By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Washington Post reported that President-elect Donald Trump had a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin on November 7th, during which they discussed the ongoing war in Ukraine. The Kremlin has vehemently denied this report, calling it “pure fiction” and “completely untrue.” The alleged conversation occurred shortly after Trump’s election victory and amidst speculation about his foreign policy approach. The Washington Post claimed the call included discussions about de-escalation in Ukraine and the significance of U.S. military presence in Europe, while Trump reportedly expressed interest in resolving the conflict.
Read the original article here
The Kremlin has vehemently denied that Russian President Vladimir Putin and former US President Donald Trump discussed Ukraine during a phone call after Trump’s electoral victory in 2016. This denial has sparked a flurry of reactions, with some people questioning the veracity of the statement while others remain unconvinced, given the history of both men.
The Kremlin’s claim of “pure fiction” seems to have fueled further speculation, with many expressing disbelief and suggesting that the very act of denial might be a telltale sign of the truth. Some have argued that the denial is simply a tactic to deflect from the potential implications of such a conversation, while others have suggested that Putin may be using this situation to exert influence over Trump, highlighting a perceived lack of respect for the former US president.
It’s worth noting that the alleged conversation between Putin and Trump hasn’t been explicitly confirmed by Trump himself. This has led to a polarized reaction, with some choosing to believe the Kremlin’s denial while others firmly believe that the call did take place. The contrasting opinions stem from the fact that both Putin and Trump are known for their tendency to distort the truth, making it difficult to discern reality from fabrication.
The denial has also prompted a wave of skepticism towards the media’s portrayal of events, with some questioning the reliability of information disseminated by news outlets. The uncertainty surrounding the alleged conversation highlights the challenges of navigating a complex political landscape where truth is often shrouded in ambiguity.
The possibility of the conversation having occurred before Trump assumed office has also been raised, further complicating the narrative. This angle suggests that any potential discussions about Ukraine might have happened prior to the election, rendering the Kremlin’s denial technically accurate while simultaneously fueling speculation about the existence of prior, potentially undisclosed conversations.
Ultimately, the lack of conclusive evidence leaves the public with more questions than answers. The denial from the Kremlin has only heightened the controversy, leaving many with a sense of distrust and uncertainty. It’s a scenario that underscores the volatile nature of international politics, where truth and deception often intertwine in intricate ways.