world

Trump tells Putin about idea for G7 summit with Russia; Trudeau disagrees

17 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Trudeau noted Russia's “continued disrespect and flaunting of international rules and norms.”

I have to assume Prime Minister Trudeau is concerned about a number of issues pertaining to Russia, including Canada's relations with Russia, starting with Arctic resources. (Google/Yandex/Baidu "Arctic resource disputes"). Trudeau will look out for Canada's interests first. I wonder if Trudeau fears Putin&Trump are positioning themselves to grab even more resources for themselves and their factions of the 'elite'.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump can suck up to Vlad on his own time. No need to involve other countries.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

The Trump-Putin mutual admiration and collaboration society continues its march forward...

I'm sure Vlad offered Don some of his government-backed contract Army forces to help quell the violence in the US...and I'm sure Don would accept...

Confederate and Russian flags go together with Trump 2020 banners...

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Trump said Saturday he will postpone until the fall a meeting of the G7 leading industrialized nations that he had planned to hold next month, and plans to invite Russia, Australia, South Korea and India. Trump told reporters that he feels the current makeup of the group is “very outdated” and doesn’t properly represent “what’s going on in the world.”

Trump is correct.

Of course there is nothing he could say that our local Trump haters would not immediately criticize.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@Zaphod

"Trump is correct."

Maybe the batting order does need to change. But that's not Trump's unilateral decision to make.

On another note, I wonder if we'll ever learn any details of these phone calls to Russia...

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The G7 summit can held in the underground bunker of white house this year! Trump will stay there a very long time!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In agreement with Trudeau. Why should Russian aggression against her neighbors be ignored? For similar reasons, China should be held to the same standards and not be ignored and yet rewarded for its aggressions against its neighbors.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

stormcrow:

In agreement with Trudeau. Why should Russian aggression against her neighbors be ignored? For similar reasons, China should be held to the same standards

Invalid comparison. The Ukraine is not just a neighbour, it is historically and culturally deeply tied to Russia and half of its population is ethnic Russian. Annexing the Krimea (which is also historically Russian, only gifted to Ukraine by Chrushtchev in a night of drunken stupor) was a matter of national security. I suppose they don´t give any background to their consumers in the "mainstream" media.

To compare that to the CCPs annexation of Tibet, the land grab in India and Vietnam, the illegal territorial claiims in the China sea against Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia etc..., and shall we mention the genocide of the Uigurs.... that is just bizarre.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Just look at that picture at the top of the article...

"I got my Puppet elected and he is tearing America apart - just as I hoped...ain't life grand"...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Annexing the Krimea (which is also historically Russian, only gifted to Ukraine by Chrushtchev in a night of drunken stupor) was a matter of national security.

Comical the lengths you will go to and the odd conclusions you come to in order to stay on the Trump team.

'National Security' has never been a legal basis for annexation of a sovereign nation's land. To argue so really is just bizarre.

Would you be okay with Canada annexing Alaska? How about if Germany & Russia cut Poland up again? Who decides when 'national security' becomes an excuse to invade and occupy?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

ClippetyClop:

Who decides when 'national security' becomes an excuse to invade and occupy?

I assume you do know that the main naval base of the country is in the Krimea, and after the US deep state meddling in the Ukrain with the Maidan coup there was the very real threat that that would become inaccessible. This is absolutely national security. You might want to read up international politics; CNN soundbytes don´t quite cut it.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This is absolutely national security.

Oh, so it's not just 'national security', it's 'absolutely national security'. I give up, you got me. They should use 'Really very super-national security' next time, they could probably get away with grabbing Poland with that. Not that any of those gave Russia the right to annex Crimea though. You might want to read up on that when Infowars goes into its commercial break.

CNN soundbytes don´t quite cut it.

How is what channel I don't watch relevant? Stick to your super-absolutely mainstream media if it keeps you warm and well bubbled

3 ( +4 / -1 )

'National Security' has never been a legal basis for annexation of a sovereign nation's land. To argue so really is just bizarre.

Really? That has been the primary reason given throughout history. It's bizarre that anyone who has read any history would find it bizarre. Really, Americans should have no right to even complain about these issues. The USA is far and away the leader when it comes to invading sovereign nations, whether Republican or Democrat. Fix your own house, why don't you?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@ClippetyClop

Who decides when 'national security' becomes an excuse to invade and occupy?

Are you sure you can't recall any precedents? Let me help you: Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I am always amazed when I see Americans who probably could not find the Ukraine on a map and know zilch about the history of an area on the other side of the world have extremely strong opinions about the local situation. Typically the one told to them in media soundbytes.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Really? That has been the primary reason given throughout history.

'Throughout history' tells me you haven't really much of an idea about history as human history is a bit more complex to be able to use such easy generalizations. But does it being a 'primary reason' make it justifiable?

Really, Americans should have no right to even complain about these issues.

I'm not American, and Americans do have the right to complain about these issues. Why should they be denied that right? Is that the reason why Trump grabs his ankles for Vlad?

Fix your own house, why don't you?

You naively assume that I support the actions of my country without question.

Are you sure you can't recall any precedents? Let me help you: Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003.

They weren't precedents. And they weren't annexations. And were they weren't justified. Neither was yours.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Chrushtchew (who was ethnic Ukrainian, what a surprise) shifted administration of the Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine. At the time, that was not a big issue, since all parties involved were in the Sovjet Union.

And even after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Sevastopol under Ukrainian addministration would not have been an existential threat to the Russian Federation. However, when Western globalist warmongers supported anti-Russian governments in the Ukraine and made efforts to have the Ukraine join the EU and Nato, it very quickly became one.

I have never heard a talking head on CNN or another fake mainstream news media explain that background; instead they spout about evil Puting invading independent nations; which he has never done, unlike the CCP.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites