Fact-checking Donald Trump's claims about war in Ukraine
By: Matt Murphy & Jake Horton
It is sickening to watch this buffoon piss on allies and cozy up with malicious dictators.
It is worse, however, to witness USA citizens support this traitor.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
US President Donald Trump has appeared to accuse Ukraine of being responsible for the war with Russia, in a flurry of claims from his Mar-a-Lago mansion in Florida.
Speaking to reporters, Trump also made claims about President Volodymyr Zelensky's popularity and observed that Ukraine had yet to hold scheduled elections due to martial law. He later doubled down on those comments in a fiery Truth Social post on Wednesday.
Trump's accusations - some of which appeared to mirror common Russian talking points about the war - came just hours after US officials met a Russian delegation in Riyadh to open talks to end the conflict, which has raged for almost three years.
Zelensky later accused Trump of "living in a disinformation space" created by Russia.
BBC Verify has fact-checked Trump's claims.
Claim: Zelensky is a 'dictator without elections'
Trump initially drew attention to the fact that Ukraine has not held a presidential election since 2019, when Zelensky - previously a comedian with no political base - swept to power.
He repeated the claims in a Truth Social post in which he accused the Ukrainian leader of being a "dictator without elections".
Zelensky's first five-year term of office was due to come to an end in May 2024. However, Ukraine has been under martial law since the Russian invasion in February 2022, which means elections are suspended.
Ukraine's martial laws were drafted in 2015 - shortly after Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula and years before Zelensky and his Servant of the People party came to power.
Independent observers from the OSCE said the 2019 election had been "competitive and fundamental freedoms were generally respected".
Zelensky won 73% of the vote in the second-round run-off.
Zelensky has vowed to hold a new election once the conflict ends and has yet to confirm that he intends to stand. Some experts have observed that holding elections in Ukraine before the conflict ends would be practically impossible, as Russian attacks on many cities persist and millions of citizens are displaced abroad or living under Russian occupation.
Trump's intervention on the subject came just hours after the Kremlin questioned Zelensky's legitimacy as his term in office has ended, a claim Moscow has repeatedly made in the past months. On 28 January, Russia's President Vladimir Putin called Zelensky "illegitimate" in an interview with Russian media.
Referring to the electoral situation, Trump appeared aware that it had been a frequent Russian allegation used to undermine Zelensky, saying in his news conference: "That's not a Russian thing, that's something coming from me, from other countries."
For his part, Zelensky has previously said it would be "absolutely irresponsible to throw the topic of elections" in the middle of the conflict.
Trump questioned on Ukraine not being invited to US-Russia talks
Claim: 'I hate to say it, but he's down at 4% approval rating'
President Trump also claimed that Zelensky's approval rating has fallen to 4%.
It's unclear what source the president was citing as he didn't provide evidence. We have asked the White House to clarify this.
Official polling is limited and it is extremely difficult to carry out accurate surveys during a time of war. Millions of Ukrainians have fled and Russia has occupied around a fifth of the country.
However, some polling has been possible to carry out by telephone. A survey conducted this month found that 57% of Ukrainians said they trusted the president, according to the Ukraine-based Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.
However, that was down from 77% at the end of 2023, and 90% in May 2022 - suggesting that the president has suffered a drop-off in his popularity.
Some other polls suggest Zelensky trailing his nearest rival, former army chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, in the first round of any future election, indicating the two would face each other in a run-off.
Getty ImagesGen Valerii Zaluzhnyi could be a rival to President Zelensky were he to run in any future election, some polls suggest
In the wake of Trump's comments, some major Russian media outlets seized on the claim and cited a poll carried out by Ukrainian MP and Zelensky critic, Oleksandr Dubinsky, on Telegram which they claimed backed up Trump's assessment.
Dubinsky has been charged with treason in Ukraine, and accused of "operating at the behest of Russian intelligence" - which he denies.
Claim: 'You should have never started it'
Ukrainian authorities expressed dissatisfaction over not being part of Tuesday's talks in Riyadh. But Trump dismissed these concerns, telling reporters that Ukraine had had three years to end the war, before appearing to blame Kyiv for starting the conflict.
"You should have never started it," he said. The Kremlin has previously accused Ukraine of starting the war against Russia.
"It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022," Russian President Vladimir Putin told US talk show host Tucker Carlson in February 2024.
Ukraine didn't start the war. Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, having annexed Crimea in 2014.
The annexation came after Ukraine's pro-Russian president was ousted by popular demonstrations.
- Trump says Ukraine could have made a deal earlier
- Rosenberg: How Putin and Trump shook up the world in a week
- Who was at the table at US-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia?
Russia also backed proxy forces who seized areas of eastern Ukraine, and it accused the new government in Kyiv of discrimination and genocide against Russian speakers. The International Court of Justice has rejected Moscow's claims.
After the failure of agreements which aimed to end the post-2014 conflict - Russia began a massive build-up of troops on its border with Ukraine in late 2021.
Putin launched the invasion on 24 February 2022, stating that the aim of the operation was to "demilitarise and denazify" the pro-Western government of Volodymyr Zelensky and prevent the country from joining Nato.
In Ukraine's last parliamentary elections, support for far-right candidates was 2%. It should also be noted that Zelensky is Jewish and that his party has been regarded as centrist.
And while Nato officials said in 2021 that Ukraine was a candidate to join the Western alliance in the future, it was not part of any formal process.
Additional reporting by BBC Monitoring.
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
Anyone wondering how Trump is going to 'end the war' in Ukraine?
Perhaps by getting him to capitulate and come to terms, since Ukraine has no chance of prevailing in this conflict. I wish it wasn't so, but that is the reality of this situation. You have better ideas?
It is obvious that Trump is going to do his best to make Ukraine capitulate.
Yeah, let the master negotiator find an actual compromise. That is what true negotiation is about ... finding something where both sides gain something and lose something ... and come to terms.
Any idiot can side with one of the opposing parties and bully the other. That is not negotiation. Especially when one sides with the dictator who invaded the other party and is the sole reason for the war in the first place.
Trump is an embarrassment for our nation.
That's obviously going to entail Russia keeping some Ukrainian territory, which democrats will call a sell out. So let's not pretend democrats will support an actual compromise.
Remember, Trump can't force Ukraine to do anything. They and Europe can fight on forever if they don't like the deal Trump recommends. Likewise, Russia can always reject whatever Trump says. The only actual leverage is the reality on the ground.
Trump can act against Ukraine. Right off the bat he can stop all support. Without USA support, Ukraine will be screwed.
I think I just stated the basic structure of a true negotiation:
Although I figured Trump would essentially side with Putin and try to force Zelensky's hand, I did hold out some little hope that Trump would actually do some good. This has been one of my examples where I would credit Trump. With his public attacks on Zelensky, it is obvious what Trump is going to do.
The reality is they already are. They don't have the manpower to dislodge Russian troops. Holding a static line is likely their best outcome. No one ever explains their plan for changing that, absent the involvement of NATO troops.
We've already borrowed 183 billion or so dollars from our descendants to give to Ukraine. How long should we fund a stalemate? How many trillions should we make future generation repay?
think I just stated the basic structure of a true negotiation:
And I've stated the unimpeachable fact that Democrats won't actually accept any negotiation that has a chance of actually succeeding. Russia isn't going to just give up, leave and pay to rebuild Ukraine. It'd be great if they did but there is zero chance of that happening. Zero. Ukraine can't win that type of victory, no matter how many dollars we borrow on their behalf
With his public attacks on Zelensky, it is obvious what Trump is going to do
You are surprised Trump isn't coddling a foreign leader who came to America to campaign against him?
A defeatist attitude. A 'master negotiator' with the power of the US presidency could engage those with a highly vested interest, local nations, and those with a keen interest in general peace (UN) to commit to aligning with Ukraine against Russia. That force is a negotiating tool. Trump brags that he could have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine. So let's see this magical power in action. This is your challenge, Trump. Do some real negotiations. Impress us all.
Trump seems to be taking the path I expected him to take. Just give in to Putin. Real easy to do — especially for a sociopath.
Beyond all our allies who already are? Will Gilder come to Ukraine's rescue? Maybe Eastasia?
So let's see this magical power in action.
That's exactly my point. Democrats demand magic and anything short of a miracle is just "giving in to Putin." Putin is not the dumbest person in history. Why do you expect him to act like he is?
The allies are known. What they can do is not set in stone.
I am not a D and I do not think this perspective is limited to Ds anyway. My 'magic' reference was sarcasm referring to Trump's bragging of his negotiation powers.
If Trump could have prevented both the Ukraine and the Gaza wars, as he claims, then let's see him apply his superpowers to do something other than merely siding with Putin against Ukraine.
I wonder where everyone was when Barry gave Russia Crimea? And why is it trumps fault/responsibility to fix Joes handling of Russia/Ukraine?
Like what? If you were the negotiator, what would you propose?
I'd love to see Ukraine kick Russia's ass all the way back to the pre 2014 border but I don't see them being able to do it. Every day, more blood and treasure is being spent on trying to achieve what looks likely impossible. I would like to see the war end, even if Ukraine loses land. I hate it, but I don't see a way for them to win.
And no, I don't like how Trump is handling this situation and I think he's saying some stupid things. If Putin invaded Alaska, would he just cede it to avoid a war? I think he's making a lot of unforced errors, here. I wonder what his position on Ukrainian held Russian land is? I couldn't find anything.
Putin holds all the cards here. It is unrealistic to think that any real "negotiations" will occur. The best that Ukraine can attain is keeping its present borders
Seems to me, this is a good framework:
I am not PotUS with access to advisors and strategists with decades of experience dealing with dictators. I do not have all of their information. So asking me to come up with the details of a negotiation strategy is unrealistic and not in any way a test of what could be accomplished.
The defeatist attitude is that there is NO possible course of action other than to throw Zelensky under the bus (blaming Ukraine for starting the war is an example of this). In life, rarely do complex matters converge on a single possible course. Thus the idea of Putin prevailing and Ukraine losing as being the only possible scenario is itself unrealistic.
It may be the only possible outcome with Trump leading the charge, but that is more a function of his stupidity and narcissism than anything else.
Now, a few articles that suggest strategies and points of negotiation:
The point here is to emphasize that this is complex situation and, as such, there are myriad ways to formulate an acceptable compromise. But none of these are possible if Trump is going to just side with Putin.
By the way ... an underlying big-picture, long-term strategic perspective
That is far too simplistic.
I agree but not for the reason you hold. With Trump doing the 'negotiation' his recent signals show that he is being manipulated by Putin.
I would think they would find that to be acceptable if coupled with guarantees (of some form) that they are safe from further aggression by Russia and can continue to build their military might.
I do not think Putin would agree to anything less than a substantial land grab. And there could be a way to grant Russia the territory it currently controls but that would need to be balanced with something like Ukraine joining NATO, Russia paying for much of the damage it caused in Ukraine, etc. There are all sorts of ways to slice this complex problem.
Ukraine clearly cannot win if we define winning as getting back all of its land. But it can win in a compromise that gives it something in return for some lost land. Such as NATO membership, payments by Russia to repair destroyed infrastructure, guarantees of no future aggression by Russia, etc.
Trump resorting to publicly insulting Zelensky (e.g. 4% approval) shows that Trump has already decided to be on Putin's side. Clearly Trump is nowhere near an impartial facilitator. Trump has stupidly already poisoned the well.
My point of view, and I think the Ukrainians, would consider that to be the minimum condition for a 'win', such as it would be.
None of which I can see Putin agreeing to, but I'm not the expert. Even if Putin is desperate to end this, he probably feels he cannot be seen as being weak on anything. Especially with Trump cutting his own throat, bargaining wise, if he's trying to get the best deal for Ukraine, or simply outright supporting Putin.
Possibly, but I think that's too early to call. It may just be Trump being Trump. I'll wait to see what the proposal is after the talks.
Possibly, but not in the way you think, maybe. I'm beginning to think that one of Trump's main goals is to create a more isolationist America than I previously thought. That's why he makes so many hostile comments directed at traditionally friendly countries. Meaning, he's more partial to his vision more than he might be partial to Russia. Trump wants more American money to stay in America and, if I'm right, sees the Russia/Ukraine war as an opportunity to stop hemorrhaging some of that money. It's also why he so ruthlessly cut off foreign aid the way he has. Why he keeps pissing off NATO allies, so they spend more on their own defense and less of ours, which may also explain his handling of Ukraine, but that may be more Machiavellian than he's capable of.
I agree with that.
Ultimately, at this point, I do not see how this ends well for Ukraine given Trump is being dominated by Putin.
The last resort is for the local neighbors to take up the slack but, yet again, Trump has made even this unlikely event much more difficult.
Democrats want Biden’s Vietnam to become trumps Vietnam, at what point do we say enough and let Europe step up? Why are we responsible for Ukraine?
That should be part of the negotiation. But it will not happen if it is just Putin and Trump yapping away. All that will result from that is Putin manipulating Trump to get what he wants.
Trump, the 'master negotiator' has shown his cards. Looks to me that he will not be doing any good; he is being manipulated by a superior intellect. And that manipulation is happening domestically too with Musk.
Trump can’t give Putin anything, but I did notice you deflected from the question, Russia GDP is smaller than Brazil and is no threat to the United States, so why is it our responsibility to defend Ukraine? Especially without compensation?
You actually believe you posed difficult questions? Here, George, I will address your questions directly even though this should be obvious.
We should be pushing hard for Europe to pump up their support. This should have been done at a higher level of support from the beginning. Maybe with current circumstances of North Korean support the locals will be more inclined to do so. But we do not just back out, we stay in the fight with greater support from locals.
It is historically a fact that the USA serves as the leader for democracy worldwide. We have been defending same for many decades. We are responsible for maintaining a leadership role to defeat Russia given it was Russia who invaded Ukraine and it is Russia that threatens other nations in the region.
One good outcome that I originally thought Trump might be able to pull off is to put more pressure on the local nations to rally behind Ukraine. I no longer hold any real hope that this will occur because Trump's recent rhetoric illustrates that Putin is dominant and Trump does not even realize he is being played.
He starts telling lies and he can't help himself they just keep coming out of his mouth.
And he doesn't care
Even when his staff or others walk back his bullshit, he never stands up and say what I said yesterday was total bullshit and I am sorry
He is without honor
i can’t argue that point with you, why are we responsible for Ukraine and when is enough, enough?
I agree that the U.S. should not be solely responsible for Ukraine.
I do think that trying to extort mineral rights for support is wrong, that making deals with Russia to give them the spoils of their outright aggression is wrong.
If the U.S. walks away from Ukraine, the USA will have little honor in Europe