Let me get this straight, you believe Putin is a rational actor?

Sadly, I have dealt with dozens of people whose rationale was … if I kill my cheating girlfriend, no one else can have her.” Putin‘s obsession with being Peter, the Great and ruler of Ukraine (and if he fails) fits right into the rationale of the above madman. As for yourself, you are probably a rational human. The problem that you have, however, is it you are transposing your mind for Putin’s. I’m sure they are as far apart as chicken salad and chicken shit. And I pray, that your mind is the chicken salad.

So if we are going to tremble in fear over what Putin might do, where do we draw the line? The territory in the Ukraine he has already taken? All of Ukraine? The Ukraine and Poland? The old borders of the USSR? Sorry, nothing good comes of trying to appease a tyrant. It simply emboldens them.

"Which means, as trump has said he wants peace, that you don't"

trump wants capitulation, disguised as peace, for his master in Moscow. trump SAYING he wants peace means nothing, as he has lied about everything, his entire life. He is well established to say anything that pops into his head on a whim.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
"Which means, as trump has said he wants peace, that you don't"

trump wants capitulation, disguised as peace, for his master in Moscow. trump SAYING he wants peace means nothing, as he has lied about everything, his entire life. He is well established to say anything that pops into his head on a whim.

you fractured the post, symple .. that's not close enough -- go back and try again, this effort was pathetic

hey, i found your record
https://youtube.com/shorts/njB...?si=A1RxlUhB3k3uu_6F

No one says to appease Putin. Trump pointed that out in the Oval Office. If anyone had listened, not so subtlety, he was praising Putin to play him.

By the way, we are dealing with a Jim Jones in Putin and not a president Gorbachev.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So if we are going to tremble in fear over what Putin might do, where do we draw the line? The territory in the Ukraine he has already taken? All of Ukraine? The Ukraine and Poland? The old borders of the USSR? Sorry, nothing good comes of trying to appease a tyrant. It simply emboldens them.

First, I don't think Trump met with Putin "secretly" but I do think Trump is a bit more pro Putin than he should be.

Yes, the Russians are very happy with Trump essentially saying he wants nothing to do with Zelensky, and he seems to be taking Putin's side.

I don't agree with that at all.

However, I do think that Russia might well resort to using battlefield or theater level atomic weapons if they feel pushed into a corner enough... and if the US or Europe feels that is a reason to respond in kind on Russia proper, its Katy bar the door. We might get away with hitting Belarus or some such, but that's not something I would find justifiable (hitting an ally of a nation that used WMD's against someone who is not an official ally.)

Zelensky needs to get the pulse of his people. I don't know what their thoughts are... I'm not Ukrainian. I suspect that getting less than those 3 points will be unpopular, but the choice is peace or ongoing war that is becoming less popular with the west's populace.

But at some point, there are going to have to be concessions on both sides to get a lasting peace because, frankly, its not possible for Ukraine or the west to go for unconditional surrender on the part of Russia. That's when the nuclear genie starts coming out of his hole.

Russia cannot afford to pay Ukraine complete reparations, and besides, that worked so well at Versailles.

Russia is highly unlikely to give up the bases/access in the Crimea on the Black Sea.

Maybe the west would be willing to guarantee the peace, but that's officially why Russia started the war in the first place. This might be the actually doable compromise- but what if Russia insists that Chinese forces be part of the guarantee? Does that bother you?

All the comments regarding the comparisons between the Nazis prior to WWII and Russia now are somewhat valid, but what if Hitler had the ability to actually cause a gotterdammurung instead of just a bloody war? Does anyone think that Hitler would not have nuked NYC and London and Moscow if he had the ability to in early 1945? To him, nothing could have been worse than what was coming at that point.

Frankly, I don't think Russia is going to be at a vastly better geopolitical stage in a year, two, 5 or 10 down the road. Their populace is aging, their infrastructure is aging, and their past acts have made them pariahs so they are unlikely to get to build a vastly stronger army in the interim regardless if they get some minor concessions from Ukraine and the west.

I do think the war going on for 1-5 more years is more likely to gut Ukraine long term more than giving up some of their demands will. But again, as you point out, I am not a Ukrainian.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So Zelensky is in a position that he can make demands?

I am impressed with the Ukrainian resolve and capabilities, but lets be honest... Ukraine's resolve may be all their own, but their capabilities are largely the west's. If the US and the EU were not sending massive amounts of aid in the form of economic support and advanced weaponry, the Ukrainian war would likely look more like the partisan actions that occurred against the Nazis in WWII... and with Putin, the response would be like the Nazis in WWII (or Stalin right afterwards...)

Return to pre 2014 borders- possible but probably unlikely.

100% financial reparations? Not possible.

Western troops on the ground in the border areas?
Thats not happening on at least 3 fronts- first, its outside of NATO charter, second, it is not something that Russia would tolerate (maybe UN, but not NATO); thirdly none of the western nations would be willing to commit to that kind of money and risk. Hell, absent US involvement, I don't think there are that many deployable NATO troops available.

I get nuclear brinksmanship. When has the US done it? When we felt it was an existential threat for the US- the Cuban missile crisis. We did give up quite a bit (behind the curtain) to resolve that one- like agreeing not to try and invade Cuba and removing the short range missiles that were the threat that the Soviets were trying to counter from Turkey.

You keep going to the wall with nuclear threats, and what happens? One they become less credible, two, while the alliance governments may want us to do this, their people (with all their anti US military protests) don't like US overt nuclear threats.

I get that the western powers feel that we are jumping ship from their perceptions of our commitment to Western security... but they seem to forget that we also are looking at this as a fight that has to stop at some point.

I don't know what Ukraine's real final red line goals are- they might be able to get one of the three that Zelensky has proposed. Which one? And are Zelensky's stated goals what the average Ukrainian is willing to keep dying for?

A deal requires compromise. What compromises are we expecting the Russians to make, and what compromises are the Ukrainians to make, and what compromises are the other nations of the world willing to step forward with?

You don't think there's a big clue in the fact that Trump met secretly with Putin for hours, then chose to castigate Zelensky in public?

You mean that doesn't make you go, "Hmm..."? Right now, Putin is wearing a smile of smug satisfaction.

It's obvious to anyone with functioning neurons that Trump is trying to make Zelensky give up some of the territory Russia has occupied. Under a peace treaty with no US security guarantees. When Putin has already violated prior treaties.

Zelensky would be a traitor to his people if he went along with that.

I hope Europe stands up for Ukraine and picks up the slack if the US withdraws support. Let Trump and Vance stamp their feet on the sidelines.

Dr. Butler, the fact of Trump's private meeting with Putin was not a secret, but what was said at that meeting is still a secret.

In contrast, Trump chose a public forum where, rather than negotiate or mediate, he lectured and castigated Zelensky for the world to see. What kind of impartial mediator is this?

I don't believe Russia would resort to tactical nukes in Ukraine. Only if an enemy was successfully invading its own territory. Putin isn't insane.

As far as concessions, both parties should leave the other's territory they occupied.

Did anyone else notice the message in Starmers speech? Where he used the term, Coalition of the willing.

Did you folks even listen to the whole Oval Office video? There were two separate issues. Zelenskyy agreed the rare earth contract was good for both countries. He praised trump and Trump reciprocated. Then, when open to press inquiry, Trump said that he believed that a cease fire was close at hand. Trump never said under what specific circumstances would it exist, but that the shooting would stop immediately. The security issue would be determined later. Even said that a couple of European countries had offered to have troops on the ground and maybe America would, too provide security. Then Zelinski, understandably afraid of Russia, began saying that there would be no cease-fire until his three demands were met. That’s when it seemed to get personal. Not good diplomatic skills on Zelenskyy’s part. Making demands of the benefactor that has kept you in existence.

He said the Baltics first, Poland next and then the U.S. would suffer, even with an ocean.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
First, I don't think Trump met with Putin "secretly" but I do think Trump is a bit more pro Putin than he should be.

Yes, the Russians are very happy with Trump essentially saying he wants nothing to do with Zelensky, and he seems to be taking Putin's side.

I don't agree with that at all.

However, I do think that Russia might well resort to using battlefield or theater level atomic weapons if they feel pushed into a corner enough... and if the US or Europe feels that is a reason to respond in kind on Russia proper, its Katy bar the door. We might get away with hitting Belarus or some such, but that's not something I would find justifiable (hitting an ally of a nation that used WMD's against someone who is not an official ally.)

Zelensky needs to get the pulse of his people. I don't know what their thoughts are... I'm not Ukrainian. I suspect that getting less than those 3 points will be unpopular, but the choice is peace or ongoing war that is becoming less popular with the west's populace.

But at some point, there are going to have to be concessions on both sides to get a lasting peace because, frankly, its not possible for Ukraine or the west to go for unconditional surrender on the part of Russia. That's when the nuclear genie starts coming out of his hole.

Russia cannot afford to pay Ukraine complete reparations, and besides, that worked so well at Versailles.

Russia is highly unlikely to give up the bases/access in the Crimea on the Black Sea.

Maybe the west would be willing to guarantee the peace, but that's officially why Russia started the war in the first place. This might be the actually doable compromise- but what if Russia insists that Chinese forces be part of the guarantee? Does that bother you?

All the comments regarding the comparisons between the Nazis prior to WWII and Russia now are somewhat valid, but what if Hitler had the ability to actually cause a gotterdammurung instead of just a bloody war? Does anyone think that Hitler would not have nuked NYC and London and Moscow if he had the ability to in early 1945? To him, nothing could have been worse than what was coming at that point.

Frankly, I don't think Russia is going to be at a vastly better geopolitical stage in a year, two, 5 or 10 down the road. Their populace is aging, their infrastructure is aging, and their past acts have made them pariahs so they are unlikely to get to build a vastly stronger army in the interim regardless if they get some minor concessions from Ukraine and the west.

I do think the war going on for 1-5 more years is more likely to gut Ukraine long term more than giving up some of their demands will. But again, as you point out, I am not a Ukrainian.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So Zelensky is in a position that he can make demands?

I am impressed with the Ukrainian resolve and capabilities, but lets be honest... Ukraine's resolve may be all their own, but their capabilities are largely the west's. If the US and the EU were not sending massive amounts of aid in the form of economic support and advanced weaponry, the Ukrainian war would likely look more like the partisan actions that occurred against the Nazis in WWII... and with Putin, the response would be like the Nazis in WWII (or Stalin right afterwards...)

Return to pre 2014 borders- possible but probably unlikely.

100% financial reparations? Not possible.

Western troops on the ground in the border areas?
Thats not happening on at least 3 fronts- first, its outside of NATO charter, second, it is not something that Russia would tolerate (maybe UN, but not NATO); thirdly none of the western nations would be willing to commit to that kind of money and risk. Hell, absent US involvement, I don't think there are that many deployable NATO troops available.

I get nuclear brinksmanship. When has the US done it? When we felt it was an existential threat for the US- the Cuban missile crisis. We did give up quite a bit (behind the curtain) to resolve that one- like agreeing not to try and invade Cuba and removing the short range missiles that were the threat that the Soviets were trying to counter from Turkey.

You keep going to the wall with nuclear threats, and what happens? One they become less credible, two, while the alliance governments may want us to do this, their people (with all their anti US military protests) don't like US overt nuclear threats.

I get that the western powers feel that we are jumping ship from their perceptions of our commitment to Western security... but they seem to forget that we also are looking at this as a fight that has to stop at some point.

I don't know what Ukraine's real final red line goals are- they might be able to get one of the three that Zelensky has proposed. Which one? And are Zelensky's stated goals what the average Ukrainian is willing to keep dying for?

A deal requires compromise. What compromises are we expecting the Russians to make, and what compromises are the Ukrainians to make, and what compromises are the other nations of the world willing to step forward with?

You don't think there's a big clue in the fact that Trump met secretly with Putin for hours, then chose to castigate Zelensky in public?

You mean that doesn't make you go, "Hmm..."? Right now, Putin is wearing a smile of smug satisfaction.

It's obvious to anyone with functioning neurons that Trump is trying to make Zelensky give up some of the territory Russia has occupied. Under a peace treaty with no US security guarantees. When Putin has already violated prior treaties.

Zelensky would be a traitor to his people if he went along with that.

I hope Europe stands up for Ukraine and picks up the slack if the US withdraws support. Let Trump and Vance stamp their feet on the sidelines.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
No one says to appease Putin. Trump pointed that out in the Oval Office. If anyone had listened, not so subtlety, he was praising Putin to play him.

By the way, we are dealing with a Jim Jones in Putin and not a president Gorbachev.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So if we are going to tremble in fear over what Putin might do, where do we draw the line? The territory in the Ukraine he has already taken? All of Ukraine? The Ukraine and Poland? The old borders of the USSR? Sorry, nothing good comes of trying to appease a tyrant. It simply emboldens them.

So where do stop with your concessions to Putin? Putin make not be a Gorbachev, but Hitler was no Bismarck either. You don’t get anywhere cow towing to tyrants. History is clear in that regard.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
No one says to appease Putin. Trump pointed that out in the Oval Office. If anyone had listened, not so subtlety, he was praising Putin to play him.

By the way, we are dealing with a Jim Jones in Putin and not a president Gorbachev.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So if we are going to tremble in fear over what Putin might do, where do we draw the line? The territory in the Ukraine he has already taken? All of Ukraine? The Ukraine and Poland? The old borders of the USSR? Sorry, nothing good comes of trying to appease a tyrant. It simply emboldens them.

So where do stop with your concessions to Putin? Putin make not be a Gorbachev, but Hitler was no Bismarck either. You don’t get anywhere cow towing to tyrants. History is clear in that regard.

oh honey, is it fair to criticize your grammar and spelling, or will you just whataboutism it?
yeahyeah .. Daisey, dog furry fantasy .. we don't want to hear it

but when you place yourself as the PARAGON of proper english, when you make stupid mistakes, it just counts ...

you meant may not make

and no one is ever towing a cow, the phrase is "kowtow" or kowtowing as it's from chinese -

you are amazing, little guy, keep going

Kowtow?. As a lawyer, you know that guilt and power sometime reside in the same camp. As between Zelenskyy and Putin, Putin can survive in a trench war. Ukraine is out of troops. Putin’s ego needs stroking. A good mediator will stroke him with meaningless “victories” that really do nothing but give him something to brag about. That said, not a single person here or in the world, except Trump and Putin know what those negotiations would have led to. Do you think Trump was a bad negotiator with a ceasefire in Israel/Hamas or in the Abraham accords. You’re making assumptions that have perhaps a basis in fact, but actually more in your speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
No one says to appease Putin. Trump pointed that out in the Oval Office. If anyone had listened, not so subtlety, he was praising Putin to play him.

By the way, we are dealing with a Jim Jones in Putin and not a president Gorbachev.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So if we are going to tremble in fear over what Putin might do, where do we draw the line? The territory in the Ukraine he has already taken? All of Ukraine? The Ukraine and Poland? The old borders of the USSR? Sorry, nothing good comes of trying to appease a tyrant. It simply emboldens them.

So where do stop with your concessions to Putin? Putin make not be a Gorbachev, but Hitler was no Bismarck either. You don’t get anywhere cow towing to tyrants. History is clear in that regard.

So Ernest, what does Putin need to concede as part of peace deal? Return of territory? Reparations? Or is the deal that he gets what he has? If so, how is that standing up to tyranny? Apparently our European “allies” are not overly impressed with whatever Trump is proposing since they have universally lined up in support of Ukraine.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So Ernest, what does Putin need to concede as part of peace deal? Return of territory? Reparations? Or is the deal that he gets what he has? If so, how is that standing up to tyranny?

quote:

Do you think Trump was a bad negotiator with a ceasefire in Israel/Hamas

The ceasefire was negotiated and implemented by the Biden administration. Has Trump done something more to help the cause of peace there?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Do you think Trump was a bad negotiator with a ceasefire in Israel/Hamas

The ceasefire was negotiated and implemented by the Biden administration. Has Trump done something more to help the cause of peace there?

source?
oh no, headless will need to use "search" --

as there are currently ZERO sources supporting his "position" none -- not one ...

liar

oh, wait, jimbo has me on ignore -- he can't face ANY pleb giving him lip /.. poor little elitist -- poor baby and him felz

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Did you folks even listen to the whole Oval Office video? There were two separate issues. Zelenskyy agreed the rare earth contract was good for both countries. He praised trump and Trump reciprocated. Then, when open to press inquiry, Trump said that he believed that a cease fire was close at hand. Trump never said under what specific circumstances would it exist, but that the shooting would stop immediately. The security issue would be determined later. Even said that a couple of European countries had offered to have troops on the ground and maybe America would, too provide security. Then Zelinski, understandably afraid of Russia, began saying that there would be no cease-fire until his three demands were met. That’s when it seemed to get personal. Not good diplomatic skills on Zelenskyy’s part. Making demands of the benefactor that has kept you in existence.

He said the Baltics first, Poland next and then the U.S. would suffer, even with an ocean.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
First, I don't think Trump met with Putin "secretly" but I do think Trump is a bit more pro Putin than he should be.

Yes, the Russians are very happy with Trump essentially saying he wants nothing to do with Zelensky, and he seems to be taking Putin's side.

I don't agree with that at all.

However, I do think that Russia might well resort to using battlefield or theater level atomic weapons if they feel pushed into a corner enough... and if the US or Europe feels that is a reason to respond in kind on Russia proper, its Katy bar the door. We might get away with hitting Belarus or some such, but that's not something I would find justifiable (hitting an ally of a nation that used WMD's against someone who is not an official ally.)

Zelensky needs to get the pulse of his people. I don't know what their thoughts are... I'm not Ukrainian. I suspect that getting less than those 3 points will be unpopular, but the choice is peace or ongoing war that is becoming less popular with the west's populace.

But at some point, there are going to have to be concessions on both sides to get a lasting peace because, frankly, its not possible for Ukraine or the west to go for unconditional surrender on the part of Russia. That's when the nuclear genie starts coming out of his hole.

Russia cannot afford to pay Ukraine complete reparations, and besides, that worked so well at Versailles.

Russia is highly unlikely to give up the bases/access in the Crimea on the Black Sea.

Maybe the west would be willing to guarantee the peace, but that's officially why Russia started the war in the first place. This might be the actually doable compromise- but what if Russia insists that Chinese forces be part of the guarantee? Does that bother you?

All the comments regarding the comparisons between the Nazis prior to WWII and Russia now are somewhat valid, but what if Hitler had the ability to actually cause a gotterdammurung instead of just a bloody war? Does anyone think that Hitler would not have nuked NYC and London and Moscow if he had the ability to in early 1945? To him, nothing could have been worse than what was coming at that point.

Frankly, I don't think Russia is going to be at a vastly better geopolitical stage in a year, two, 5 or 10 down the road. Their populace is aging, their infrastructure is aging, and their past acts have made them pariahs so they are unlikely to get to build a vastly stronger army in the interim regardless if they get some minor concessions from Ukraine and the west.

I do think the war going on for 1-5 more years is more likely to gut Ukraine long term more than giving up some of their demands will. But again, as you point out, I am not a Ukrainian.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So Zelensky is in a position that he can make demands?

I am impressed with the Ukrainian resolve and capabilities, but lets be honest... Ukraine's resolve may be all their own, but their capabilities are largely the west's. If the US and the EU were not sending massive amounts of aid in the form of economic support and advanced weaponry, the Ukrainian war would likely look more like the partisan actions that occurred against the Nazis in WWII... and with Putin, the response would be like the Nazis in WWII (or Stalin right afterwards...)

Return to pre 2014 borders- possible but probably unlikely.

100% financial reparations? Not possible.

Western troops on the ground in the border areas?
Thats not happening on at least 3 fronts- first, its outside of NATO charter, second, it is not something that Russia would tolerate (maybe UN, but not NATO); thirdly none of the western nations would be willing to commit to that kind of money and risk. Hell, absent US involvement, I don't think there are that many deployable NATO troops available.

I get nuclear brinksmanship. When has the US done it? When we felt it was an existential threat for the US- the Cuban missile crisis. We did give up quite a bit (behind the curtain) to resolve that one- like agreeing not to try and invade Cuba and removing the short range missiles that were the threat that the Soviets were trying to counter from Turkey.

You keep going to the wall with nuclear threats, and what happens? One they become less credible, two, while the alliance governments may want us to do this, their people (with all their anti US military protests) don't like US overt nuclear threats.

I get that the western powers feel that we are jumping ship from their perceptions of our commitment to Western security... but they seem to forget that we also are looking at this as a fight that has to stop at some point.

I don't know what Ukraine's real final red line goals are- they might be able to get one of the three that Zelensky has proposed. Which one? And are Zelensky's stated goals what the average Ukrainian is willing to keep dying for?

A deal requires compromise. What compromises are we expecting the Russians to make, and what compromises are the Ukrainians to make, and what compromises are the other nations of the world willing to step forward with?

You don't think there's a big clue in the fact that Trump met secretly with Putin for hours, then chose to castigate Zelensky in public?

You mean that doesn't make you go, "Hmm..."? Right now, Putin is wearing a smile of smug satisfaction.

It's obvious to anyone with functioning neurons that Trump is trying to make Zelensky give up some of the territory Russia has occupied. Under a peace treaty with no US security guarantees. When Putin has already violated prior treaties.

Zelensky would be a traitor to his people if he went along with that.

I hope Europe stands up for Ukraine and picks up the slack if the US withdraws support. Let Trump and Vance stamp their feet on the sidelines.

that is not zelensky that said for baltic states and poland ... putin announced it the day before invasion/war and he will do and want back all the territories from the last/past ussr warsaw pact and comecom ... please listen again the speech he made ... then nothing will be a surprise but it is maybe hard to support trump and saying putin is the devil ... without trump support putin will surrender sooner than you think ...

enjoy the long speech and tell me where putin is our friend ....

http://www.en.kremlin.ru/event...nt/transcripts/67828

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Let me get this straight, you believe Putin is a rational actor?

Sadly, I have dealt with dozens of people whose rationale was … if I kill my cheating girlfriend, no one else can have her.” Putin‘s obsession with being Peter, the Great and ruler of Ukraine (and if he fails) fits right into the rationale of the above madman. As for yourself, you are probably a rational human. The problem that you have, however, is it you are transposing your mind for Putin’s. I’m sure they are as far apart as chicken salad and chicken shit. And I pray, that your mind is the chicken salad.

And you think Trump is rational?

Or you, as voters are?

HAHAHAHAHA!

Zelenskyy knows damn well that neither Trump nor Putin have ever kept their word about anything. No treaty, no trade agreement, NOTHING. They sign, they shake your hand, and then they stab you in the back.

It’s just bad business to sign a worthless agreement with a pathological unscrupulous liar.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Let me get this straight, you believe Putin is a rational actor?

Sadly, I have dealt with dozens of people whose rationale was … if I kill my cheating girlfriend, no one else can have her.” Putin‘s obsession with being Peter, the Great and ruler of Ukraine (and if he fails) fits right into the rationale of the above madman. As for yourself, you are probably a rational human. The problem that you have, however, is it you are transposing your mind for Putin’s. I’m sure they are as far apart as chicken salad and chicken shit. And I pray, that your mind is the chicken salad.

And you think Trump is rational?

Or you, as voters are?

HAHAHAHAHA!

ah ah you did it ... hilarious ...

Why are you assuming that Trump will fail to get concessions out of Putin. I will admit, if you’re using the example of Obama and Iran, then the United States lying down and giving everything away may be what you believe Trump will do.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So Ernest, what does Putin need to concede as part of peace deal? Return of territory? Reparations? Or is the deal that he gets what he has? If so, how is that standing up to tyranny? Apparently our European “allies” are not overly impressed with whatever Trump is proposing since they have universally lined up in support of Ukraine.

So if Trump is insisting on concessions from Russia why doesn’t he articulate them? He has articulated what he expects from Ukraine. And if Trump’s plan is viable, why have all our former allies aligned together and not with us?

He explained why during the press conference. I think he may have called the hapless newsperson not very smart for asking that question. Why would somebody tell the world what they were going to do in a negotiation.. it defeats the whole purpose of the process if you play all your cards face up and then make your bets while the opponent’s cards are mitt to tit.

And when did he articulate any concession Ukraine will have to make. In the press conference, someone asked him why he and Zelenskyy were being so friendly when a week earlier they were complaining about each other. Trump smiled and said that was before we made a deal and both of us are happy with the results. Zelensky confirmed that.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
So if Trump is insisting on concessions from Russia why doesn’t he articulate them? He has articulated what he expects from Ukraine. And if Trump’s plan is viable, why have all our former allies aligned together and not with us?

. . . must be a pretty compelling plan since all the allies have gone another direction.

What other direction have they gone in. Trump, in the press conference said that there would be security guarantees and he had talked with other countries which had agreed to participate in those guarantees . He also said that monies were going to be paid by the U.S. and Europe to assure the survival of Ukraine. Apparently, both you and Zelinskyy missed that part of the press conference.

Where has any other country said anything different. Hint… they haven’t. In fact, they have said today that the United States would be an important and necessary participant in any future security plans for Ukraine.

Mike, you’re my friend. I wish you could come over to the house and listen to the entire press conference and let us dissect it. I think I’m right, you may think I’m wrong. I’m not promoting Putin or Trump. I’m just relating what happened in the conference as I saw it. I wish I could get you some smoky red 20 year old liquid with a couple of cubes of ice when we spar a bit.
Instead, I’m putting my fat ass asleep.

Alas.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . must be a pretty compelling plan since all the allies have gone another direction.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What other direction have they gone in. Trump, in the press conference said that there would be security guarantees and he had talked with other countries which had agreed to participate in those guarantees . He also said that monies were going to be paid by the U.S. and Europe to assure the survival of Ukraine. Apparently, both you and Zelinskyy missed that part of the press conference.

Where has any other country said anything different. Hint… they haven’t. In fact, they have said today that the United States would be an important and necessary participant in any future security plans for Ukraine.

Mike, you’re my friend. I wish you could come over to the house and listen to the entire press conference and let us dissect it. I think I’m right, you may think I’m wrong. I’m not promoting Putin or Trump. I’m just relating what happened in the conference as I saw it. I wish I could get you some smoky red 20 year old liquid with a couple of cubes of ice when we spar a bit.
Instead, I’m putting my fat ass asleep.

Alas.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . must be a pretty compelling plan since all the allies have gone another direction.

JudgeG must be watching his news on another planet.

Maybe Putin has a pee tape on him too?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
What other direction have they gone in. Trump, in the press conference said that there would be security guarantees and he had talked with other countries which had agreed to participate in those guarantees . He also said that monies were going to be paid by the U.S. and Europe to assure the survival of Ukraine. Apparently, both you and Zelinskyy missed that part of the press conference.

Where has any other country said anything different. Hint… they haven’t. In fact, they have said today that the United States would be an important and necessary participant in any future security plans for Ukraine.

Mike, you’re my friend. I wish you could come over to the house and listen to the entire press conference and let us dissect it. I think I’m right, you may think I’m wrong. I’m not promoting Putin or Trump. I’m just relating what happened in the conference as I saw it. I wish I could get you some smoky red 20 year old liquid with a couple of cubes of ice when we spar a bit.
Instead, I’m putting my fat ass asleep.

Alas.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . must be a pretty compelling plan since all the allies have gone another direction.

quote:

When asked during the first Cabinet meeting of his second term on Wednesday what security guarantees he's willing to make, Trump responded: "I'm not going to make security guarantees beyond very much. We're going to have Europe do that."

Link

The Judge doesn't even live in the same Zip Code as reality.

The way I remember it, earlier in this conflict we here were wondering about the possible end of Vlads Russia due to war losses, sanctions, and possible coup from within. That general of Vlads mercenaries that turned his troops back on Moscow got dead -ified because of,....

To me, being the rural AK international expert on nuclear stockpiles that I am,.. the idea that Vlads nukes are serviceable is becoming increasingly doubtful. A single aircraft carrier that don't do its thing. Tanks that exhibit symptoms of severe rabies infection. Not just turbo craft strategic bombers but also a fleet of aircraft that have no usable electronics. The Russian pilots buy hand held gps's to be able to find their way to and from.

Using Iranian made missiles?

Hiring DPRK soldiers???

Vlad is in bad shape, and as someone mentioned, we spent billions putting him there. There is no upside to spending that money and then handing Vlad a win. There is no benefit to the US or the West in giving Vlad a 4th quarter capitulation and allowing him to stay in control of that nuclear stockpile that is assuredly growing more and more unstable and un supervised.

If anything what's best for the West and the world would be for Russia to dissolve and for the West/ NATO/ The UN to zip in there and secure those USSR weapons.

The Caliphate is resurgent. Radical, (death to America!) Islam is in firm control of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Palestinians, likely Lebanon, Sudan, Libya,...... and some American Congress members. Oil prices remain profitable, so who is Vlad willing to do business with?

We should be reticent to jump in, to lend aid in foreign entanglements, but once in we're in! You don't come up lame in the final two minutes, you don't the the game.

Im all for assessing and reassessing our side and commitments, but in between games, not during halftime.

Even if Vlad is a nut less wonder, there's no advantage to the US in Vlads win.

I agree with you Scott, and I think Its totally acceptable for the US and its voters to question their place in the world, Or give the rest of the world notification that it wishes to reduce its foot print.
But yes, at a reasonable time and see through existing commitments.
While Im critical of Trump. I do recognise that his message too Europe to start looking after itself and start pulling its weight, is fair.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Germany had manufacturing capability. Fact
Russia none. Fact

Germany was an engineering powerhouse. Fact
Russia not. Fact

Germany was a leader in science and math. Fact
Russia never. Fact

Due to the above Germany could grow strong. Fact.
Russia can’t. Fact

Russia beat the shit out of Germany!

Russia beat you into space.

Russia is beating you all in the Ukraine.

FACTS as they really are.

Not according to you!

You guys seem to be concentrating pretty hard on Trump/Putin. Is it not maybe worthwhile being concerned over the fact that the weak weak leaders of the EU, that have allowed Islamist's to over run their countries and that are jailing their citizens over FB posts are getting very comfortable with Zelensky and each other?

While Putin is no angel, that little Ukranian is a very dodgy individual indeed. I mean he has agreed to meet with the ANC and that should tell you something.

quote:

his message too Europe to start looking after itself and start pulling its weight, is fair.

If I recall Trump told the EU exactly the same thing during his first tenure as President, then along came Joe and the Europeans carried on with business as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by Snav:
You guys seem to be concentrating pretty hard on Trump/Putin. Is it not maybe worthwhile being concerned over the fact that the weak weak leaders of the EU, that have allowed Islamist's to over run their countries and that are jailing their citizens over FB posts are getting very comfortable with Zelensky and each other?

While Putin is no angel, that little Ukranian is a very dodgy individual indeed. I mean he has agreed to meet with the ANC and that should tell you something.

Nobody's forgotten the Islamists. As has been mentioned elsewhere, Radical Islam now rules supreme in more than a half dozen M.E. nations. So, Vlad being badly hurt and broke, who is he likely to embrace? Could it be his new found regime in historically USSR friendly Syria? Vlads old chum Iran?

I don't believe for a moment that Ukraine has made some miraculous pivot towards virtue and honor. Ukraine was a corrupt mess and likely will remain.

Opposing Ukraine is Vlad, certainly and demonstrably a foe of the West. Regardless the billions we've given there is no advantage to the West in surrendering Ukraine, and certainly after spending billions, there is absolutely no advantage to the West to surrender Ukraine to Vlad.

The West's best option is an embrace of Ukraine and the dissolution of Vlad.

The more I see, the more I come to think that reducing Russia too the point in breaks into 2 or 3 seperate entities, thereby never being a power again, is the best option.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . MAGAts cheering for another Munich Agreement.

Trump Is Offering Putin Another Munich
Story by Robert Kagan
The Atlantic

Hitler regretted the deal he made with Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938. What he actually wanted was war—his goal was to conquer all of Czechoslovakia by force as a first step toward the conquest of all of Europe.

He didn’t imagine that the British and French governments would be so craven as to give him everything he publicly asked for, including the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and the occupation of the Sudetenland by the German army. When they did, Hitler found himself trapped into accepting, but he was unhappy. Within five months he ordered the military occupation of all Czechoslovakia, in violation of the Munich Agreement, and six months after that, he invaded Poland.

Today the Trump administration is offering Vladimir Putin a Munich-like settlement for Ukraine. Trump’s negotiators have offered Putin almost everything he has publicly asked for without demanding anything in return. They may assume that if they give him everything up front, he will agree to a cease-fire and some kind of deal that will save face for President Donald Trump, allowing him to claim the mantle of peacemaker, just as Chamberlain did, albeit for only a few months.

Will Putin accept? At the moment, thanks to Trump’s anti-Ukraine maneuvers, he has the luxury of watching Washington and Kyiv wrangle over terms while he pummels Ukraine’s population and energy grid and brings the country closer to collapse. But so far, Putin has been clear about the terms he is willing to accept to achieve peace. Like Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part II, his offer is this: nothing.

No security guarantee; no independent, sovereign Ukraine; perhaps not even a cease-fire. Putin’s goal, as it has been from the beginning, is the incorporation of Ukraine into Russia and the complete erasure of the Ukrainian nation, language, and culture. He will gladly accept Ukraine’s surrender whenever Kyiv is ready to concede, but short of that he is going to keep the war going until he takes everything.

Let’s start with security guarantees. Putin has never agreed to them for Ukraine—in any form. Putin and his spokesmen have stated repeatedly that Moscow will never accept European troops on Ukrainian soil as part of a peace deal. To accept European troops in Ukraine is no different in Putin’s mind than to accept NATO—as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said as recently as last week.

Nor is Putin’s refusal hard to understand. Any deal that put Western troops on Ukrainian soil would leave Russia in an objectively worse strategic situation than before the invasion. After three years of conflict, as many as 1 million casualties, and widespread economic suffering, Putin would have succeeded only in tightening the circle of containment around Russia, including the admission to NATO of Sweden and Finland; bringing hostile forces closer to Russia’s border; and substantially increasing even peacetime defense requirements. His broader ambitions in Europe would be blocked, perhaps forever. If Trump could see past the aura of his own dealmaking genius, he would see that for Putin to end the war with European troops on Ukrainian soil for any purpose would be a colossal strategic failure.

Putin has also rejected the idea of an international guarantee of Ukraine’s security even without troops on the ground. Early negotiations in 2022 broke down precisely over that point. Ukraine wanted an international commitment to come to Ukraine’s aid in the event that Russia launched another attack—something equivalent to the Article 5 guarantee in the NATO treaty. This would not have meant foreign troops on Ukrainian soil—or even any official relationship between Ukraine and NATO—but rather a commitment by signatory states to come to a “neutral” Ukraine’s aid if it was invaded. Putin rejected this, insisting on a Russian veto over any such action.

Putin has even insisted that Ukraine should not be permitted to maintain a military capable of resisting another Russian invasion. He has demanded strict limits on the number of Ukrainian forces and rejected any notion of allowing the U.S. or Europe to continue providing weapons to help Ukraine defend itself against future attack. In short, Putin’s unwavering demand in any peace settlement has been to leave Ukraine essentially defenseless.

Further, Putin has from the beginning demanded an end to the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a prior condition before any agreement. That he ever expected this demand to be met is doubtful: What nation agrees to the toppling of its government as the price for peace, except as terms of surrender? Yet he’s sticking to this demand. According to reports, Trump officials are right now working to force Zelensky from power and replace him with someone presumably friendlier to Moscow. Judging by the reaction of most Ukrainians to the ambush of their president in the Oval Office, this effort will not succeed. But the fact that Trump officials are trying shows that Putin has not budged an inch in response to Trump’s many concessions.

He has also not budged from his broader demand for “de-Nazification,” by which he means the suppression of Ukrainian as the official language of Ukraine, to be replaced by Russian, and of Ukrainian culture and nationalism, which Putin sees as tantamount to resistance to Moscow’s domination. If anyone wants to know what Putin hopes to do with Ukraine once he has control, they have only to look at what he is already doing in the territories Russia occupies, where Ukrainians are being forced to become Russian citizens, and any resistance leads to imprisonment, torture, and execution.

Everyone in the West seems to agree that there will be a cease-fire in Ukraine at some point. But one person who never talks about a cease-fire is Vladimir Putin. He does not talk about a cease-fire with his own people. He has at no time offered a cease-fire to the Ukrainians or the Americans. People assume he wants a cease-fire because his losses are staggering and his economy is suffering. But, as I and others have argued, Putin has to believe only that Ukraine is closer to collapse than he is, and that though he is suffering, the Ukrainians are suffering more. Trump’s latest moves to paralyze Ukraine’s defenses against missile and drone attacks by denying vital U.S. intelligence sharing can only bolster that assessment.

Putin might be tempted to strike a Munich-like deal with Trump just to strengthen an American president who seems determined to give Putin what he may never have imagined possible—a complete American capitulation in the global struggle, the destruction of the NATO alliance, the isolation of a weak Europe, and an open field for further actions to fulfill Putin’s overarching goal, which is the reconstitution of the Soviet Union and its empire in Eastern and Central Europe. This is where the Munich analogy breaks down, because whatever else Chamberlain’s appeasement was, it did not include changing sides in the ongoing European crisis and joining Hitler to carve up the continent.

Yet Putin may calculate that he is getting that for free already. The damage Trump has done to NATO is probably irreparable. The alliance relied on an American guarantee that is no longer reliable, to say the least. But Trump is mercurial and could reverse course, at least partially, at any time. That’s a reason for Putin to seek victory as quickly as possible. He may never have a chance as good as this one to complete the task he set out to achieve when he launched his invasion three years ago.

One thing is certain: Trump is no poker player. Thanks to his actions so far, Putin hasn’t had to reveal any of his cards. Trump claims to know what Putin wants, but his own actions show that he actually has no clue. One day Trump says Russia wants peace for reasons “only I know.” The next, he warns Putin that he’ll impose more sanctions. Putin must be laughing up his sleeve. He’s weathered American sanctions for the better part of three years now; more of the same is not much of a threat. If that’s the only card Trump intends to play, Putin will soon be cashing in, and Ukraine will soon be doomed. Neville Chamberlain believed that Hitler wouldn’t violate the Munich deal because Hitler respected him. Trump shares that delusion about Putin. We may all pay the price.

I am actually amazed how quickly Trump showed how stupid he!

Interesting times!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...d8bc50e8e0811&ei=159

Trump can't criticize Putin's invasion. He's threatening his own
Story by Ross Rosenfeld • 2h • 5 min read