Trump Putin summit
- Thread starter FastLane
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that using AI to help in debates can be useful- I've used it myself. That being said, when using AI, one must be careful as it tends to give us the answers we want at the expense of the truth. I think the -best- way to use AI in debates is where it includes its source material, so one can verify its statements for veracity. Unfortunately, you didn't do that in this case, so there is no way of verifying anything said in the statements you quoted from it. I believe that if you don't have a paid subscription for various AI LLMs, you -can't- get it to give you its sources, which I think we might both agree is unfortunate.
Scott
Verified User
Again, no sources, but this time, I decided to ask chatgpt myself on Putin's views of the collapse of the soviet union, with sources. I have a free account, so I'm happy to say that paying for an account is -not- required to get these sources. I've dispensed with chatgpt's output and gone directly to its sources. First, a quote from 20 years ago:
**
In April 2005, during his formal address to Russia's Parliament, President Putin said: "Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself".[116]
**
Source:
Putinism - Wikipedia
Here's a quote from an article that was published a little over 2 months before Russia's military operation in Ukraine began:
**
December 12, 2021
"It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union," Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired on Sunday as part of a documentary film called "Russia. New History", the RIA state news agency reported.
"We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost," said Putin, saying 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries suddenly found themselves cut off from Russia, part of what he called "a major humanitarian tragedy".
**
Source:
Putin rues Soviet collapse as demise of 'historical Russia'
President Vladimir Putin has lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago as the demise of what he called "historical Russia" and said the economic crisis that followed was so bad he was forced to moonlight as a taxi driver.
www.reuters.com
Scott
Verified User
You are quoting Russian propaganda which i have little time for.I've seen absolutely no evidence for your assertion, but by all means, try and find some to present if you can. What I -do- have is evidence to the contrary- that is, before the West's meddling in Ukraine, Russia had absolutely no interest in seizing any part of the country. This was pointed out by American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs in a speech he gave to European Parliament a few months ago. Quoting:
**
As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me.
If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.
**
Source:
Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace
The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’consortiumnews.com
No, I was quoting Jeffrey Sachs, an American Professor and Statesman, who had been speaking to European Parliament when he made these remarks. He's not the only western figure who has made remarks of this nature, but he's perhaps the most succinct in doing so, which is why I quoted him. Now, perhaps you've never heard of the man, so allow me to introduce you to him, courtesy of Wikipedia's introductory paragraphs on him:
**
Jeffrey David Sachs (/sæks/ SAKS; born November 5, 1954) is an American economist and public policy analyst who is a professor at Columbia University, where he was formerly director of The Earth Institute. He worked on the topics of sustainable development and economic development.
Sachs is director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He is an SDG Advocate for United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 global goals adopted at a UN summit meeting in September 2015.
**
Source:
Jeffrey Sachs - Wikipedia
Scott
Verified User
I've seen no evidence for this. What I -have- seen evidence for is Yanukovych's wish to maintain a balance between Russia and the west- in essence to be neutral, which is something that's rather important for a country that is in between the west and Russia.
Journalist Kit Knightly published a good article that detailed Yanukovych's efforts to try to find a middle ground between the EU and Russia on the day that Russia began its military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from it below:
**
SEPTEMBER [2013]
The Ukrainian cabinet unanimously approves the draft of the long-awaited Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Yanokuych is expected to officially sign the agreement at the EU’s “Eastern Partnership Summit” in Vilnius on November 28th and 29th.
Russia – Ukraine’s major creditor and biggest trade partner – warns that this treaty would “cause chaos”, break the terms of an existing treaty between Ukraine and Russia, and lead to Ukraine’s economy collapsing. As a counteroffer, they suggest Ukraine sign a new deal with the Eurasian Economic Union.
NOVEMBER
The Ukrainian government issues a decree suspending preparations for the association agreement (AA). Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko warns the current terms of the agreement would “seriously damage the economy”.
“Pro European” demonstrations begin in Maidan square within days of the decree being issued. A poll run by the Kyiv Post finds an even split on joining the EU vs the Eurasian customs union: 39% for, 37% against.
Yanukovych attends the Eastern Partnership Summit on the 28th, but does not sign the Association Agreement, instead suggesting a new tri-lateral agreement between Ukraine, Russia and the EU. Russia is open to negotiating such a deal, but EU rejects this offer completely.
Despite not signing the AA, Yanukovych tells the press that Ukraine still intends to work for closer ties with the EU: “an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist…We are walking along this path and are not changing direction”.
Prime Minister Mykola Azarov echoed this: “I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day”.
Nevertheless, this is ubiquitously covered in the Western media as Yanukovych “refusing to sign the association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia”.
**
Source:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”
As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, we thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here. The historical, political and ethnic divisions in…
off-guardian.org
So tell me, why do you think the EU rejected the offer to work out a tri-lateral agreement?
QP!
Verified User
All of your posts could be more easily summed up as "i've seen no evidence i will accept..."
Putin is consistently speaking about Ukraine as a nation that should not exist, and you seeing no evidence that you will accept does not change it.
QP!
Verified User
I do not need 'all' just as you do not when you offer your view.
We have seen Trump now thru two administration in a ton of interactions with allied leaders and he is almost never respectful and especially we do not see any of the fawning he pours all over Putin.
Look how Trump treats allies with regards to tariffs and then how he treats Putin for just one example of many.
Scott
Verified User
I see. As you may know, I'm not a fan of Trump's Administration now saying that there are no Epstein files. I'll leave it at that here, since this thread is about the Trump Putin summit.
Meh
Scott
Verified User
Give us you spin as to why Lavrov would show up to a so called PEACE summit meeting with a shirt that promotes the CCCP or USSR in its prior full form?
Spin it that no one should care or take it to mean anything and that it is all just good fun, while you invasion force is occupying one of those countries?
I wasn't even aware of his attire and now I have to give a "spin" for it -.- In the actual meeting itself, I believe he was wearing something else, a nice suit. I have no idea why he was wearing that sweater. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some worn sweater he liked and he wasn't even thinking of its political implications and is now regretting he wasn't more careful. But if you to make some big deal about it, I certainly can't stop you. What I -will- say is that fashion choices aside, I have heard that he is quite a good diplomat.
That’s just my new nickname for him, he deserves it, even if the context is not related.
Scott
Verified User
What evidence? You make an unsubstantiated assertion and think that's evidence?
Meanwhile, I quote -paragraphs- of evidence for my own assertions, complete with linked articles (which frequently have links themselves) and you snip all of that right off from my post. Case in point, the post you were just responding to. For the audience, feel free to take a look at post #385 to see the paragraphs I quoted from an article by Kit Knightly, which I get into right after my "i've seen no evidence for this" sentence. In that post, I provide copious amounts of evidence that Yanukovych, far from QP's unsubstantiated assertion, was actually trying to reach an agreement with both the European Union -and- Russia. For some reason, the European Union wasn't interested. I even asked QP why he thought that was after the quoting, but I imagine he stopped reading long before that point.
QP!
Verified User
Naw, nothing more need be said than your default is to ignore what you see or being told was worn and instead to insert your 'best possible scenario' for why he wore it.
Ya diplomats and world leaders, in your view are just not aware of what they say or wear and it is all just an innocent mistake. FLOL.
QP!
Verified User
As i said the question is not about the evidence but rather of what you will accept as others, who are not you see lots of evidence.
Yes — Viktor Yanukovych (President of Ukraine, 2010–2014) was widely described in Western and Ukrainian political discourse as being a “Putin puppet” or Kremlin-aligned leader. He was closely tied to Moscow, but he also tried at times to balance between Russia and the West. Here’s a breakdown of the evidence and context:
-----------------------------
AI Summary:
Evidence that Yanukovych was seen as pro-Putin / Kremlin’s man
- Political Backing from Russia
- In the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election (the one that triggered the Orange Revolution), Russia and Putin strongly supported Yanukovych. Putin personally congratulated him before votes were even fully counted.
- After the protests forced a revote that Yanukovych lost, Putin and Russian media openly criticized the process as Western interference.
- Party of Regions and Kremlin Ties
- Yanukovych’s Party of Regions was based in the Russophone east and south of Ukraine, with financial ties to oligarchs who had strong economic links to Russia.
- Leaked diplomatic cables (published by WikiLeaks and reported in 2010) suggested U.S. diplomats believed the Party of Regions had extensive ties to Russian political consultants and interests.
- Policies in Office (2010–2014)
- Signed deals deepening Ukraine’s energy dependency on Russia, particularly the 2010 Kharkiv Pact extending Russia’s Black Sea Fleet presence in Crimea until 2042 in exchange for discounted gas.
- His government prosecuted pro-Western figures (like Yulia Tymoshenko) while improving ties with Moscow.
- In late 2013, he abruptly rejected an EU Association Agreement under heavy Russian pressure (and reported promises of financial aid from Putin), sparking the Euromaidan protests.
- Personal Relations with Putin
- Putin invested significant political capital in Yanukovych, meeting him often and treating him as a reliable partner.
- Russia offered a $15 billion bailout package to Yanukovych’s government in December 2013 to keep Ukraine in its orbit.
QP!
Verified User
Ai Summary
---------------
Absolutely — Vladimir Putin has indeed made statements denying the legitimacy of Ukraine as an independent nation, implying it shouldn't exist as such. Here’s what he’s said, directly drawn from verifiable sources:
Direct Quotes from Putin (and close proxies)
1. Ukraine “not even a state” (2008)
At the April 2008 NATO Summit, Putin reportedly told U.S. President George W. Bush:2. “Created entirely by Bolshevik Russia” (February 2022)
In a televised speech to the Russian nation, Putin declared:3. An “anti-Russia project” / “fiction” of statehood
In his 2021 essay, "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians", Putin argued:- Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.”
- The formation of a Ukrainian state was a hostile “anti-Russia project,” created artificially and often equated to “weapons of mass destruction.”
WikipediaCNN
WikipediaAtlantic Council
4. Territorial claims and historical revisionism (2023)
In November 2023, Putin described Ukraine’s territory as Russian lands transferred during Soviet state formation:Summary Table
| Putin’s Claim | Paraphrased Quote |
|---|---|
| Ukraine is not a real state (2008) | "Ukraine is not even a state!" |
| State created by Lenin (2022) | "Modern Ukraine was entirely... created by Russia... by Bolshevik, communist Russia." |
| Denial of legitimacy (2021) | "Ukrainians and Russians are one people... Ukrainian statehood is an 'anti-Russia project'." |
| Historical revisionism (2023) | Territories transferred to Ukraine were historically Russian; Ukraine not legitimate. |
Context & Implications
- Clear Pattern of Denial: Over decades, Putin has repeatedly undermined Ukraine's sovereignty via historical and ideological framing.
- No Explicit "Should Not Exist": He rarely directly says “Ukraine should not exist.” Instead, he consistently delegitimizes Ukraine’s right to exist as separate, portraying it as a synthetic, temporary creation of Bolshevik policy.
- Strategic Purpose: These arguments form the ideological backbone for his invasion — presenting Ukraine not as a sovereign neighbor, but as historically and culturally inseparable from Russia.
Scott
Verified User
Let's recap here. Guno quotes some Daily Beast story, specifically this one:
Kremlin Leaks Footage Showing Trump Fawning Over Putin
The state-run Russian international news network Russia Today (RT) has released behind-the-scenes video from Alaska that appears to show President Donald Trump fawning over Vladimir Putin. The video shared by the Kremlin shows Trump and Putin standing together backstage near where they delivered...
In my response to Guno's post, I stated that I didn't see anyone fawning on anyone, just everyone being respectful. You then imply that "such footage" is "rare to almost non existent" with allied leaders. At which point, I ask what your source is. I should have perhaps left it at that, but instead I asked you if you'd done a study of all the footage Trump has had with allied leaders and you then say that you don't need "all". Forget about all, you didn't provide -any- evidence for your claim, but the worst of it is, your claim was rather vague to begin with. By this I mean that "such footage" is not exactly very specific. So, what do you mean by "such footage"? Do you believe the Daily Beast's assertion that Trump is "fawning over Putin"?
QP!
Verified User
You seem to think peoples opinions have to satisfy you and they do not. You seem to think people should care what would convince you, and we do not.Let's recap here. Guno quotes some Daily Beast story, specifically this one:
Kremlin Leaks Footage Showing Trump Fawning Over Putin
The state-run Russian international news network Russia Today (RT) has released behind-the-scenes video from Alaska that appears to show President Donald Trump fawning over Vladimir Putin. The video shared by the Kremlin shows Trump and Putin standing together backstage near where they delivered...www.yahoo.com
In my response to Guno's post, I stated that I didn't see anyone fawning on anyone, just everyone being respectful. You then imply that "such footage" is "rare to almost non existent" with allied leaders. At which point, I ask what your source is. I should have perhaps left it at that, but instead I asked you if you'd done a study of all the footage Trump has had with allied leaders and you then say that you don't need "all". Forget about all, you didn't provide -any- evidence for your claim, but the worst of it is, your claim was rather vague to begin with. By this I mean that "such footage" is not exactly very specific. So, what do you mean by "such footage"? Do you believe the Daily Beast's assertion that Trump is "fawning over Putin"?
The treatment of allied world leaders who are not despots by Trump is well discussed thing. I can quote Trump saying flattering things about Xi, LiL Kim, Orban and Bolsonaro and Putin, all considered despots on the world stage and i am unable to find any such thing of allies that would approximate that.
Scott
Verified User
Fair enough. I am hopeful that Trump manages to pull off a peace deal and if he does, he will deserve credit for that. But that won't take away from any other bad things he's done.