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

American Military Parades Are Redundant in Exhibiting Our Power

I wanted to know more about the concept of military parades before #realDonadlTrump got involved and found an article from Australia from 2015.

At the rate Donald Trump as president is losing ground in his self righteousness, I'm not sure how much this will remain relevant or for how long. Still it's good to know, to be aware.

Why DON'T we have dictator style military parades like in China, North Korea, Russia, etc.?

Maybe that question answers itself. We don't want to be perceived as tyrants, dictators, bullies. Donald Trump does. And so, who wants a military parade in America now? Well, DT obviously.

Military parades display for the world to see, not just one's citizen's, our weapons in a way that is impressive and exploits considerations of dominance and power.

America...doesn't need to do that. It diminishes our dominance and power in displaying it. In part why Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly and CARRY (not display) a big stick." Speak with authority, while knowing you have in your arsenal the power to back it up. Minor dictators show off (including China) because they feel they need to, or to inspire their citizens because they need that.

America simply doesn't need that for any of these reasons.

According to an article in the Atlantic:

"Despite the popular image of Roosevelt as a swashbuckling uber-American, his words have, over time, been cast and recast incorrectly as an endorsement of bellicosity. In fact, the president who stormed Kettle Hill as a younger man generally preferred letting the military's mere existence speak for itself. Historian Edmund Morris writes that the night Roosevelt first gave his big-stick speech, the then-vice president's words were rather misconstrued:

"This generated such loud applause as to suggest the audience took his 'adage' as aggressive, rather than cautionary. Actually, Roosevelt was trying to say that soft-spoken (even secret) diplomacy should be the priority of a civilization, as long as hardness -- of moral resolve, of military might -- lay back of it."

That, pretty much says it all.

Donald Trump in being Trump, and in wanting a military parade, is exhibiting exactly what and who he is and using America to back up simply being a petty bully. Such as he is. And an immature actor. One with plenty of signs of being a sociopath, such as many CEOs are reported to be. Some with criminal tendencies, such as Mr. Trump certainly appears to be.

Either way, THAT is not America. Yet that sadly is some people's perception of us. Our "weight" and power and money alone, are our bully tools. To do anything bully-like is to be redundant, petty, and much less than we are, and should be.


#GOP #realDonaldTrump #POTUS #Republican #conservative

Edward Snowden

I happened to catch this guy on the radio yesterday and even paid for the pdf to read it all. I found what he had to say, compelling, to say the least. I'm not into conspiracy theories, I like to deal in fact, if and when you can divine what that might be. And with government recently, it's been getting harder and harder to tell what is going on.

Not to mention, our enemies have been getting harder to know of, deal with and stop from causing us grief. Albeit, as times we may have asked for the grief we have gotten. Even though it may have been something we did long ago. Not to mention, we may now be getting blamed (honestly, as we always have and somewhat rightfully so, but less so today, perhaps) for things corporations have done. Corporations have morphed far beyond our understanding or control. The puny controls we had in place to keep them in their place have been superseded long ago. They have grown so big and multinational that they are now, at least to some degree, controlling our government.

I do think our government means well, mostly I think people in government mean well, with a side of greed and lack of empathy many times, but I also think they need to be kept under control (as our Founding Father made it abundantly clear, time and time again). Much like like a pit bull trained to kill, needs to be kept under control. You just don't let it run free. It's not unlike a loaded gun, if you don't pay attention at ALL times as to what its up to, well, you are responsible for what happens.

Years ago when I first spoke out against terrorists and their kind, it was a concern regarding being targeted. Faint though that may be. Not that I think I'm anybody important or greatly noticed. One just never knows about these things, right? Ones to whom a finger might be pointed and great attention paid to. After all the ones to raise their head or be noticeable in the wrong ways, tend to be the ones who get beat down. It's nearly the law of sociology. I just never thought that one day my concern about being watched, monitored, or abused, might come from my own country. The freedoms are becoming thin, and the potentials for abuse, more pronounced.

Sadly, our government much of the time isn't. Responsible, that is. It hides its actions, misdirects attention and out right lies to its owners. Not all the time to be sure, it's not as bad as some conspiracy theorists would have us believe. Still today, at this time, things are pretty bad and we do need to reign things in. Our security industry is out of control, in size if nothing else. We need protection, but we need competent diplomacy over that of security and secrets to make us safe. Leaning on security techniques over diplomacy is always dangerous, and lazy.

Some of the things that look the worst in government are simply a multiplicity of processes going in unforeseen directions, being mismanaged, and you can add in some greed and self-serving interests (like the extreme and not so extreme, conservatives out there).

Anyway, this guy had some very interesting things to say about Edward Snowden, things we haven't heard in the media, or on the news and I highly suggest listening to what he has to say. Who is this guy and what does he have to say? Here is the lead in from the program:

RAY McGOVERN - Whistleblowers
University Temple United Methodist Church, Seattle, WA 17 October 2013
"Ray McGovern is a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency. He helped form Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence. Sam Adams was McGovern’s colleague at the CIA. McGovern and several other former intelligence officials went to Russia in October to honor Edward Snowden with the Sam Adams Award. Ray McGovern also works for Tell the Word, a ministry of the inner-city Washington D.C. Church of the Saviour."

Now I expected this to be utter nonsense. I have a background in military and studied the cold war, while it was happening. I'm hard to fool. But after a few minutes of listening to this guy, some of my undecided opinions on Snowden, started to coalesce, and were not what I had expected them to be. It's worth a few bucks to hear what this guy had to say. I could quote it here but it would be best in his own words. He rambles a bit, but bear with him, and hear what he has to say.

We all need to start rethinking things and getting the powers that be back under OUR control. Not that they ever were completely, but this is ridiculous, how things have gotten. Be well.

Putin's letter to the American People on Syria

#murdockinations #Syria
On September 11th, the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin sent a letter to the New York Times to directly address the American people. It is an interesting read (reading between the lines of his letter).

I do question our belief in our perceived exceptionalism now a days. There are certainly still things that make America great, but is it really what we are being led to believe it is? Or is it in something else more intrinsic to who we are and in what we can positively achieve in the world? I'm hoping, more and more it involves non-military practices.

It's high time we start redesigning our military / industrial complex, how we believe they should be used (or how we are being used by them) and in doing so, take control back from them.

The middle east is a complicated place. We need to understand that what we publicly say as a nation, is not always what we will do in the end (or so it should be). That's how it works in manipulating a situation toward more positive results. Finesse a situation. Only fools believe they have to use force all the time.

Do we need to have the "big stick" behind the talk? Does the "big stick" need to be used so often in dealing out its death and destruction all (any) of the time? When one uses that "big stick" too much, it begins to turn into another thing. It changes those who wield it and that makes that entire theory of this type of diplomacy questionable.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far," said President Roosevelt. What do you want that to mean? And what does "speak softly" really mean? I believe it means to speak civilly, intelligently, sometimes behind the scenes even, but always effectively. Backing it up with strength. The goal after all, is to not go beyond that.

We seem to have lost that understanding far too often in not applying intellect over force. How do we know that you ask? Really? Because we've been using force a lot in case you haven't noticed. And if we don't at some point stop it, then who have we really become?


NOTE: A blatant plug for a Friend.
People keep trying to spam my blog so I might as well just do it myself, right?
IF you've had quite enough of all this reality stuff, check out fellow Author Kurt Giambastiani's latest ebook novelette, "The Revitalization of Emily", on Amazon.
Cheers!