not Ukraine anymore. You can never replace those cities and towns, and you can never replace the dead people, so many dead people,” Trump said. “Any deal, even the worst deal, would have been better than what we have right now.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    55 minutes ago

    Well, he might be on to something.

    I’m studying world history for the first time and I’ve so far gotten to 1938 and while I know absolutely nothing that happened after that, so far it looks like this suggestion has worked with this Hitler fellow.

  • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    “you can never replace the dead people, so many dead people”

    Jfc this guy somehow made it? How about, “we can never replace the countless lives lost in this war, or repair the families that have been broken”

    Idk. Is it great? Nah, but I can type a thing in like 20 seconds and this orange potato just fuckin speaks like a middle school student. How the fuck

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    217
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Trumps plan to “solve russias war against ukraine” is to “give up”.

    Is this the man you want leading your country?

    Imagine FDR “solving ww2” by surrendering to japan and the nazis

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      15 hours ago

      If Chamberlain can give up Czeckoslovakia for “peace for our time”, and be remembered as a great man (or at least as a garage door opener) surely Trump can be remembered for all time by giving up Eastern Europe for profit for his time

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      This was his strategy in Afghanistan too!

      Arguably that was always going to end with a Taliban takeover, but we could’ve done that without giving them a leg up.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        44
        ·
        21 hours ago

        If only we’d continued our brutal occupation of Afghanistan another 20 years, maybe the regime would’ve lasted another two weeks after we left.

        Y’all are completely hopeless, enjoy your forever wars.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          Are people like this just incapable of grasping nuance? I can only definitively speak for myself, but I’m pretty sure nobody here wants forever wars (maybe there are some dumb tankies that think they want it)

          We all wanted out of Afghanistan, we just would prefer to have, you know, an actual plan.

          But you know that already, don’t you? Or are you actually that ignorant?

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            20 hours ago

            And what would that plan have looked like, exactly? How do you pull out of the country, watch the inevitable collapse of the regime you spent 20 years building, and hand the county over to your enemies without it being messy and getting egg on your face?

            It was inevitable that things would play out the way they did, and it needed to happen. Biden made the call and accepted the fallout for a completely necessary and good decision that everyone had been calling for for years. And yet, rather than taking credit for it, y’all want to try to shift it over to Trump! That’s insane to me.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              20 hours ago

              Did I ever claim to be a fucking expert on military operations? I don’t fucking know what that plan would look like. That doesn’t mean I’m ok with how it went down.

              It was absolutely not inevitable that it went down that way… Do you already forget how bad that shit was?

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                edit-2
                20 hours ago

                That’s a completely ridiculous stance. You have no alternative whatsoever to what happened, and as I pointed out, it was always going to be messy because it represented 20 years of total failure, but you’re criticizing it… why? Because the news told you to? The same news that lied us into the wars in the first place?

                I didn’t forget how bad the pullout was, I just also didn’t forget how bad the occupation was. Ending the war deserves enough props to outweigh any mistakes made in the pullout.

                • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  20 hours ago

                  I, someone who has no experience with military tactics whatsoever, personally, have no alternative and that means there must be no alternative.

                  I appreciate how much credit you’re giving me here… but no. Don’t be obtuse.

                  I know you’re smarter than that.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            20 hours ago

            If we had pulled out then, the regime we were propping up would instantly collapse and the withdrawal would’ve been messy and y’all would be criticizing Obama for pulling out the exact same way you’re criticizing the pullout the way it actually played out, because it was always going to play out the same way.

            • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Criticism >>>> More American soldiers dying in a pointless war

              Mike Gravel said it best:

              You know what’s worse than a soldier dying in vain? It’s more soldiers dying in vain.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                18 hours ago

                That quote directly contradicts you criticizing the stance of giving up on Afghanistan. I should be the one quoting it at you. I cannot make any sense of your position whatsoever.

                • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  Not giving up, tipping the scales to favor a terrorist organization. His “deal” gave the Taliban greater legitimacy, bolstered their numbers, and probably gave them all a good laugh as we held up our end and they almost immediately violated the agreement.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        23 hours ago

        To his credit, Chamberlain wasn’t as bad as he’s made out. When he implemented his policy of appeasement, Britain was not actually capable of meaningfully resisting nazi Germany. He basically brought time to bring Britain back to a war footing. When it became obvious to the public that war was coming, he fell on his sword. This cleared the way for Churchill to take charge, without significant infighting. He also inherited Britain on a far better war footing, and even then it was a close thing.

        Basically, Chamberlain knew his plan wouldn’t work long term. He took one “for king and country”, likely knowing how it would be perceived. I can at least respect him for that.

        • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I’m not arguing it was or wasn’t right for Britain position at the time. Just making the point we know, from direct history, a policy of appeasement does nothing to stop further advancement.

          • cynar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            It did though. Hitler could have gone after Britain and france earlier. However, he thought Britain was staying out of things, and so played more safe and slow. This brought Britain the time it needed. Hitler honestly didn’t expect Britain to declare war on him, and that slowed his assault on that front. If WW2 had gone serious even 6 months earlier, Britain would have been in serious trouble. The RAF would have collapsed under the luftwaffa, and WW2 would have been very different. Appeasement traded lives for time.

            Don’t get me wrong, it was a dick move, and threw others under the tanks tracks to save Britain. It’s also worth noting that this is not what Trump is trying to do. He’s just being a boot licker to the most powerful person who will talk to him. Appeasement at least had a positive goal.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              20 hours ago

              I think the person’s point is that the situations are not entirely analogous. For one, the US at the moment is certainly not “not on war footing,” nor do we need to buy time to build up forces.

              The only reason it “worked” for Britain in WW2 was due to the specific situation that you described; that they needed to buy time.

              I would not call that a useful strategy in any other circumstance.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Hitler could have gone after Britain and france earlier

              Hitler didn’t have a strong military in 1930’s either. It gave Hitler time to build.

              “The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort; the German forces involved in the move were small, compared to the much larger, and at the time more powerful, French military.”

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland#:~:text=On 7 March 1936%2C using,decided against enforcing the treaties.

        • qprimed@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          23 hours ago

          “how do you remove your hand from a lion’s mouth?”

          “very carefully.”

          • cynar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.

            • Will Rogers
  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Remember, that Putin has ambitions way beyond Ukraine. He will likely want the EU and NATO to pull out from CEE at minimum, if not those countries to join his empire in some way or another.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Where does that idea even come from?

      Ironically it’s the same logic Israel uses against the Palestinians. They want to destroy us and can’t be reasoned with, so it has to be total war.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 minutes ago

        Huge difference, Ukraine military operations were for a long time purely defensive, only engaging in their own territory. Now they are starting to target military facilities in Russian territory more with no evidince of excessive collatoral damage, which is still understandable. If Russia withdrew offensive forces, Ukraine would not be trying to ‘wipe out’ Russia.

        Versus Israel where just tremendous indiscriminate operations are inflicting more ‘collateral’ damage than what would be considered understandable targets for deliberate damage. I think the world might have been pretty fine with surgical incursions against Hamas and Hezbollah, but Israel has not displayed that discipline.

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Difference being: here it’s attributed to one man, Putin. Israel applies it to all Palestinians. Difference couldn’t be more obvious.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    17 hours ago

    “Launch codes, ownership of the United States, the souls of America’s first born. Ya know, just being reasonable here…” - Donny Turnip

  • krashmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I know a Ukrainan born US citizen with a significant amount of family still living in Ukraine who is also a Trump supporter. He hates Russia and wants Ukraine to maintain independence. I asked him a couple of weeks ago what he thought would happen to Ukraine if Trump was reelected and he said Ukraine would probably be left to fend for themselves. This statement did not come with remorse or condemnation, it was delivered in the same way you would describe the winner of a sporting event. A simple statement of fact.

    I don’t know how to respond to that kind of thinking. If the understanding that your vote might lead to the death of your family members doesn’t break through the political polarization in this country and make you reconsider then I don’t think anything will.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        So to him the potential to possibly pay less taxes is more important than his own child’s safety and right to exist.

        And that’s not even mentioning that there is like a 99.98% chance that nothing Trump does with respect to taxes will ever affect him (positively) in any way.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Yeah that’s a thing trans people are unfortunately used to as a community. I’m lucky to not be in such a situation, my ex father votes republican for all the reasons

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I was going to say that maybe the concept was too abstract for him, so the thought of losing family members to war didn’t even cross his mind. It could never happen to him, right?

      But then again, Ukraine has been at war with Russia for some time now. Surely he knows people who have perished in the war?

      Did he give you a reason why he supports Trump? Is it maybe a misogyny thing?

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I’ve known this guy for a long time. He’s grown up in rural America so he has all the same reasons for supporting Trump as those people typically do with the added oddity of being more impacted by the negative outcomes of those policies. Guns, immigration, general economic stuff. At least those are the reasons they’ll state publicly.

        It seems more like an in-group thing than anything else to me. I would have expected some sort of expression of disagreement with Trump on this particular issue but he says he thinks Democrats will do the same thing despite all evidence to the contrary. That is how he’s chosen to rationalize the situation.