If Trump Were Zelensky: From 2020 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Until Today

Timeline of Zelensky’s/Trump's Leadership From the 2022 Russian Invasion to the 2025 Oval Office Meeting

1. February 24, 2022 – Russia Invades Ukraine

• Zelensky's Response: Refused to flee Kyiv, rallied Ukrainians with defiant speeches, and secured international military aid.
• If Trump Were President of Ukraine: Likely would have tried to negotiate with Putin instead of resisting, possibly delaying military mobilization while claiming he could "make a deal."

2. March 2022 – Kyiv Under Siege

• Zelensky's Response: Walked the streets of Kyiv in defiance, rejected U.S. evacuation offers with "I need ammunition, not a ride."
• If Trump Were President: Would likely have fled to Western Ukraine or abroad while claiming the war would have never happened if he were in charge. Would have blamed NATO, the EU, or past Ukrainian leaders. He would have prioritized evacuation to ensure his personal safety, potentially accepting the "ride" offered.

3. April–May 2022 – War Crimes in Bucha, Defense of Mariupol

• Zelensky's Response: Exposed Russian atrocities, secured more weapons, and rallied Western nations.
• If Trump Were President: Likely would have downplayed war crimes, possibly saying "both sides have done bad things." Would have obsessed over who praised or criticized him, rather than military strategy.

4. September 2022 – Ukrainian Counteroffensive in Kharkiv

• Zelensky's Response: Oversaw one of the war’s most successful counterattacks, reclaiming occupied territory.
• If Trump Were President: Would have taken full credit for any success while attacking his own generals if anything went wrong.

5. December 2022 – Zelensky's Historic Speech to U.S. Congress

• Zelensky's Response: Addressed Congress in person, securing more military aid and strengthening U.S.-Ukraine ties.
• If Trump Were President: Would have demanded personal loyalty from Congress, attacked critics, and likely insulted allies who weren’t giving Ukraine “enough.”

6. 2023–2024 – Stalemate and Struggles for More U.S. Aid

• Zelensky's Response: Maintained global support, pressed Congress, and kept morale high despite heavy losses.
• If Trump Were President: Would have blamed NATO and Europe for not doing more, possibly considering deals with Russia to end the war on unfavorable terms.

7. February 2025 – Oval Office Meeting With Trump

• Zelensky's Reality: Berated and pressured while standing firm on Ukraine’s needs.
• If Trump Were in Zelensky’s Shoes: The meeting would have been a complete disaster:
• Trump would have taken everything personally, likely ranting about unfair treatment.
• He might have threatened to walk out, insulted Congress, or refused to take responsibility for Ukraine’s struggles.
• Instead of rallying support, he would have blamed allies and possibly hinted at withdrawing from the war altogether.

If the roles had been reversed—meaning Zelensky was in Trump's position as the U.S. president, and Trump was the leader of a nation at war facing Russian aggression—Zelensky would likely have handled the situation very differently.

Zelensky’s Likely Approach:

1. Respectful Diplomacy: Zelensky has consistently treated world leaders with diplomatic courtesy, even in difficult situations. Instead of berating Trump, he would have likely expressed firm support while encouraging a strong alliance.
2. Commitment to Aid: Given Zelensky’s track record, he would have reassured Trump that the U.S. remains committed to providing assistance, whether in military aid, humanitarian relief, or diplomatic efforts.
3. Clear Communication: Zelensky is direct but measured. He would have likely acknowledged Trump’s struggles while emphasizing the importance of international unity against Russian aggression.
4. Public Support: Rather than embarrassing Trump in front of the press, Zelensky would have reinforced a public show of unity, avoiding the kind of humiliation that Trump subjected him to in the real meeting.

In contrast, Trump’s actual behavior toward Zelensky was dismissive and condescending, showing little empathy for a wartime leader. Had the situation been reversed, Zelensky would have approached it with far more tact and leadership.

Final Takeaway

Zelensky has led with resilience, diplomacy, and unwavering focus on Ukraine’s survival. If Trump had been in his position, Ukraine might not have lasted this long, as his need for personal praise, deal-making tendencies, and lack of military strategy would have played into Putin’s hands.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

If Trump Were Zelensky: How He Would Have Melted Down in the Oval Office Showdown

First a couple of things.

Fox News Brit Hume: "It didn't see that Zelensky was reading the room." At the Oval Office meeting. Who the FUCK could have read THAT room? I wasn't reading THAT room when I was watching it unfold! It was a room of Trump mental patient inmates.

From "The Angry Staffer" - "The Most Embarrassing Day".

This blog came from this concept: "Take the Trump / Zelensky Oval Office meeting yesterday and turn it around. How would TRUMP have handled that situation with Zelensky's VP attack dogging Trump? Exactly."

Yesterday in the Oval Office, America was humiliated while the Right, Republicans, and Trump supporters attempted to lay the blame all at the feet of Ukraine's Pres. Zelensky, who was by all accounts treated very improperly for the leader of a state at war.

Also...

The recent Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has raised questions regarding its orchestration and the timing of Russian media coverage.

Pre-Arranged Coverage:

Russian state media's access to the meeting suggests a degree of pre-arrangement. A reporter from Russia's state-owned news agency gained entry to the Oval Office, even as other media outlets were barred. This unusual access indicates that Russian media were prepared to cover the event extensively.

Timing and Coordination:

The swift and detailed reporting by Russian media following the meeting points to prior knowledge. Russian officials, including former President Dmitry Medvedev, quickly commented on the incident, describing Zelenskyy's treatment as a "proper rebuke." This rapid response suggests coordination and possible pre-awareness of the meeting's dynamics.

Speculations on Trump-Putin Communication:

While the orchestrated media coverage raises questions about the meeting's setup, there is no concrete evidence linking President Trump and President Putin in arranging the event. The timing of Russian reactions aligns more with the meeting's immediate aftermath than with any coordinated effort between Trump and Putin.

In summary, the access granted to Russian state media and the rapidity of their coverage suggest a level of pre-arrangement, though direct involvement of Trump and Putin remains speculative without further evidence.

Zelensky was treated shamefully in the White House, especially considering that he is a wartime leader fighting for his country’s survival. Instead of being met with the dignity and respect due to a head of state risking everything against an aggressive invader, he was subjected to public berating and political grandstanding.

Why This Treatment Was Disgraceful:

1. A Disregard for Diplomacy – Instead of a constructive discussion on Ukraine’s needs, the meeting became a humiliating spectacle where Zelensky was talked down to rather than treated as a critical U.S. ally.

2. Undermining an Ally in Crisis – Ukraine is not just asking for aid out of desperation; it is actively fighting a war that aligns with U.S. national security interests. The way Zelensky was handled signaled weakness in America’s commitment to defending democracy against authoritarian aggression.

3. A Break from Traditional U.S. Conduct – Historically, U.S. presidents have shown strong support for allies at war, regardless of party politics. Forcing Zelensky into a pleading position in the Oval Office was a stark contrast to how past leaders, like Churchill or other wartime allies, were treated.

4. Fuel for Russian Propaganda – The humiliation of Zelensky on U.S. soil played right into Putin’s hands. Russia thrives on any sign that Ukraine is losing Western support, and this moment likely gave the Kremlin ammunition to claim that America is abandoning Ukraine.

5. A Missed Opportunity for Unity – Instead of rallying support, the meeting sent a divisive message. It should have been a moment to reaffirm that defending Ukraine is in America’s best interest, not an occasion for public disrespect.

Zelensky’s treatment in the White House was not just disrespectful to him—and to America as it was a bad look for America as a global leader. At a time when authoritarian regimes are watching for signs of Western weakness, the handling of Zelensky sent all the wrong signals. Pres. Trump seems to be vying for a position for America as anything in the world but its leader, going forward.

Zelensky handled the Oval Office debacle with remarkable restraint and composure—far better than many leaders would have in his position.

1. He Stayed Focused on Ukraine’s Survival – Instead of getting caught up in the political theatrics, Zelensky kept redirecting the conversation back to the stakes of the war and Ukraine’s need for continued U.S. support.

2. He Pushed Back Without Escalating – When Trump berated him, Zelensky firmly but diplomatically countered, making it clear that Ukraine had already delivered on its commitments. He didn’t resort to anger, which could have alienated U.S. lawmakers, but also didn’t back down.

3. He Resisted Being Humiliated – The moment could have turned into a power play where Zelensky was forced into a submissive stance, but he refused to let that happen. His body language, tone, and words all signaled that he was an equal leader fighting for his country, not a beggar.

4. He Handled the Pressure in Real Time – The public nature of the moment, with cameras rolling, meant Zelensky had to balance assertiveness with diplomacy. He didn’t let Trump bait him into a spectacle, which would have played into the hands of Russian propaganda.

5. He Showed Strength Under Fire – Instead of letting frustration take over, Zelensky held his ground with facts and logic, reinforcing Ukraine’s contributions and needs without losing his cool.

Overall, he turned an uncomfortable, humiliating situation into a demonstration of leadership, proving why he remains an effective advocate for Ukraine on the world stage.

If the roles were reversed—where Ukraine was a superpower aiding the U.S. in a war against Russia, and Trump was in Zelensky's position yesterday, the Oval Office debacle would have played out very differently. Here’s how:

1. Trump’s Ego Wouldn’t Allow Humility

Zelensky handled the situation with restraint, pushing back firmly but staying diplomatic. Trump, on the other hand, does not handle criticism well. If a foreign leader berated him in the Oval Office, he would immediately fire back—likely louder and more aggressively.

2. He’d Turn It Into a Personal Grievance

Instead of keeping the focus on America’s survival (like Zelensky did for Ukraine), Trump would likely shift the conversation to how he personally felt insulted. He might say something like:

"Nobody’s done more for Ukraine—excuse me, America—than me! And you’re treating me like this? Very unfair!"

3. He’d Make It About Respect

Trump often demands total loyalty and praise, so if the Ukrainian leader (in this case, the powerful one) was grilling him, he’d lash out about being disrespected rather than addressing the military aid issue.

4. He’d Threaten to Walk Out

Zelensky stood his ground and kept the conversation going. Trump, however, might storm out or threaten to cut ties, saying something like:

"Maybe we don’t need your aid! Maybe we should just go it alone! Maybe Ukraine doesn’t appreciate us!"

5. He’d Brag About How He Could End the War Instantly

Instead of focusing on securing more support, he might claim he alone could solve the war if only he were in charge of both sides—similar to his past claims about ending the Ukraine war in “24 hours.”

6. He’d Turn to the Cameras for a Show

Zelensky kept his cool under pressure. Trump, however, would turn it into a performance, talking past the Ukrainian leader and addressing the media:

"See, folks? Very unfair. They’re not treating us right. And quite frankly, America deserves better. Maybe we should stop fighting Russia altogether—who knows?!"

Final Takeaway

Trump’s inability to handle criticism, love for theatrics, and need for dominance would have made the meeting chaotic, combative, and counterproductive. Instead of advocating for America’s survival, he would have made it about himself—probably damaging U.S.-Ukraine relations in the process.

America can do better. We just need a leader somewhat comparable to one who holds the Office of the President of the United States of America.

 Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Veterans Day - Echoes from the Past: Ben Franklin on Pres. re-Elect Trump & America

Today is  Veteran's Day. I'm a vet. I wish all veterans a better future than we now seem to be diving into. I know, that against all rationale, reality, and proof to the contrary, many believe in Donald Trump. What the Hell America? 

First...Thomas J. Brennan - Military Journalism in “The War Horse” & “Shadows of Fallujah” | The Daily Show

We look at the entirety of someone in their character, actions, beliefs, and how they (and we) treat our weakest citizens. And it hasn't been well. 

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as saying, "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

Hubert H. Humphrey, former U.S. Vice President, also famously stated: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, wrote in The House of the Dead: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

The election of Trump spawned the foul and disgusting: "Your Body My Choice", response from the worst of Trump's supporters.

We can do better. Far better. Eventually, we will.

Moving on...

Considering Donald Trump's history, demeanor, felony convictions, being an adjudicated sex abuser, an insurrectionist, malignant narcissist & a famous pathological liar, what might Ben Franklin say about such a person being elected?

The actor and producer Michael Douglas, having played Franklin in a very enjoyable series recently, was asked, "What would Ben Franklin say about the state of America today?"

Douglas' response?

"Oh, I think he'd have another drink."

If Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, were to witness a figure like Donald Trump being elected president, he might have strong reservations, given his well-documented views on public virtue, integrity, and democratic principles.

Franklin believed deeply in the importance of character, humility, and public responsibility. He saw democracy as fragile, needing a foundation of informed, virtuous citizens and leaders to flourish. His famous response to the question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created:

— "A Republic, if you can keep it" — speaks to his concerns about protecting the new democracy from corruption, power grabs, and the erosion of public virtue.

For Franklin, leadership required moral fiber and self-restraint, values he articulated through his writings and public actions. He warned against leaders who pursued personal gain or who lacked humility and honesty. He often highlighted the dangers of pride and self-interest, considering them pitfalls for both individuals and society. Given Trump’s documented behavior and legal issues, including instances of dishonesty, personal attacks, and various convictions, Franklin would likely view him as an embodiment of the qualities that threaten democratic governance.

Franklin’s views on narcissism and personal ambition were also critical. In his Poor Richard's Almanack, he wrote about the risks of excessive pride and selfishness, warning that such traits could mislead leaders and erode public trust. Given Trump’s self-promotional style and contentious relationship with truth, Franklin might see him as potentially destabilizing, particularly due to his challenges with accountability and divisive rhetoric.

In short, Benjamin Franklin would likely express concerns about a leader like Trump, fearing that such a figure might prioritize personal gain over the public good, challenge the balance of democratic institutions, and weaken the very "republic" that Franklin and his peers sought to establish.

But what about Americans electing Trump because of the economy, casting off values of honesty, integrity, decency, humanity out the window to do so?

Americans, in electing a leader primarily for economic reasons while disregarding qualities like honesty, integrity, and decency, Benjamin Franklin, as a moral philosopher, would likely have viewed this as a grave concern for the health of the republic. Franklin and many other founding figures believed that the moral character of leaders directly impacted the wellbeing and ethical grounding of society as a whole. For them, good governance wasn’t just about material prosperity; it was about promoting civic virtue and ensuring leaders upheld values that aligned with the nation's founding principles.

Franklin viewed democracy as something inherently fragile and requiring continual effort and vigilance. His belief in the importance of civic virtue is evident in his writings, where he emphasized that the success of the American experiment depended on the moral character of both its citizens and leaders. To him, sacrificing ethical standards for economic promises might weaken the republic's foundation and lead to a leadership that pursues self-interest over the public good.

Furthermore, the founders warned about the dangers of prioritizing immediate gains over long-term integrity. John Adams, another prominent founder, famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This suggests that when a society sacrifices moral standards — even for economic stability — it risks undermining the very framework that upholds democratic governance and freedom. For Franklin and others, the erosion of values could lead to a citizenry more vulnerable to authoritarianism or corruption.

In Franklin's view, democracy was an ideal rooted in trust, transparency, and respect for each citizen's inherent worth. Leaders without these values, no matter their promises, could ultimately compromise the republic by fostering division, undermining democratic norms, and destabilizing the very economic systems they claim to protect. Thus, he would likely urge Americans to consider both character and competence, as an honest, ethical leader would be more likely to truly serve the nation's best interests.

So, what might Franklin say about Donald Trump?

If Benjamin Franklin were to comment directly on a leader with Donald Trump’s characteristics — including the issues of integrity, accountability, and divisiveness — he might express his concern in strong terms, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leadership. Franklin was a pragmatist, but he held firm beliefs about the need for leaders to embody virtues like honesty, humility, and public-spiritedness. Here’s a potential statement Franklin might make based on his principles and writings:

"A republic cannot stand if it places wealth or economic gain above virtue, for what is sacrificed in integrity shall be paid tenfold in discord. The pursuit of power devoid of honor or honesty is not leadership, but tyranny by another name. When we elevate those who scorn decency, truth, and unity, we invite the decay of our own liberty. A society governed by self-interest and bereft of moral character is a society undone."

This hypothetical statement captures Franklin's likely concerns that prioritizing material gain over moral integrity could weaken the republic. He feared that without an ethical foundation, leaders might exploit their positions, and citizens might become more divided, thus endangering the democratic fabric of the nation.

In his writings, Franklin frequently warned against pride, deception, and selfishness. He believed these traits, if present in leaders, could harm the public and set a dangerous example. If Franklin saw a leader who rejected norms of honesty and respect, he might argue that such a person’s influence could corrupt civic life, encouraging citizens to adopt similarly divisive and self-serving attitudes, ultimately weakening the democratic system.

What might Franklin say about the close support of Elon Musk and of both of their collusion with Vladimir Putin, considering that man's murderousness, war criminality, and abuse of American culture and social media intrusions?

If Benjamin Franklin were to observe a close alliance between powerful figures like Elon Musk and a leader aligned with Vladimir Putin’s actions, he would likely express deep concern over their influence on American values, democracy, and sovereignty. 

Franklin was committed to principles of independence, civic responsibility, and an aversion to alliances that could threaten the integrity and self-governance of the fledgling American nation. His writings make clear his skepticism of unchecked power and his fears about foreign influence corrupting the republic.

Franklin might specifically highlight a few key concerns:

1. The Dangers of Aligning with Autocrats: Franklin was highly wary of foreign influence on American affairs, especially from powers that opposed democratic values. His views align with George Washington’s later warning against “entangling alliances.” Given Putin’s record — including war crimes, alleged election interference, and human rights abuses — Franklin would likely view any collaboration with him as endangering democratic principles and aiding a regime that opposes freedom. He would be particularly troubled by the possibility of American leaders or influential figures giving moral or strategic support to someone he would consider a tyrant.

2. Wealth and Power Over Public Good: Franklin believed strongly that leaders should be motivated by public welfare, not self-interest. If he saw a figure like Musk prioritizing economic or strategic gains from foreign alliances over loyalty to democratic principles, Franklin might argue that such behavior exemplifies the kind of greed that undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the nation. He wrote extensively about the moral obligations of the powerful, believing that those with wealth and influence bore a duty to uphold civic virtue and set an example for society.

3. The Erosion of American Values: Franklin valued the American experiment as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment ideals. He would likely view any support for autocrats or human rights abusers as a betrayal of those values, fearing it could lead to an erosion of American identity. Furthermore, he would be wary of social media’s potential for manipulation and division, viewing it as an affront to reasoned public discourse and civic harmony, which he valued deeply.

4. Manipulation of Information: Franklin, a proponent of a free press and transparent communication, would likely view foreign exploitation of American social media as a threat to the republic’s informational integrity. His experience with print and public discourse would inform his stance on the dangers of propaganda, misinformation, and foreign meddling. He might see social media manipulation as undermining an informed electorate, which he viewed as essential to democracy’s survival.

Here’s a hypothetical statement Franklin might make:

“To serve the interests of tyrants, whether by open support or silent collusion, is to forfeit one’s allegiance to liberty itself. Wealth and influence should not grant license to betray the principles that uphold a free people. If we are to maintain a republic, we must guard against those who would place profit above patriotism and power above public virtue. To consort with despots, or to aid in the degradation of our own information and discourse, is to invite tyranny upon ourselves.”

In short, Franklin would likely condemn any alliance that prioritized personal or economic advantage over democratic values, viewing it as a serious threat to both the republic and the moral integrity of American society.

If Benjamin Franklin observed the modern situation of Donald Trump re-elected amid ongoing controversies, legal evasions, and allegations of undermining democratic principles, he would likely be deeply troubled. Franklin, a staunch advocate for the ethical conduct of public servants and a critic of unchecked power, would see such developments as a dangerous erosion of the democratic values he and other founders fought to establish. Franklin’s writings reflect his strong views on the necessity of integrity, accountability, and civic virtue in leadership, as well as his deep distrust of those who wield power irresponsibly.

Here’s how Franklin might have responded to these circumstances:

1. Defense of Accountability and the Rule of Law: Franklin believed that a government’s legitimacy rested on the rule of law. In fact, he advocated for laws and systems that could hold leaders accountable. In this scenario, he would likely argue that Trump’s avoidance of judicial responsibility compromises the integrity of the American justice system. Franklin’s sense of justice was rooted in fairness and accountability, principles he would expect leaders to uphold above all. He warned against leaders who believed they were above the law, recognizing this as a pathway to tyranny.

2. Safeguarding Elections and Democratic Institutions: As a staunch defender of democracy, Franklin would be alarmed at any efforts to subvert the electoral process. He viewed free and fair elections as the cornerstone of the republic, essential for maintaining the consent of the governed. If he saw efforts to subvert elections or avoid accountability, Franklin might have advocated for measures to reinforce the resilience of electoral institutions. He was also keenly aware of the dangers of factionalism and would have seen election interference as a divisive, destabilizing force on the republic.

3. Moral Character as a Requirement for Office: Franklin was a fervent advocate for the moral character of leaders. He believed that personal integrity was a foundation for public service, famously quoting that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Given Trump’s history of accusations regarding personal conduct, including alleged assaults and disparagement of adversaries, Franklin would likely criticize the acceptance of such behaviors as setting a dangerous example for the nation. He believed that the character of leaders influenced the character of society, making personal ethics inseparable from public service.

4. Speaking Out Against Corruption and Abuse of Power: Franklin consistently spoke out against corruption, both in public office and private conduct. His life was marked by efforts to limit the influence of those who would use power for personal gain at the expense of public welfare. He would have likely called for those who witness abuses to speak out and take action, viewing civic engagement as essential in preventing the rise of autocracy. Franklin famously cautioned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” a sentiment he might extend to those willing to compromise democratic principles for personal or political gain.

A potential statement Franklin might make under these circumstances could be:

“A republic built on the principles of liberty, justice, and virtue cannot endure under the weight of self-interest and corruption. To preserve our democracy, we must demand accountability from all who hold office, lest we descend into the very tyranny we once fought to escape. The freedom of the people is safeguarded not by wealth or power but by the unwavering commitment to truth, honor, and the rule of law. When a leader disregards these values, they invite the downfall of the republic.”

In essence, Franklin would see today’s events as a profound warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of an informed, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to preserve the republic. He might call on Americans to actively oppose corruption, strengthen democratic norms, and demand accountability from their leaders, reminding them that the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT