Summary
Donald Trump dodged questions about whether U.S. foreign policy aligns with Russia, deflecting with a rambling response that avoided addressing concerns about his stance on Ukraine.
He again claimed that he could quickly end the war and blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for suggesting peace remains distant.
Meanwhile, his administration is reportedly preparing to lift sanctions on Russian individuals and entities.
Critics argue Trump’s position emboldens Russia while undermining Ukraine, raising fears about U.S. commitment to countering Russian aggression.
He again claimed that he could quickly end the war and blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for suggesting peace remains distant.
Trump’s plan is for Ukraine to surrender to Russia, which is why everything he does is in favor of Russia.
When do people start standing outside his house with pitchforks and torches? He is an obvious traitor and insurrectionist, a puppet of a foreign power. He is actively gargling on Putan’s balls and everyone is standing around shock faced, looking at each other, hoping someone else finds a way to fight him in court. This will not be stopped in the courts, or with legislation, or with talking. Show of might and force from the American people, standing up for what WE THE PEOPLE want, is what is necessary, at this point.
Would not be surprised if there is an executive order to rename America to New Russia at this point. If musk has a say, I guess Dark Russia would be on the table too.
In response, Trump rattled off a list of everything that “would have never happened” if he’d won the presidential election four years ago.
Trump’s nonanswer, which veered further and further off-topic, included the October 7 massacre, “Israel,” inflation, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, and China possessing the Bagram Air Base (the Taliban has denied that China controls the former U.S. base). Finally, he circled back to Ukraine—but only to complain, not to actually answer the question.
Obviously he was never going to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Why would he? He’s only the one who negotiated the withdrawal.
Why don’t the journalists just keep asking the same question over and over again until he gives a semi coherent answer, some like, going back to the previous question can you please clarify your answer, or would that lead to a chatgpt style meltdown
We have known he has avoided this question since 2016: “No puppet, no puppet, you’re the puppet”
Aww, Dementia Don shorted?
New Republic just feeds the echo chamber. They’re interpreting mood and motive based on pausing, for starters.
Remember, this rag feeds echo chambers their headlines.
Journalists still aren’t asking hard enough questions.
“Why would you possibly think you are the only one who can get a deal done with Russia? It doesn’t seem to be about a lack of respect for other world leaders because you’re already capitulating to what Russia, the global pariah wants, without getting anything in return. Doesn’t seem like good deal making or putting “America” first. Your comment.”
“Are you saying Benjamin Netanyahu is weak by insinuating October 7th happened because you weren’t in Office? Or are you just mad that civilians in Gaza weren’t genocided fast enough?”
Journalists still aren’t asking hard enough questions.
The goal isn’t to get real information out of this administration, because there’s no serious anticipation of a public response. Congress isn’t going to stop him. The courts aren’t going to stop him. So the real job of the journalists isn’t to inform but to infotain.
That’s why you get these dipshit attention grabbing click-bait headlines.
“Are you saying Benjamin Netanyahu is weak by insinuating October 7th happened because you weren’t in Office? Or are you just mad that civilians in Gaza weren’t genocided fast enough?”
You’re not going to Own Trump with this line of questioning. He’s just going to bullshit you and retort in kind as he did with the original questions. On top of that, the question implies there’s something wrong with Netanyahu and Israel, which means AIPAC staffers will be making a thousand angry calls to your bosses while Bill Akman tries to get investors to pull out of your employer’s parent company. You only get to ask questions like this when your journal is truly independent. And Trump won’t take questions from those organizations, unless they’re sycophantic.
All you can do is attack Trump directly, indulge him in the pageantry and theater of an interview, and then report breathlessly that you got to talk to The Man Himself while his friendly journals report breathlessly that he survived another assassination attempt by the Far-Left Anti-American Pro-War Press.
The idea of media as an organizing tool and a means of mobilizing large groups to engage in a public project is totally gone from these stories. There’s no voice of the opposition. There’s no call to action. There’s no vision of a better future. It’s got all the political consequence of a wrestling match, right down to the scripted calls and responses.
Interesting comments.
I think some of the interviews he did in the first term hurt him like the Axios one.
I’m hoping that as he continues to mentally slip, which is clear when you go back and watch campaign video even from 2016, he’s going to say something so nasty and inexcusable that the non-cultists will be upset and take action. Or it will become very clear - like it did with Biden - that he’s so far gone. Trump just hides it better for now under stimulants, anger, and unpredictability.
It’s a long shot but they have to keep trying. Or else what is there? Roll over and let him declare himself president for life without much of a fight?
Or else what is there? Roll over and let him declare himself president for life without much of a fight?
If you want to oppose Trump, interview the opposition. There are plenty in the Ukranian ex-pat community willing to lend a word, especially people with homes currently under Russian occupation who will have nowhere to return to if Trump signs away the Donbas or forces Zelenskyy into grand new bulk real estate privatization schemes that foreclose on all the public apartments and offices and industries still in western control. Some of the most powerful advocates for Gaza have been American refugees forced out of Palestine (the TV show Mo, for instance, has provided a very stark spotlight on the life of stateless Palestinians).
You could also go to European delegates and discuss how people much closer to the front lines would like to see the Ukraine/Russia war end. You could reach out to American diplomats who predate the Trump inauguration, including ones he’s fired, and describe how he’s shifted the direction of foreign policy since taking office. Hell, you could even reach out to a few Russian diplomats to get them on record with what they’re actually demanding, rather than going to Trump and asking him whether he thinks he’s giving Moscow too much.
Talk to academics with more foreign policy experience. Talk to international trade reps who recognize what these sanctions mean for trade and travel through the region. Talk to people living in the Crimea or South Ossetia or Chechnya to see what a prolonged Russian occupation looks like.
You could talk to people who are working towards a different outcome - civil groups in the US lobbying for Zelenskyy to continue fighting, NGOs invested in a different peace plan, Russian and Ukrainian ex-pats who are surviving off the front lines or are fleeing conscription or who have family fighting or lost in the conflict.
Then maybe even highlight how readers can contribute to efforts to provide relief or buttress support or just reach out and learn more from the organizations doing this various lobbying efforts. Describe American-based organizations that are housing refugees or working towards long term resettlement. Give readers an opportunity to engage with the news rather than just passively observing it.
So many people to talk to who aren’t Trump. All of them would provide more useful information to describe the state of the war and the consequences of the new policies.
Too complex, he can’t understand sentences that long.
He won’t let a journalist speak for that long. He’ll cut them off, give some 3rd grade insult about how they’re “nasty” or something then move on without answering anything.
They need to push. If he’s finding the thinnest of excuses to ban the AP they should give him a real reason to ban them. Watching in Canada it’s worse than a train wreck in slow motion like someone please grow a spine.
The only ones saying or doing anything remotely of substance are Bernie, Crockett and AOC and it’s still not enough.
That’s a yes, then
