MennoNet.com

Early on in the Russian war against Ukraine, some Americans were saying, "If Trump were President, this war would never have happened."
I think there are two reasons for those who believe this.
1. Trump and Putin seemed to hit it off as world leaders, and Putin would not have wanted to do something to hurt their "friendship".
2. Trump is not afraid of a fight. Putin would have been scared to do something that would have angered Trump. You never know what Trump is going to do next and Putin might not have wanted to find out.
Are these the only reasons that have been given?

Now methinks that if Trump is so influential, perhaps he could be given some role to get Putin to leave Ukraine.
If you agree, picture what this role would look like and what types of bipartisan cooperation might be needed in order make such a role actually take place.

If Trump were President I suspect he would have supported Russia's actions. Without US support of Ukraine the war might have ended much faster, with Russia's victory. People can argue whether that would have been a good thing or not.

Ernie wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 9:59 pm Early on in the Russian war against Ukraine, some Americans were saying, "If Trump were President, this war would never have happened."
I think there are two reasons for those who believe this.
1. Trump and Putin seemed to hit it off as world leaders, and Putin would not have wanted to do something to hurt their "friendship".
2. Trump is not afraid of a fight. Putin would have been scared to do something that would have angered Trump. You never know what Trump is going to do next and Putin might not have wanted to find out.
Are these the only reasons that have been given?

Now methinks that if Trump is so influential, perhaps he could be given some role to get Putin to leave Ukraine.
If you agree, picture what this role would look like and what types of bipartisan cooperation might be needed in order make such a role actually take place.

One thing, both Putin & Trump ate against the Globalists & New World Order. Hard to say considering that, we can only speculate, bit since George Soros is involved with Ukraine & Trump is America first, i imagine he would not have donated the $ that this administration did.

1) It’s unlikely it would have happened, we know Trump was advising Zelensky to find a way to avoid conflict with Russia BEFORE it happened. (i imagine, with Melania from Yugoslavia/Slovenia, the Trumps are intimately familiar with Eastern European politics.)

Trump is an international businessman. A pragmatist.

Business requires diplomacy, it requires understanding motivations that might not be your own. Just because men have business and/or political understandings, doesn’t mean they have the same belief systems. Mutual understanding/mutual respect, does not equate to love, or even friendship. It’s business. It’s politics. Trump is about doing business. You don’t insult those you with whom you hope to do business.

Trump consistently refused to insult “stated enemies,” which neutralized tensions. He was criticized for this. He avoided military engagement. He was pro-military, using this to avoid military engagement. Preferring business.

Political ideologues are the trouble makers.

Trump is not a political ideologue, proven when he left the DNC to run for POTUS, the bedrock reason he cannot be tolerated by political idelogues, under any circumstances. As many recall, before he was POTUS, he was loved+courted! That’s a clue.

2) Unfortunately, i cannot imagine the political ideologues even considering including Trump (in anything) - they would face WWIII, worldwide economic collapse, literally anything, before including Trump. They hate him more than Putin or any other stated enemy, whether in form of a world leader or any catastrophy imaginable.

Political ideologues are the trouble makers.

i·de·o·logue / /ˈīdēəˌlôɡ,ˈidēəˌlôɡ/
noun / plural noun: ideologues

an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

"he doesn't consider himself a political ideologue, preferring to arrive at conclusions pragmatically"

prag·ma·tist / /ˈpraɡmədəst/ / noun

1. a person who is guided more by practical considerations than by ideals.
"hardheaded pragmatists firmly rooted in the real world"

2. PHILOSOPHY
an advocate of the approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.
"American pragmatists have influenced a great deal of recent philosophy of many types"

JimFoxvog wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 11:02 pm If Trump were President I suspect he would have supported Russia's actions. Without US support of Ukraine the war might have ended much faster, with Russia's victory. People can argue whether that would have been a good thing or not.

Without U.S./Left-West support, possibly even prodding, there may not have been an invasion, a non-military agreement might have been reached first. Zelensky’s nationalistic bravado was 100% reliant on the Left-West, which was established as intolerant of Putin.

Ernie wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 9:59 pm Early on in the Russian war against Ukraine, some Americans were saying, "If Trump were President, this war would never have happened."
I think there are two reasons for those who believe this.
1. Trump and Putin seemed to hit it off as world leaders, and Putin would not have wanted to do something to hurt their "friendship".
2. Trump is not afraid of a fight. Putin would have been scared to do something that would have angered Trump. You never know what Trump is going to do next and Putin might not have wanted to find out.
Are these the only reasons that have been given?

Now methinks that if Trump is so influential, perhaps he could be given some role to get Putin to leave Ukraine.
If you agree, picture what this role would look like and what types of bipartisan cooperation might be needed in order make such a role actually take place.

Trump was a cheerleader for Russia's invasion back in February on the eve of the invasion. He was actually encouraging Russia to invade. Here are his own words on the eve of the invasion.

The notion that Trump would have prevented this war is beyond absurd. He supported it.

1) Pragmatism is NOT cheerleading.
2) A 33 second sound bite from a former president is NOT sufficient to judge.

Notice how biden’s gaffs are regularly silenced;
DJT’s sound bites are edited+heralded far+wide, DJT’s words of wisdom are silenced.

Ideologues demand full-throated emotional condemnation of their identified adversaries.
Pragmatists are able to step back for a longer view.

Ideologues jump on this to exaggerate division. They fall for it every time.

Ideologues revel in violent conflict.

Thomas Sowell / There Are No Solutions, Only Trade-offs / 1min

temporal1 wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 11:54 am 1) Pragmatism is NOT cheerleading.
2) A 33 second sound bite from a former president is NOT sufficient to judge.

Notice how biden’s gaffs are regularly silenced;
DJT’s sound bites are edited+heralded far+wide, DJT’s words of wisdom are silenced.

Ideologues demand full-throated emotional condemnation of their identified adversaries.
Pragmatists are able to step back for a longer view.

Ideologues jump on this to exaggerate division. They fall for it every time.

Ideologues revel in violent conflict.

Thomas Sowell / There Are No Solutions, Only Trade-offs / 1min

From April:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04 ... rewed.html

A month ago, Trump’s close friend and supporter Sean Hannity tried repeatedly to coax him to call Vladimir Putin a bad person or admit his slaughter of civilians was wrong. Trump kept refusing. After Trump declined the first opportunity, Hannity offered another: “You came under some fire when you said that Vladimir Putin is very smart. I think I know you a little bit better than most people in the media, and I think you also recognize he’s evil, do you not?”

After Trump declined again and boasted of his closeness with Putin, Hannity tried suggesting Russia was an “enemy” Trump was strategically keeping close. Trump declined that opportunity, too, saying, “I got along with these people. I got along with them well.”

Last night, Hannity tried again. Referring back to their previous conversation, he asked Trump if Russia’s invasion was “evil.” Trump declined, instead ranting about the weakness of NATO: “I think in a hundred years, people are gonna look back and they’re going to say, ‘How did we stand back, and NATO stand back?’ — which, in many ways, I’ve called a paper tiger.” He did not concede Russia was morally wrong to invade.

In private, Trump has repeatedly expressed his existential loathing for Ukraine, which he has described as “corrupt” — an epithet he does not use for more corrupt states like Russia — and not a real country, insisting that its eastern regions properly belong to Russia. The public analog of those beliefs can be seen in the votes of the Republican Party’s anti-Ukraine wing in Congress, which has voted against sanctions on Russia and support for NATO.

Trump has never been willing to even state clearly Putin’s most heinous acts. When Russia poisoned Alexei Navalny, a crime condemned across the globe, Trump repeatedly refused to admit Putin had anything to do with it, and reporters eventually gave up asking him about it. (Trump still hasn’t admitted Putin’s culpability.) Trump’s priorities would be to ensure cheap gasoline and keep Ukrainian refugees out of the country.

Ernie wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 9:59 pm I think there are two reasons for those who believe this.
1. Trump and Putin seemed to hit it off as world leaders, and Putin would not have wanted to do something to hurt their "friendship".
2. Trump is not afraid of a fight. Putin would have been scared to do something that would have angered Trump. You never know what Trump is going to do next and Putin might not have wanted to find out.

Can you give me examples of Trump standing up to Putin and Putin backing off as a result? Or of Trump offering clear and loud criticism of Russia? Mostly, Trump has mocked people who pointed out that Putin was doing outrageous things, covering for Putin.

Can you give me examples of Trump praising Ukraine or standing up for Ukraine?

In February, Trump's reaction to the invasion was:

Trump wrote:He is pretty smart. He’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people — and just walking right in.

And he basically told Zelensky to give Putin whatever Putin wants. This is the man you want to stand up to Putin?

According to the Mueller Report, the first impeachment, the second impeachment, ongoing criminal and civil cases, and investigations, Trump may well have conflicts of interest with respect to both Russia and Ukraine. Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Alexander Vindman, a former White House national security official, and Fiona Hill, Senior Director for Europe and Russia of the National Security Council, all testified against Trump specifically with respect to Ukraine and Russia.

So I would expect Trump to deny any wrongdoing by Putin and to encourage Ukraine to surrender. That's consistent with what he has done all along.

boot:
And he basically told Zelensky to give Putin whatever Putin wants.

i don’t see a lot, i’ve never seen anything that resembles this.
i saw a video of President Trump meeting with Z, well before Feb 24, encouraging him Z to find ways to get along with Putin.
i believe wise advice. Z’s response was impossible to understand, i won’t speculate.

DJT had various “unorthodox” responses as POTUS, it will never be known what exactly he meant, nor, what would have unfolded,
had he been allowed to lead as he was elected to lead.

Ideologues never rested in jumping onto every word/breath to hate, to judge, to sabotage .. for 4 years. This has not ended!!
It’s brought right onto this forum.

A whole lot of emotional noise, facts won’t be known, not allowed to be known! Screams-R-US.

This admin is making Trump look like a genius.