This site requires Javascript to function properly - please enable Javascript in your browser

Trump says Putin will release diesel fuel into global market

community » Discussions » Category » News & Politics » Discussion » Trump says Putin will release diesel fuel into global market

Category: News & Politics

Via: perrie-halpern • one month ago • 119 comments

By: Steve Kopack

Trump says Putin will release diesel fuel into global market

President Donald Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin would "immediately" release hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel fuel onto the global market.

S E E D E D C O N T E N T

Oct. 9, 2026, 2:56 PM EDT / Updated Oct. 9, 2026, 4:33 PM EDTBy Steve Kopack

President Donald Trump said Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin would "immediately" release hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel fuel onto the global market.

Trump made the announcement on Truth Social and said the action would will help bring diesel prices down.

Since its illegal invasion of Ukraine, wide-ranging sanctions have been applied to Russia. In order to get the diesel fuel moved, the Treasury Department simultaneously announced Friday that it would be easing sanctions on Russia through April 7.

"Today, at President Trump's direction, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is immediately issuing a temporary general license to allow the supply of Russian diesel to the global market," the Treasury Department said on X.

A document posted to the Treasury's website said that "the sale, delivery, offloading, or importation, including importation into the United States, of diesel fuel of Russian Federation origin are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 7, 2027.

In a separate statement, Putin said that he had informed Trump of Russia's "readiness to supply oil and petroleum products to the US and global markets." Putin did not offer any specifics, however, such as when a potential release would begin or how much fuel it would entail.

Since the start of the Iran war in February, the price of diesel fuel has soared almost 70%, and economists have warned that the price hikes will have wide-ranging inflationary effects on the global economy.

In recent weeks, sharp escalations in the Russia-Ukraine war have caused diesel to spike even further, and for multiple weeks the price of diesel set repeated all-time records.

After multiple Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy assets earlier this year, the Kremlin in July imposed a diesel fuel export ban. It has since been extended through the end of October.

Russian deputy prime minister Alexander Novak told state news agency TASS that his country would immediately begin lifting its export ban as a result of the Trump-Putin agreement.

Trump has publicly pleaded with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to stop bombing Russia's diesel refinery plants.

"The problem I have with Ukraine and Russia is that, you know, a lot of the diesel comes … from Russia, and the Russia plants are being hit by Ukraine," Trump told reporters recently. "And I've asked President Zelenskyy not to hit the diesel plants."

"That's what's driving it up," Trump said, referring to the cost of diesel. Ukraine, he added, has "Got to stop."

On Sept. 14, Trump claimed that Zelenskyy and Putin had agreed to stop targeting energy infrastructure.

Zelenskyy, however, denied that he had agreed to stop targeting Russian energy assets, telling CBS News he would only stop striking oil and gas targets if Russia agreed to the same terms.

But the Kremlin has increased its targeting of Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure this summer and fall.

Just hours before Trump's announcement Friday, Zelenskyy welcomed a delegation of U.S. senators to the presidential palace in Kyiv.

"We can only protect ourselves from this terror by working together, and we discussed how the United States can help save lives," Zelenskyy said on social media.

"This is a matter of political will, and it is now important to show leadership and fully cut off the financial flows sustaining Russia's war machine."

Zelenskyy described Trump's move to ease sanctions on diesel Friday as "an obvious weakness."

"It plays into Russia's hands — allowing it to kill more, wage war for longer, have even less respect for America, and inflict even greater losses and damage on the world," he said.

This is not the first time Trump has tried to use U.S. sanctions relief for Russia to help slow rising oil prices. The Treasury Department issued a series of 30-day sanctions waivers for Russian oil on the water this spring.

But they expired and largely did not impact the trajectory of oil and gas prices, which have continued rising for months.

Diesel futures fell 4% Friday in the wake of Trump's announcement, but they remain higher by more than 110% since the start of this year.

Likewise, the price of crude oil barely budged. Brent crude oil traded around $104 per barrel Friday, down just 0.3% on the day.

Trump's announcement also came just as Ukrainian negotiators departed for the U.S., for a new round of talks aimed at bringing an end to the war with Russia.

Special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner had been expected to lead the discussions. It was unclear late Friday whether they would continue as planned in light of the latest sanctions waiver.

Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize

Oslo City Hall
Oslo, Norway

1:44 P.M. CET

T HE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END

Professor Guide

4.5.5 CB replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.1 one month ago

Press release

English
Norwegian

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided* that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman . The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Oslo, October 9, 2009

* Emphasis mine.

Professor Participates

4.5.6 1stwarrior replied to TᵢG @4.5.3 4 weeks ago

Neither of them "deserve" receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

Professor Principal

4.5.7 TᵢG replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.6 4 weeks ago

Does it not offend and embarrass you that the PotUS (our face, voice, and hand on the world stage) is a whining man-child?

Professor Principal

4.5.8 JohnRussell replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.1 4 weeks ago

Would Obama have cried like a baby if he didnt get it? Get real.

Professor Guide

4.5.9 Thomas replied to CB @4.5.4 4 weeks ago

This portion shows that he understood the projection of power

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

... and it also shows us how little the current administration gets it.

Professor Participates

4.5.10 1stwarrior replied to JohnRussell @4.5.8 4 weeks ago

Yawnnnnn.

Well, since Obama is "supposedly" from Chicago, it wouldn't have surprised many if the "boyz from da hood" would have brought "their guns" and big grins to ensure that it happened.

Different folks - different strokes.

Professor Participates

4.5.11 1stwarrior replied to TᵢG @4.5.7 4 weeks ago

And this has what to do with the award of the Nobel Prize?

Your point?

Professor Principal

4.5.12 devangelical replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.11 4 weeks ago

Professor Guide

4.5.13 sandy-2021492 replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.10 4 weeks ago

Well, since Obama is "supposedly" from Chicago, it wouldn't have surprised many if the "boyz from da hood" would have brought "their guns" and big grins to ensure that it happened.

What a remarkably stupid thing to say.

Professor Principal

4.5.14 TᵢG replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.11 4 weeks ago

And this has what to do with the award of the Nobel Prize?

??? This is Trump whining about the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. How can you NOT see that this clip has something to do with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize??

Your point?

Instead of criticizing this national embarrassment for his continued, childish whining about never getting the Nobel Peace Prize, you deflect to Obama. Yeah, Obama did not deserve it. Big deal; ancient news. That does not change the fact that the current PotUS (who is our face, voice, and hand as a nation) is making our nation look like a bunch of fucking fools for electing this idiot.

Trump is outrageous. His behavior (for years now) about how much he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and his incessant whining about it accomplishes no good and further harms the reputation and perception of the USA in the eyes of the rest of the planet.

But you deflect to Obama to try to lessen the outrageous behavior; you try to defend Trump.

That is the point!

Professor Participates

4.5.15 Split Personality replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.6 4 weeks ago

That doesn't justify the whataboutisms.

Theodore Roosevlt

Woodrow Wilson

Jimmy Carter

You can make good arguments against why those three's awards were deserved based on what they did or didn't do previously.

Henry Kissenger?

Al Gore

George C Marshall

and I am sure there are many still trying to figure out why Martin Luther King deserved one for trying to ruin "their" country by holding us to the spirit and letters of the Constitution.

There will always be some discontent expressed.

There are 427 Americans who received the Nobel and 3 more who shared the prize.

How many can you remember because you liked them, not hated them.

How many of them deserved the award according to your standards?

Any?

BTW, 29% were immigrants to the USA.

Professor Principal

4.5.16 devangelical replied to sandy-2021492 @4.5.13 4 weeks ago

[✘]

Professor Participates

4.5.17 Split Personality replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.10 4 weeks ago

it wouldn't have surprised many if the "boyz from da hood" would have brought "their guns" and big grins to ensure that it happened.

Nice racist remark. Were they going to hop a flight to Norway to accomplish this stupid analogy?

Professor Guide

4.5.18 MrFrost replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.1 4 weeks ago

Just like Obama, right?

How long has he been out of office now and you're still whining about him? Good grief man, get over it.

Professor Guide

4.5.19 MrFrost replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.10 4 weeks ago

Well, since Obama is "supposedly" from Chicago

Born in Hawaii, lives in Chicago... Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for the Nutters. I was born in Washington and now live in NY, big deal.

Professor Principal

4.5.20 devangelical replied to Split Personality @4.5.17 4 weeks ago

trolling, trolling, trolling ...

Professor Principal

4.5.21 JohnRussell replied to TᵢG @4.5.14 4 weeks ago

Trump says he will not change the name of the Hudson and Mississippi rivers. He says Henry Hudson ( a white European) did a "good job" and Mississippi voted for him three times.

The president of the United States is an infantile troll and his base thinks thats just fine.

Professor Participates

4.5.22 1stwarrior replied to MrFrost @4.5.18 4 weeks ago

Read the news from the rest of the world - not just NY.

Professor Participates

4.5.23 1stwarrior replied to Split Personality @4.5.17 4 weeks ago

Humor, regardless of how it is presented, is difficult for some to see.

Professor Guide

4.5.24 MrFrost replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.22 4 weeks ago

Read the news from the rest of the world - not just NY.

I don't watch local NY news.

Professor Guide

4.5.25 MrFrost replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.22 4 weeks ago

Apparently you can only win the Nobel if your famous...

Professor Participates

4.5.26 Split Personality replied to 1stwarrior @4.5.23 4 weeks ago

I guess you and you GOP buddies are rocking with laughter over the Arizona GOP

not being able to tell one Democrat Navaho candidate from another honored Navaho politician, eh?

Yeah, real funny who you find yourself aligned with sometimes, eh?

A real knee slapper like your tasteless comment about Jill Biden.

Professor Guide

4.5.27 CB replied to Thomas @4.5.9 4 weeks ago

True.

Professor Guide

4.5.28 CB replied to Split Personality @4.5.15 4 weeks ago

Actually, watching Trump stumble across Gaza-Israel, the Middle East, Russian and Ukraine. . . one has to wonder can he, at least, get a 'participation' prize awarded by the Nobel Committee? /s

(To MAGA Inc. and conservative talking points:)

Seriously, the Norwegian Nobel Committee DECIDES its prize winner/s, not the participants themselves. WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR SOME TO UNDERSTAND?! It is downright cruel to hold Obama accountable for the decisions made by an august body renown for its determinations and judgements.

It was not 'want' that got Obama the Nobel Prize eight months into his first presidency. . . it was the Nobel Prize committee's decision freely made, and Obama was selected from a 2009 list of 205 nominees. If there is someone to complain about, such complaints should go to the committee itself—entirely.

All Obama did was accept what was awarded—politely and graciously. (Obama's speech to the Nobel Prize committee was well-received and touched on 'all points.')

Professor Participates

4.5.29 Split Personality replied to CB @4.5.28 4 weeks ago

09/02/2009 Obama won the Nobel peace Prize.

By March 11, 2010 President Obama donated the entire $ 1.4 million prize to 10 charities.

Obama gives $ 1.4 million Nobel prize to 10 charities | Reuters

Professor Guide

4.5.30 Thomas replied to Split Personality @4.5.29 4 weeks ago

Because that is what real presidents do

Professor Guide

4.5.31 Krishna replied to JohnRussell @4.5.21 4 weeks ago

Trump says he will not change the name of the Hudson and Mississippi rivers.

I was curious as to the origin of the word "Mississippi so I googled it:

The name Mississippi comes from the Ojibwe (Anishinaabe) word misi-ziibi, which translates to "great river" or "big river"

Professor Guide

4.5.32 Krishna replied to Krishna @4.5.31 4 weeks ago

the Ojibwe (Anishinaabe)

IIRC, wasn't the Anishinaabe Kavika's tribe?

Professor Expert

4.5.33 Gsquared replied to Krishna @4.5.32 4 weeks ago

Yes.

Professor Guide

4.5.34 Thomas replied to Krishna @4.5.32 4 weeks ago

Kavika.... here's to you, old friend.

Professor Principal

4.5.35 devangelical replied to Thomas @4.5.34 4 weeks ago

the last of the full blooded, true american NA's on NT ...

Professor Principal

4.5.36 Trout Giggles replied to sandy-2021492 @4.5.13 4 weeks ago

Not only stupid but fucking racist

Professor Guide

4.5.37 sandy-2021492 replied to Trout Giggles @4.5.36 4 weeks ago

That, too.

Professor Guide

5 CB one month ago

It's midterm election hi-jinks. Donald wants a soundbite, as he is ever trying to motivate the MAGA base to 'believe in him' (play the fools). . . so 'Lucy' can hide the football from 'Charlie Brown' and laugh all the way to the bank for two more years!

Professor Guide

6 sandy-2021492 one month ago

And Ukraine has responded.

The loading terminal of Russia’s Novoshakhtinsk oil refinery caught fire overnight following reports of a Ukrainian drone strike just hours after President Trump announced a deal to supply millions of tons of Russian diesel fuel to the global market.

Trump and Putin are having a no-good, very bad day.

Professor Principal

6.1 devangelical replied to sandy-2021492 @6 one month ago

I'm fascinated by this story's development. based upon what I've read so far, the first shipment of russian diesel is just days away from the US with journalists now speculating the deal with russia was made last month. last week it was reported that kushner and witkoff were trying to put together a deal between russia, arab countries, and US investors to get more russian oil to market. now the burr under their saddle is zelenskyy attacking russian refineries and oil fields, bringing about today's news that trump is threatening zelenskyy over those attacks on russian oil infrastructure and now wants him removed from power. trump and maga are now russian allies, and putin has his favorite western ass-licker trump destroying america from within. all that's left for trump to accomplish here is to disable what sets us apart from russia, a free and fair election, in 3+ weeks ...

Professor Guide

6.1.1 CB replied to devangelical @6.1 one month ago

It is exactly what it looks like: A double-cross. Trump's inability to be loyal to to 'Light' - over and beyond transacting with 'Darkness.' The correct way to think of what Trump has done is this: Machiavellism. Trump's administration has determined that to fight against the democrats this near to the midterms. . . he has to lower the price of gas. . . diesel. . . and he is counting on the 'flock' supporting him in a move to have Putin, a former member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union accept the pledge of 'ill-gotten' and unethical oil by voting the GOP up and out of mid-term danger.

Professor Participates

6.1.2 Split Personality replied to devangelical @6.1 one month ago

Zelensky should pick a refinery and level it.

Then take out the Crimean Bridge.

Then throw everything they have left at Moscow

Professor Guide

6.1.3 CB replied to Split Personality @6.1.2 one month ago

This is the trickiest portion of this political 'fiasco,'. . . and it is remarkable that Ukraine's president should be put in the conspicuous spotlight to run directly afoul of our president. Experienced politicians (having wisdom of their own. . .or borrowed) would never break faith with Ukraine (or NATO) for shortsighted gains. Furthermore, Russia sees our national weakness. . . how (else) shall they exploit it? Iran sees it too. Trump is showing 'irresistible' desperation for all to see across the world. Republicans should be alarmed at this action by Trump!

Professor Guide

6.1.4 sandy-2021492 replied to devangelical @6.1 one month ago

Trump is no longer even trying to hide the fact that he's a Russian asset.

Professor Participates

6.1.5 Split Personality replied to CB @6.1.3 one month ago

Not once, but at least twice he has suggested that California cities could be targets of Iran, somewhat glibly,

never saying nukes, but that's what get repeated.

Does he not realize that the second largest Naval yard in the world is at San Diego?

Now the fool wants to rename an Ocean or River before "he's done".

There is no limit to the madness.

One can only wonder what Natalie's real job is.

Professor Principal

6.1.6 devangelical replied to Split Personality @6.1.2 one month ago

trump just put a target on zelenskyy. maybe zelenskyy should think about returning the favor ...

turn the west end of the bridge into a russian kill zone and try and the bridge for a future push into russia.

throw everything they have at russia and target gov't installations with less concern for civilian infrastructure.

the putrid bag of shit masquerading as a US president also attempted to blame his economic problems on zelenskyy today.

Professor Principal

6.1.7 devangelical replied to Split Personality @6.1.5 one month ago

One can only wonder what Natalie's real job is.

... political fluffer.

a bible thumping liberty university graduate and election denier with a daddy complex are the only requirements she needs ...

Professor Guide

6.1.8 CB replied to Split Personality @6.1.5 one month ago

So. . .you're suggesting (implying even) that Natalie's role is not precisely helping the country?! Things that make you go "Hmmm."

Mayor Bass: “The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives. In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”

Absolutely right. One has to wonder at how comfortable a 'fool' of a president must feel to think that making such condescending and grave remarks about those under his governmental control and purview is acceptable.

Professor Participates

6.1.9 1stwarrior replied to Split Personality @6.1.5 4 weeks ago

A hell of a lot less than Jill did.

Professor Participates

6.1.10 1stwarrior replied to sandy-2021492 @6.1.4 4 weeks ago

Darn - looking for proof to support that comment has come up with - - - - nothing - neither Google nor Safari can present any documentation showing that he is or has announced that he is a russian asset.

I know - looking for facts can sometimes become frustrating - so I've heard.

Professor Guide

6.1.11 MrFrost replied to 1stwarrior @6.1.10 4 weeks ago

Darn - looking for proof to support that comment has come up with - - - - nothing - neither Google nor Safari can present any documentation showing that he is or has announced that he is a russian asset.

Do you REALLY think he would? Really? Com'on man....

Professor Guide

6.1.12 sandy-2021492 replied to 1stwarrior @6.1.10 4 weeks ago

What a remarkably stupid comment.

Professor Guide

6.1.13 sandy-2021492 replied to MrFrost @6.1.11 4 weeks ago

I'm sure every prisoner in history who didn't confess was innocent, too.

Somebody will buy that bullshit, apparently.

Professor Participates

6.1.14 1stwarrior replied to MrFrost @6.1.11 4 weeks ago

Frosty - most of the time, when someone makes a comment and others ask for links/substantiation, there is no issue - the link or substantiation is "usually" provided. A comment was made and I'm just asking for verification/proof to the authenticity to support the comment.

Not rocket science.

Professor Guide

6.1.15 sandy-2021492 replied to 1stwarrior @6.1.14 4 weeks ago

1st, I hope you are aware that comments can be made based on observation, as well. If we follow your comment to its logical conclusion, the only people who can ever be held responsible for crimes are those who actively confess to them. We can't even believe our eyes if we watch them commit those crimes.

Does that sound anything other than remarkably stupid to you?

Professor Participates

6.1.16 Split Personality replied to 1stwarrior @6.1.10 4 weeks ago

Trump just relaxed sanctions on Russia until April 07 for Putin's gesture of releasing some diesel fuel that he actually needs desperately in Ukraine.

This will not benefit American citizens.

Independent analysts calculate the windfall to Russia at $10Billion a month.

That is a $60 Billion gift to Putin from Trump.

That by any definition makes Trump, Putin's bitch, fool and asset.

While Zelensky, the EU, NATO and the UN fume, Putin's laughing hysterically.

Why the ‘narrow,’ ‘short-term’ sanctions reversal for Russia is neither - Defense One

Trump’s deal with Putin will have little impact on US diesel prices, experts say | Trump administration | The Guardian

Professor Guide

6.1.17 MrFrost replied to 1stwarrior @6.1.14 4 weeks ago

Frosty - most of the time, when someone makes a comment and others ask for links/substantiation, there is no issue - the link or substantiation is "usually" provided. A comment was made and I'm just asking for verification/proof to the authenticity to support the comment.

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Professor Guide

6.1.18 Krishna replied to CB @6.1.1 4 weeks ago

Putin, a former member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

And had been more than just an ordinary member of the Communist Party:

Served as a foreign intelligence officer in the KGB (Committee for State Security). [ 1 ]
Later served as the director of the FSB (Federal Security Service) from 1998 to 1999, which is a successor agency to the KGB in post-Soviet Russia

Professor Principal

7 JohnRussell one month ago

The latest brainless sack of shit lying press secretary, someone named Katie Zacharia, was on Fox News today blaming Zelensky for the war continuing.

Professor Principal

7.1 devangelical replied to JohnRussell @7 one month ago

she's riffing off what her lord and master said to the press earlier ...

Professor Participates

7.2 1stwarrior replied to JohnRussell @7 4 weeks ago

You personally know her? If you don't, why use so many adjectives to describe someone you don't know?

Professor Principal

7.2.1 JohnRussell replied to 1stwarrior @7.2 4 weeks ago

she went on fox news, and when the host blamed zelensky for the war, she agreed. That makes her a brainless sack of shit. I dont need to personally know her.

You dont know Trump personally, why do you support the traitor?

Professor Guide

7.2.2 Krishna replied to JohnRussell @7.2.1 4 weeks ago

You dont know Trump personally

How do these new rules work?

(For example, I don't know Trump personally-- how many adjectives am I allowed to use?)

Professor Guide

8 MrFrost 4 weeks ago

The USA uses roughly 184 million barrels or diesel fuel per month. Putin is willing to cough up 300,000 barrels. That's less than 1/2 of one percent of what we use. It will do nothing to help.

Professor Participates

8.1 Split Personality replied to MrFrost @8 4 weeks ago

Thank you for bringing us back to the topic and the foolishness of the gesture by Trump & Putin.

Professor Principal

8.2 devangelical replied to MrFrost @8 4 weeks ago

it only takes a drop in the bucket, to placate the morons ...

I watched a video from deep in magaville where all the morons were blaming biden for the price of their fuel at the station ...

Professor Participates

9 Veronica 4 weeks ago

I cannot even imagine how some people would be going off if Jimmy Carter made a deal with Breshnev. I just cannot understand how people keep making excuses for all the lies, all the illegal behavior, all the invasions of foreign countries....and then if the excuses don't work the deflections begin - but but but Obama, Biden, Jill - as if they are the problem. The problem is sitting his fat ass in the People's house and watching it crumble around him as he laughs his way to the bank on our dimes - fucking morons are blind as blind can be.... he said this what he was going to do - RUIN the USA because he lost in 2020.

Professor Principal

9.1 devangelical replied to Veronica @9 4 weeks ago

it's clearly evident trump owning the libs takes priority over defending our constitution and democracy for most maga republicans ...

Professor Participates

9.2 1stwarrior replied to Veronica @9 4 weeks ago

No Veronica - the "problem"'s are all sitting in their humble abodes and not doing shyte about their displeasures - other than crying and complaining or getting on social media to cry and moan.

The folks who put those "leaders/politicians" in office should have their azzes whupped for allowing the system to become what it has.

THEY are the voice - but they're too chicken to get off their easy chairs and take some actions they should be taking - like voting - getting involved with the communities they live in - make their voices heard - PUSH those they elected to get off of their greedy, lazy, worthless butts and do what they were elected to do.

That is part of the major "problems".

Professor Participates

9.2.1 Veronica replied to 1stwarrior @9.2 4 weeks ago

Like you?

Professor Principal

9.2.2 TᵢG replied to 1stwarrior @9.2 4 weeks ago

Do you think that your and others' complaints about Trump critics and the attempts (feebly) to defend Trump are of value? Or are they part of the problem?

Professor Participates

9.2.3 1stwarrior replied to TᵢG @9.2.2 4 weeks ago

[deleted-] [✘] the comment is valid.

Professor Participates

9.2.4 Right Down the Center replied to 1stwarrior @9.2 4 weeks ago

Good points

Professor Participates

9.2.5 Split Personality replied to Veronica @9.2.1 4 weeks ago

Touche'

Professor Principal

9.2.6 TᵢG replied to 1stwarrior @9.2.3 4 weeks ago

What I read (because it is blatantly obvious) is more excuse-making for Trump. Even now. After all he has done, people are still trying to defend this incompetent child-man.

800

Professor Guide

9.2.7 Krishna replied to 1stwarrior @9.2 4 weeks ago

THEY are the voice - but they're too chicken to get off their easy chairs and take some actions they should be taking - like voting

What evidence do you have that they don't vote?

Professor Principal

10 JohnRussell 4 weeks ago

800

Professor Principal

10.1 TᵢG replied to JohnRussell @10 4 weeks ago

800

Professor Principal

10.2 JohnRussell replied to JohnRussell @10 4 weeks ago

800

Professor Principal

11 devangelical 4 weeks ago

fun fact - the US is the largest exporter of diesel.

a trump end run to put war money into putin's pocket, with the world's greatest negotiator getting nothing in return, that we know of ...

Professor Expert

12 Gsquared 4 weeks ago

Trump raging on about the Nobel Peace Prize. I am happily nominating him for the Piece of Shit Prize.

Professor Principal

12.1 devangelical replied to Gsquared @12 4 weeks ago

no contest ...

Professor Guide

13 CB 3 weeks ago

This article demonstrates the truth of attachment MAGA has to Trump, even when Trump is 'bargaining away' the spirit and soul of this country and its allies. . . true loyalists to the man can not speak up and out about it. "Ist Warrior" (if I reviewed rightly) is the only MAGA supporter and conservative that has appeared on this article.

It speaks volumes.

Stop letting MAGA supporters come here to lecture us on freedom - when they themselves 'worship' and defer to Trump and his 'expeditions' into tearing down freedoms (for all).

You must be logged in to post a comment

Who is online

97 visitors

Trump says Putin will release diesel fuel into global market

Tags

Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize

Press release

Who is online