Why does Trump want an election in Ukraine?

[Syntosi]

I am asking this genuinely. I am perfectly prepared to believe that Trump, at least in his own head, wants to achieve a peace deal in Ukraine if for no other reason to claim that credit as his own and also help his friend Putin.

But then why would he demand an election in Ukraine as part of the prerequisites to peace?

First of all, countries under martial law generally does not have elections because it divides the nation during a time where it needs to be united and also like in Ukraines case, a significant part of their citizens are currently living under hostile occupation and can't vote. But I dont think Trump cares about any of this.. Buuuuut..

What he should care about is that Zelensky is likely to not win the election. The one who is likely to win is Valerii Zaluzhnyi who is Zelenkys previous military chief. AKA the person who rather than peace would like to expand the conflict by conscripting another 500,000 Ukranians and go murder some Russian soldiers to win the war.

Does Trump not know that if Ukraine has an election then they will double down on keeping the war going?

[BCA6010]

Zelenskyy would rather double down and keep the war going than give up the power and the gravy train no matter how many Ukrainians die for it. Just ask all his oligarch buddies vacationing in Switzerland and Vegas how bad it's been for them... So that said, there's not actually any comparative downside if someone like Zaluzhnyi replaces him, unless he breaks the terms of a cease-fire down the road, in which case there needs to be a contingency in place.

By getting rid of Zelenskyy through a Democratic process (using that term loosely since Ukraine has never had an election that wasn't tampered with by someone), it gives everyone involved a chance to hit the reset button and claim a victory. Two dictators not having a way out that doesn't look weak is a major reason the war has kept going on this long.

[Syntosi]

Again, putting aside all the insane conspiracy theories you just spouted. The election would not be part of the peace deal, its a prerequisite of having a peace deal. Trump and Putin would have to negotiate with the winner of that election which looks to be Zaluzhnyi and he would never accept a peace deal that does not liberate every square inch of Ukrainian soil.

This is such a stupid move to replace someone with someone else who wants to escalate the conflict further just to sit them down and negotiate a peace deal.

[DryGermanGuy]

Because Trump is either dumb as a box of rocks, or is manipulated by his idol Putin, or needs a silly cop-out to stop support for Ukraine. Probably a mixture of all three.

[purplepoppy]

He's just muddying the water to hide the misinformation he's sprouting.

[Syntosi]

I just can't see that. I think he is serious about this.

[northerngal]

Because Putin told him that Ukraine needs an election.

[Ladsin2]

Ukraine can't keep the war going without our money, ordinance, etc. I suppose EU could foot the bill, and that may be something they're keen on. If they want to do so fair enough.
That said, I've wondered about this. Is it 5d chess and Trump has a long thought out plan to increase Zelensky's popularity by disparaging him and the Ukrainian population by excising them from the negotiations? I don't think so. I think it's largely personal animus and what the Ukrainians want is largely irrelevant to the conversation.

[Syntosi]

I disagree. There is a massive difference between attacking and defending in what is required. You do not need HIMARS for defense or artillery or tanks or airplanes. Ukraine still has them but that is besides the point. For defense you only really need manpower and small arms, something that Ukraine has more than enough of domestically and can easily produce themselves.

The things Ukraine has requested has not been for defense but rather to retake their occupied territories. Furthermore Ukraine is also a massive arms manufacturer even before the war but far more so today. If its just defense then they can produce their own equipment even in isolation. Maybe it would have been different with a competent attacker but Russia has shown itself to be entirely incapable of mustering a meaningful attack.

Its also worth pointing out that even if Russia were to successfully occupy the entirely of Ukraine, that is the easy part. If you remember Afghanistan or Iraq then you know how difficult it becomes to maintain a military occupation over a territory that does not accept you. Russia does not have enough troops to occupy all of Ukraine or even a significant majority of it.

To put it simply, Russia simply can't win no matter how little support Ukraine recieves and even if they willingly rolled over and died.

Trump should know this since all he has to do is ask one of his military advisors. Holding back American military and civilian aid is not as important as people think it is, especially if we are just talking about the survival of Ukraine as a state. Nothing about what Trump just did makes any degree of sense to me.

[Ladsin2]

Why are we supporting them if they don't need it? That's ridiculous. We've spent billions for no reason? The EU did to? Then let's all stop and let them do their thing. It's hard for US to occupy because we've changed the rules of warfare. Wasn't supremely difficult for most empires until they overextended themselves. Same reason we "lost" in Vietnam. We don't have the will for war anymore.

[Syntosi]

It is better for both the EU and USA if Russia loses quickly and decisively. Furthermore, this will set Ukraine as an emerging power so it is well worth investing in them as a future business partner and alliance friend.

As for the costs, you are thinking like a civilian. The money sent to Ukraine are not particularly significant for the nations involved and in the case of countries like USA it is actually mostly beneficial. For example unloading obsolete equipment that the military has rusting away in warehouses and replacing the US army supplies with new production so that Ukraine can have the old stock.

The vast majority of the hundreds of billions which USA has sent to Ukraine actually remains inside USA itself. This is actually very normal in charity and aid situations, you take the money to buy the goods and services in your own country so that you are actually the one who benefits and then you hand over the products which is less important.

As for occupations, we do have a fairly good understanding of how they work and what is required to stop them. According to American military handbooks (which are really good) there is basically a mathematical formula you can do as a sort of "napkin math" to see if your occupation will work against minor insurgency resistance. For a nation such as Ukraine that would amount to several million soldiers actively suppressing the population. Russia does not have that, and as a result they would fail and if the population resisted more than just "sparse resistance" AKA *gestures at Ukraine* then it would be many times worse.

Russia is not strong enough. This invasion would only have worked if Russia was welcomed as saviors at the beginning of the war.

[Ladsin2]

My understanding is that we've sent money and arms on credit. I don't see how that's not counted as aid as we will likely never receive the money for those arms.

That said, it is a good investment for us. We were able to cripple the Russian army without any blood and at a low cost. I think the investment makes sense. That's not what you said though. You said Ukraine doesn't need our arms or money. They can sit on rooftops and fight an insurgent campaign without us. Since we've accomplished our goals why are we still funding them? They can defend themselves so we call it a day. I don't think that's the case though, which is why we're negotiating on their behalf. If they refuse to take the deal then we stop funding and see if you're right.
As far as maintaining the land, why not just cleanse the land. Have all the Ukranians move off of it and send your own people or only keep the people you want. I think Russia could manage that. They just want the land and ports anyway right?

[Syntosi]

While I admit that I have not found a comprehensive list of what USA has sent Ukraine, most thanks to all the stupid news articles regurgitating each others vacuous nonsense but I think only around 14 billion in cash has been sent, give or take. The rest has been in "stuff" that USA does not really want to keep.

To give some examples:
900 of M113 which USA produced like 80,000 of and has not really used in decades.
400 of Strykers which is also obsolete and in the process of being replaced.
31 of M1A1 Abrams. Old model that is not used by USA.
Unknown number of ATACMS. Early cluster version that USA was in the process of destroying.
180 of 155mm M777 howitzers. Old artillery pieces from back in 1987 that USA still technically uses but not really. USA has like 800 of them left I think but its somewhat irrelevant because USA does not use artillery in the traditional sense.
5000+ of Humvee's. USA replaced the Humvee a decade ago with the L-ATV
300 of M2A2 ODS Bradleys which USA does not use and has wanted to replace for 45 years.

I am hoping that you are beginning to see a trend here. A lot of what USA has sent Ukraine is relics from the cold war and the "cost" that is recorded is generally speaking what it costed USA to produce these when they were new or otherwise what USA paid to replace with new versions like replacing old missiles with new production.

When USA actually does pay for new things that money goes to American companies to employ Americans which stimulates economic growth. The product itself AKA missiles and artillery shells are kind of worthless though since they do not promote economic growth regardless.

[Syntosi]

As for the state of the war and all that, its complicated. The short version is that Russia is not strong enough to actually conquer Ukraine. This is not because Ukraine is strong itself but because Russia was much weaker than previously assumed, even by their own estimates.

This however does not mean that Russia is going to lose quickly. Ukraine is also not that strong where they could have punished Russias weakness and ended the war quickly which means that we enter a sort of stalemate. This stalemate can in theory be maintained for 10+ years if not more without significant help given to either side as both sides lacks the quality of troops and equipment to facilitate a significant push.

You can think of this situation as a modern trench warfare situation during WW1. Both sides ability to defend far outstrips their ability to attack.

This means that the war will only end when Russia changes its mind.. whenever that is which also means that Ukraine will win by default.

As for USA's and EU's point of view their personal benefits increase the worse and faster Russia gets beat so it becomes in their best interests to give Ukraine the support and equipment needed to break the stalemate and end the war early if possible.

Regarding cleansing the land, while technically possible it has never really worked large scale in history and unlikely to work this time either. Its not the first or even 2nd time that Russia has tried to cleanse Ukraine.

[Ladsin2]

We're not giving a foreign government our top tier highly sophisticated weaponry? I don't find that shocking at all. With our weapons it's estimated that Ukraine has been able to have 100:1 kill ratio against the invaders (~80k to 800k). That doesn't happen with sheer willpower, and didn't happen because they were able to hang out on rooftops being brave. It happened due to our, and the EU's support.
Is the material we're sending them older? Yes. Is it still better than almost any country on the planet? Also yes. We'll find out quickly who's right. If Zelensky takes a "shit deal" then we know I'm right because they know they can't defend themselves. If you're right they won't take any deal and will take their country back forthwith without anybody's help.

[Ladsin2]

*10:1

[Ladsin2]

Ethnic cleansing has never worked? Tell that to the Armenians.

[sawno]

I suspect its just bargaining tactics again, if you insult trump he comes with an insult / tactic back. So ukraine giving Trump shit for talking one on one with Putin means Trump puts Ukraine in their place for not being a democracy and any claim of defending their democracy is invalid. Now they are on equal grounds again and the negotiations can continue.

[Syntosi]

That is not how negotiations works and quite frankly I see this backfiring for Trump as well because Russia REALLY LOVES the idea of elections in Ukraine.

[exitseven]

I wonder about this myself. I wonder if the initial meeting that Trump's team had with Zelensky showed that he was not really willing to seriously negotiate a cease fire and ultimately peace. This derails the whole thing so maybe Trump wants a different leader who is not making billions off this war and somebody the Ukrainian people actually want since Zelensky is basically a dictator at this point.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

dude only dictators do not allow elections. is how they stay in power and avoid competition.

exactly what Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and many many other dictators have done in history

[Syntosi]

If you have not heard about "Martial Law" then let me inform you that Democracies generally suspends elections in times of extreme crisis such as having 20% of their territories under foreign occupation. Besides, how would an election like that even work? How are the people under Russian occupation supposed to vote?

[Filthy_Immigrant]

No shit I’ve heard of Martial law retard, I also heard of psychological wars too and considering the fact that Ukraine has a long fucking history of corruption and Zelenskyy being a pathological liar himself everyone has the right to assume he has ulterior motives

[Syntosi]

... How does that in any way shape or form justify being invaded by the Russians? It is the Russians who are in the wrong here.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

Zelenskyy is no fucking victim. Apparently you’re too gullible to think elsewise

[Syntosi]

What are you even talking about?

[Filthy_Immigrant]

like I already, Ukraine has a long history of corruption and there are even a few Ukrainian Americans who are happy that Putin invaded their asses. but there is no point in explaining to a libtard like you

[Syntosi]

But Russia still invaded, which is bad, and that gives Ukraine (or any other Democracy) a perfectly justifiable reason to suspend elections until the war ends. That is how Democracies works.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

No Zelenskyy wants to suspend the election because everyone in Ukraine knows he's a bitch and is not handling the war like a real leader. so if he allows the elections they will overthrow his ass in no time and elect a president who isn't a coward like him and will most likely side with Trump at negotiating peace with Putin

[Syntosi]

I do not care why Zelensky wants to suspend the election. Ukraine is under foreign occupation so holding a free and fair election is already impossible and Democracies generally dont hold elections during wartime either. The fact that Zelensky likes or hates it is totally irrelevant.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

he's the fucking president of Ukraine, so how is it irrelevant to what benefits him?

also we Americans have started more wars than all the other countries in the world yet we never cancelled our elections over it and we are also never had a dictator in our history, could all that be a coincidence?

also this argument is not about what you care on dont, as this is indeed IRRELEVANT to the real reason why Zelenskyy is suppressing the election at all cost like the kid who's hiding marijuana in his school locker

[Syntosi]

USA cancelled its election for the civil war for example. Did you not learn history?

[Anonymous]

Ukraine government is corrupt and is refusing to work towards peace. Zelenzky is a US/NATO dictator puppet that needs to go before Ukraine is completely destroyed.

[Anonymous]

Trump supports democracy. Time to ask the Ukrainians if they want to continue fight the war.

[Syntosi]

Democracies do not hold elections during war time.

[Still-alive]

lol...

[Opinion Owner]

Yes dictators like to extend wars and national emergencies so they may stay in power without democracy and maintain all dictatorial powers. Will Zelensky be dictator for life?

[Still-alive]

truly 1984 stuff with you

[Syntosi]

Pretty sure having your country at like 20% occupation is a valid national emergency.

[Opinion Owner]

His presidency was due to end in may last year. How long will this go on for? 10 or 20 years without elections?
Even George Bush had re-election in 2004 at the height of the war on terror. Even in 1944 FDR stood for re-election with WW2 raging in france, Italy, the Pacific and Atlantic. If you look at the events that led up to the 1944 US election it was a very busy time for FDR.

[Syntosi]

USA did not enact martial law which is what suspends elections. Other countries like the UK DID suspend their elections during WW2 for example. This is normal.

[Opinion Owner]

Britain was an empire with an unelected head of state and a leader who is not elected. The majority of people in the British empire did not get to vote for their head of state and were ruled without democracy.

[Syntosi]

No they were not. Britain was an empire yes, and they did have royalty, but the power just like today is held in their parliament and prime minister, not the monarch. During WW2 for example the UK Prime minister was Winston Churchill and the UK suspended its elections from 1940 to 1945.

[Opinion Owner]

No. Britain had over 300 million subjects in India alone who were never allowed to vote. Overall 25% of the world's population was within the British empire. Do you think as much as 20% of the world's population voted for Winston Churchill or king George?
Churchill was neither elected leader by his party or by election but was appointed Prime minister by an unelected head of state.
The monarch of Britain has the power to form or dismiss the government's of Britain, Canada, Australia and new Zealand so the power is not held in parliament

[Syntosi]

What on earth are you talking about? The prime minister of the UK is not elected but rather chosen by the majority party in government. The people elect the politicians in the house of commons and the elected officials then selects whom they want to become the prime minister and the monarch has a little ceremony to make it "official".

You are also completely mistaken about the actual and "theoretical" power of the British monarch.

Honestly, just stop. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Stop making yourself out to be a bigger fool than you already have.

[Opinion Owner]

Cmon now there's no getting away from the fat that the majority of people in the British empire b4 ww2 did not elect those that ruled them, no different than Soviet Russia, at least in nazi Germany the people voted the nazis in.
Again Churchill's party didn't elect but was asked to form a government by the king.
Nothing theoretical about the British monarchs powers. On November 11, 1975 Queen Elizabeth's representive in Australia using the Monarch's authority fired the
Prime minister of Australia and dismissed the entire Australian government. This candle be done in Canada, new Zealand and Britain too.
The British monarchy downplays their actual power.

[Syntosi]

Putting aside how empires work, the fact remains that elections were suspended between 1940 and 1945 due to the war in the UK and that is NORMAL in any democracy. Furthermore, even the political opponent of Zelensky in Ukraine does not want an election right now because that is stupid for Ukrainian interests.

[Opinion Owner]

Of course not. They all might find themselves completely replaced but they still think they can get money from Europe but the us gravy train is over.
The UK was still at war when they held elections in 1945 and were getting set for the invasion of Japan that never took place. Elections had been suspended at that point for nearly 6 years.

[Syntosi]

*sigh* There was never a gravy train. USA did not give weapons and money to Ukraine because they felt charitable. It was always "America first", giving them that stuff was always in Americas best interest. Do I have to remind you that the original right wing position against the war was that USA was exploiting the Ukrainian people to fight against Russia by giving them weapons?

Ukraine was fighting "Americas" war for FREE so to speak and now you are complaining that one of the most profitable investments in US history was a Ukrainian "gravy train"? You clearly do not understand what you are talking about here.

And once again, Democracies DO NOT HAVE ELECTIONS DURING WAR TIME. The only exceptions are when the war is so insignificant that they dont have to even try mobilize their own population.

[Opinion Owner]

The US had an election during ww2 and so did Britain. Both democracies.
Ukraine was given $130 billion in aid, that's a lot of grave. Conservatives in America had a problem with Biden starting a war in Ukraine that taxpayers were going to be on the hook for and that Ukraine can't win.

[Syntosi]

USA was not under threat during WW2. Martial law and the suspension of elections were not necessary. The UK suspended its elections from 1940 to 1945 at which point the war was over.

And again, your inability to understand how supplying Ukraine with guns is in the best interest of USA is not my problem. You are once again completely out of your depth and talking about subjects you simply do not understand.

[Opinion Owner]

When the UK called it's elections in may 1945 and ww2 didn't end until September 1945.
The US had been attacked at Pearl Harbour and Hawaii which is part of the and was under martial law. You seem to have a lack of basic knowledge about history. The fact is that both the US and UK held elections during WW2 despite their territory being invaded and attacked and having troops in the field, as they were both democratic.
The US supplying weapons to Ukraine is in the best interests of USarms manufacturers but not US citizens who are footing the bill nor Ukrainians who are dying in their hundreds of thousands, their cities flattened and with no prospect of victory. The US shouldn't support countries that don't hold democratic elections.
Time for elections in Ukraine and to end the gravy train.

[Syntosi]

Again, the war was already won in 1945. The UK was no longer under direct threat. Had WW2 not started then the UK would have had its election not in 1945 but in 1940. WW2 delayed UK's election by 5 straight years. This is normal. USA never had foreign troops invading North America so there was no need for martial law.

Also, Russia has demonstrably not been able to win and is not in the process of winning. That means that the defender has been successful in defending itself AKA winning.

Lastly the reason USA benefits from Ukraine winning is because USA is the worlds super power based on the current situation around the world. Russia trying to upend the current world order is a direct attack on USA's position and power. If USA does not defend its position then it will one day lose its position. If USA loses its position then its going to become just another country without all the wealth and benefits of being a super power.

This is literally an existential crisis for USA although its a fairly benign one considering how weak Russia has proven itself to be. The slightest effort on USA's part could easily ruin Russias imperial ambitions in Ukraine and reinforce USA's position as the worlds super power. Except that people like you just wants to roll over and submit to Russia.

[Opinion Owner]

The war was not won when Britain called elections in 1945, the battle of okinawa hadn't even taken place yet which the royal navy was part ofband the royal navy was involved in bombing Japan. The British had only just retaken Burma from the Japanese. The British at the time were preparing for the invasion of Malaya and Japan.

Russia has won, they've stopped Ukraine from joining NATO & the EU. Ukraine the defender has not been able to defend herself as you stated Russia has 20% of Ukrainian territory which was Russia's goal all along, not to mention that Ukrainian cities have been flattened and thousands killed and it will take Ukraine decades to recover. That's not winning, that's losing.
The US is not benefiting from the war in Ukraine because it can't afford it along with a lot of other global expenditures. The economy just can't support a globalist empire anymore. It can no longer afford all these globalist interventions and forced regime changes. The world order will change if the US becomes broke. If the US continues this they will end up like Britain at the end of WW2 a huge empire, vast military, broken econmy, crumbling infrastructure, debts we can't afford anymore. The us is still paying for the 20 year war on terror.

Any hope of Russia's empire disappeared with their military failures in Ukraine, with countries like Sweden and Finland feeling confident enough for the first time to join NATO without fear. In a few years when putin is out, Russia will make peace and hand back captured territory.

[Syntosi]

Yes, the war was already won. By the time of the election Hitler was already dead and Germany had capitulated. The UK was not really part of or concerned about Japan, that was Americas war that sort of ran parallel.

And Russia has lost. Even if their aim was to stop the expansion of NATO they have already pushed the FAMOUSLY NEUTRAL countries of Finland and Sweden into NATO because of this war. Furthermore, Russia is going to lose the war in Ukraine, this is just a fact.

As for the cost to America in supporting Ukraine? It is actually saving USA money. You have probably seen Russian stockpiles of equipment and tanks for example, USA has something similar but they actually store it in warehouses and regularly maintain it. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles, tons upon tons upon tons of equipment, all just taking up space and requiring people and money to maintain each year. Ukraine has taken in a SMALL part of this stockpile and USA can keep sending this junk for literal years without running out.

As for rebuilding Ukraine? That is actually looking more realistic than before the war. War has a curious property of bonding people and forging national identities. Before the war Ukraine was a fragmented people, today they are united in purpose which will greatly aid in them recovering from the war. While one should not put a value on human lives, this will be seen as a very important step forward for Ukrainian identity going forward.

Russia has managed to do something for Ukraine that most countries struggles to do and Ukraine is going to run with that to the bank.

[Opinion Owner]

The UK in 1945 was concerned with Japan. Japan had given Britain its biggest defeat in history and sank two of its major capital ships. The British had been fighting a brutal campaign in Burma and were about to push into Malaya and to take part in the planned invasion of Japan which would have been 10 times bigger than D-Day. The British were fighting in the Pacific and the Royal Navy was deployed and was fighting off kamikaze attacks.
Finland and Sweden were always going to join NATO. In the cold war Sweden and Finland were smart enough to stay neutral to avoid invasion, they had good leaders unlike Ukraine today, especially smart given their dealings with the Nazis in WW2.
The US has been sending billions in aid and weapons at the cost to the us taxpayer and Ukraine is no closer to winning.
Russia is dug in depth and doesn't have to do anything except wait for the Ukrainians to attack in the same old way and destroy their tanks and aircraft, and kill the attacking soldiers in the same old way which is why every Ukrainian attack on donbass and crimes has failed. The Russians can sit there for the next 20 years. With all the pro Ukrainian propaganda put out there, Ukraine should have won last year.

[seeyounexttuesday]

because dummy zelensky is unpopular among ukrainians.

[Syntosi]

But the person who is popular in Ukraine is even worse for peace negotiations and relations with Trump.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Here's the part you keep forgetting. The US can and will cut off all aid to Ukraine. The pussy eurpeans won't pick up the slack. War is over either way.

[Syntosi]

And here is what you keep forgetting. That is not enough to allow Russia to win. It changes nothing. It just means that in 2-4 years in the future the question will come up again with the next American congress and the continual stalemate in the war inside Ukraine.

[seeyounexttuesday]

that is an absolute lie and you know it.

[dustybiker2]

Selfish gain. All he thinks about.

[Syntosi]

If it was selfish gain then I could understand it but I dont understand how he is supposed to gain from this.

[dustybiker2]

This is where we pay attention. It's obviously a calculated move. Motove to be reveiled later.

[dustybiker2]

* Motive to be revealed later (migraine today)

[Dargil]

He sees Zelenskyy as the problem.