The scam that backfired.
For the past few weeks we have heard about a rare earth minerals deal between the US and Ukraine. It would have involved hundreds of billions of dollars in US investment in Ukraine, plus the security that such an investment would provide to Ukraine. All that is gone now. Friday we all witnessed a complete breakdown of talks between the US and Ukraine on the very day that Zelensky was supposedly going to finally (after 3 attempts) formally sign the deal.
There are now reports surfacing that certain democrats had spoken to Zelensky immediately prior to his meeting with the President on Friday. Most notable was the investigative report by Michael Goodwin of the New York Post:
"Before meeting President Trump, Zelensky met with anti-Trump Democrats who advised him to reject the terms of the mineral deal that the president was offering, according to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
“Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine,” Murphy’s office posted on X at 11:15 a.m. Friday.
He attached a picture of Zelensky at a conference table, with Murphy seated on the opposite side.
Forty minutes later, Zelensky arrived at the White House, where Trump met his car, smiled, shook his hand and walked him into the Oval Office.
Arrogant ingrate
The meeting, as the world now knows, quickly went off the rails and ended with Trump angrily ejecting the arrogant ingrate from the White House.
The earlier meeting with Dems undercuts wild claims that Trump and Vice President JD Vance staged an ambush. In fact, it was Zelensky who came with an ulterior motive.
The purpose of the meeting was to sign the mineral agreement that he and Trump representatives had negotiated. He had twice refused to sign it after promising to , and thanks to Murphy, we now know he had no intention of signing it Friday.
By listening to the nakedly partisan advice of Dems instead of dealing forthrightly with the current president, Zelensky betrayed his countrymen and, for now at least, leaves them without the military and diplomatic protection that only America can provide.
Good luck counting on Britain, France and the rest of Europe to save Ukraine. Maybe the Germans will send strudel.
In a perverse way, Murphy and other Dems got the outcome they wanted. The fireworks at the White House gave them an excuse to replay their Russia Russia Russia hoax.
Once again, they and their media handmaidens are dishonestly insisting that Trump is in Vladimir Putin’s camp.
Like the original Russia hoax that consumed much of Trump’s first term, Russia 2.0 is born of political desperation. After months of not knowing how to respond to Trump’s fast, populist start to his second term, Dems up and down the food chain decided that the president’s refusal to write a blank check to Zelensky and pledge a military guarantee amounts to a gift to Putin.
Desperate for relevance
The logic is twisted beyond description, but any port in a storm will do. And with Trump off to the fastest start of any president in modern history, Dems are desperate to be relevant.
It’s a mark of their bad judgment that Zelensky is their new hero. He and they have zero chance of persuading tapped-out Americans that an open-ended commitment of their tax dollars and possibly sending troops to Ukraine is sensible.
Certainly Trump supporters didn’t vote for that, and the president himself campaigned on bringing the war to a fast end, not sending our army to fight Russians.
He made it repeatedly clear for three years that he viewed President Joe Biden’s strategy of providing just enough support for Ukraine to keep the war going without any plan for victory as a fool’s errand. He has also been consistent about his desire to stop the enormous loss of life on both sides and the destruction of Ukrainian cities and towns.
To that end, he and his White House came up with the minerals plan that he called a first step to a cease-fire.
The plan went through several drafts and the latest would have America and Ukraine form a partnership to mine the Eastern European nation’s plentiful rare-earth deposits, with much of the proceeds going to help rebuild Ukraine.
A gift to Putin
Zelensky, who privately agreed to the terms, has every right to demand a security agreement — up to a point. But he didn’t get one and his decision to respond by insulting the president and vice president, interrupting them and waving off their responses, was madness.
As Trump noted, the heated jabs made for great television, but it was a disaster for Ukraine and a gift to Putin.
Zelensky had an opportunity to apologize to Trump in a later interview with Brett Baier on Fox, but repeatedly refused to do so, saying, “I’m not sure we did something bad.”
Add ignorance to his list of flaws.
Unfortunately for him, there is an audience egging him on. Beyond Washington Dems, the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, wrote on social media that “the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge. We stand by Ukraine.”
Sure, Europe stands by Ukraine — and will continue to stand by as it gets carved up by Putin’s war machine.
‘Ukraine is our ally’
Murphy and other Dems are no better, celebrating Zelensky’s stupendous failure as if it were a victory. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote that “Trump and Vance are doing Putin’s dirty work” and the always repellent Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) called Trump a “coward.”
New York’s daffy governor, Kathy Hochul, who seems to pick a daily fight with Trump, added her two cents, saying, “Ukraine is our ally. Putin is not. It’s not complicated … This president may not stand with democracy, but we will.”
Oh, please. Hochul can’t even keep the peace on New York’s crime-ridden streets.
Meanwhile, Zelensky’s rejection of the mineral deal means there will be no American interests and businesses in Ukraine, which, as Trump repeatedly said, would help deter Russian attacks.
Moreover, Trump said a final settlement would require Putin to return some of the lands he has taken, and that France, Great Britain and others likely would station peace-keeping troops in Ukraine.
All that should have given Zelensky more than enough confidence to go forward, or at least to raise any concerns in private. Instead, he used a friendly meeting in front of the press to complain that no agreement was sufficient without an American security guarantee, despite being told repeatedly that none would be included in the minerals deal.
He’s right that Putin can’t be trusted, but he’s a fool for rejecting Trump’s plan and counting on Europe and feckless Dems to help him get a better deal from Trump.
As the president reminded him three times, “you don’t have the cards” to make the demands he was making, but Zelensky ignored the advice and the facts.
What a tragic mistake."
Dems lead Zelensky, Ukraine off a cliff with pressure to reject mineral deal
What were the democrats looking to achieve?
Were they hoping that Zelensky could get Trump to commit to putting US troops in Ukraine?
Or maybe they just wanted to counter the Trump peace plan?
They have been caught once again. All they achieved is that Zelensky is now dependent on the unreliable Europeans and is likely to lose his country. Trump's legacy will be that he tried to bring peace but was sabotaged.
In other news:
Canada and Mexico have tried to show that they are increasing border security, but President Trump is not satisfied with it. Extra tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China are set to begin tomorrow. Mexico, spurred by the Trump administration, is cracking down on organized crime. Several cartel operatives said that, for the first time in years, they genuinely fear arrest or death.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio bypassed Congress to send $4 billion in weapons aid to Israel. The first phase of the cease-fire in Gaza is over. Israel and Hamas have continued negotiations, but they are also both prepared to return to war.
Vice President JD Vance was forced to move his family to an “undisclosed location” after hundreds of pro-Ukraine protesters swarmed the Vermont ski resort where they were vacationing Saturday, just days after his public dust-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the measles outbreak in West Texas is a top priority.
European leaders met in London on Sunday to further discuss a peace plan for Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Zelensky says a minerals deal with the United States is “ready” to be signed despite his recent dust up with President Trump. I think an apology may now be a precondition for even getting to see President Trump again.
Tags
Who is online
68 visitors
Good morning and welcome to the news of the day.
Did anyone catch the Academy Awards ceremony last night?
Remember when that thing used to be glamorous and sophisticated?
A comedy-drama about an exotic dancer from Brooklyn who marries the son of a Russian oligarch, won five Oscars and was the big winner of last night’s awards.
My take on the news of the day:
1. Trump tariffs on Canada: Fentanyl crossing the border from Canada is less than 1% of that drug finding its way into the USA, and presently less than ever. Maybe doing something to curb the demand instead of the supply would be a little more productive. Canada has also deployed beefed up border guards, closed some crossing posts, and for the first time BlackHawk helicopters are patrolling the border. Where are the lines of illegal immigrants crossing the border into the USA coming from? The Arctic Circle? Canada's immigration control of those entering Canada is pretty damned secure - what other nation does Canada have a border with than the USA? So Trump is nothing but a fucking asshole for continuing with his threat of hitting Canada with the same tariffs as Mexico.
2. Trump's emissary to Israel, Witkoff, has proposed a one month extension of the initial cease fire deal on humanitarian grounds for both Muslims and Jews to enable peaceful coexistence between both sides during their respective religious observances of Ramadan and Passover during which humanitarian aid would still be provided to the Gazans and the unbelievably lopsided prisoner exchanges would continue - a hundred Palestinian terrorists many with blood on their hands for every single innocent hostage held by Hamas. Israel is all for it - Hamas has refused, so Israel has blocked the humanitarian aid (since Hamas has already stockpiled enough of it for 4 or 5 months) and is starting its military procedures again. As expected, the rest of the world blames Israel, you know, those fucking Jews, for Hamas' refusal.
3. Anti-vax proponent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the measles outbreak in West Texas is a top priority. Really? Haven't enough little kids died yet before maybe he should REQUIRE vaccinations instead of his true feelings about them.
There are some good takes in there Buzz.
Remember three things. Trump's favorite word on trade is "reciprocal."
You nailed it on the "humanitarian aid." I took note of who looked emaciated when the Israeli hostages were paraded through the streets crowded with what appeared to be well fed Palestinians.
And finally, from the Boston Herald:
"Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly backed the measles vaccine Sunday amid an outbreak of the disease in Texas that has already killed one child.
The 71-year-old vaccine skeptic had previously criticized the immunization and called the outbreak “not unusual” last week, even though the child was the first person to die from measles in the U.S. since 2015. But on Sunday, he changed his tune.
“Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons,” he wrote in a Fox News opinion piece."
Vaccine critic RFK Jr. changes his tune on measles shot amid deadly outbreak in Texas
Canadians would never have booed the American National Anthem, but since Trump's absolutely unfair tariffs imposed on Canada will most likely cause a recession and the loss of up to 500,000 jobs such a discourtesy will have been well earned and no surprise..
The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $63.3 billion in 2024
Canada | United States Trade Representative
If it were not for the fact that the US has not been able to feed itself the crude oil it needs, Canada would have been the nation with the deficit.
U.S.-Canada trade deficit is highest in 20 years. Does it justify tariffs?
LINK -> U.S.-Canada trade deficit is highest in 20 years. Does it justify tariffs? - National | Globalnews.ca
Now the trade tariffs are reciprocal. If Canada adds new ones, Trump will probably do the same.
I think it may be time to learn what Zelinsky just learned: Never bite the hand that feeds you.
Canada has now unjustly, unnecessarily, unfairly and stupidly been harmed by Trump in the name of America and a lot of Americans, even some NT members support it. Now I really hope it bites back good and hard. IMO Canada should buy its wintertime fruit and veggies from Mexico, Cental and South America, sell its wood to China and have China build a west coast port as it did for Peru for shipping oil and gas and from now on Canadians should buy Products of Canada (i.e. not just Made in Canada with American content) wherever possible, and for sure China can provide cheaper to cover the shipping cost whatever Canada needs that was purchased from America previously. Snowbirds can go to the Islands and Mexico. Ford, having just won the Ontario election, can now turn off the lights of some northern States as he threatened. Sure, retaliation will increase the pain for Canada but Canada has wrongly been made to suffer so it's time for Canada to stand up and be a man and show it's got the balls to not be a whimpering Zelenskyy apologizer, and shoot back. I'm cheering my home nation on to cause pain to those who deliberately harm it.
Your outgoing PM just gave a press conference on it. I know it hurts, but the one-way street is over.
I just watched Trudeau on TV. “Canadians are reasonable and we are polite, but we will not back down from a fight, not when our country and the well-being of everyone in it is at stake,” he said, adding that “this is a time to hit back hard and to demonstrate that a fight with Canada will have no winners.”
American bravado might be somewhat modified when you find it costs about $6000 more to buy a car and price of gas for it will increase as well. Canadians aren't the only ones who are going to feel the pain from this. The expected devaluation of the Canadian dollar is going to reduce the conversion rate of my Canadian pension and don't think I'm happy about what your hero has done to me personally. .
Canada should look and see how their pipelines get from the western provinces to the east. Take a look at whose country those pipelines go through. If Canada wants to escalate this beyond simply raising taxes, America can play that game too.
Buzz, please don't tell us how we feel.
we feel just fine with reciprocal trade deals.
In two days? Wow, now that is some strength............/S
What is the logic supporting that absurd position?
Explain how this works to our advantage.
Sure, fine, you won't feel anything when your life gets to be more expensive and you might not have or be able to get all the things you might need or want.
It really is possible for a person who speaks English to understand that my comment could be interpreted as a prediction. In other words, the word "made" may be considered meaning something that has been done, while the words "to suffer" may be considered to mean in the future.
In the future you mean like this in the future?
No, what I meant when I said it - it meant the hour after I said it, the day after I said it, the week after I said it, the month after I said it, the year after I said it, or as long as your stupid PotUS maintains those tariffs that will harm not only the people of both countries, but what was once most likely the best, friendliest, most cooperative relationship between two neighbouring countries in the world.
Seem to make little sense, unless he's trying to get a concession we don't know about yet.
Liberals blame Israel. The American conservatives you hate support Israel all the way.
This is America. You cannot force people to inject substances into their body in violation of their religious beliefs. We consider government overreach to be far more dangerous than disease.
Even more dangerous than the death of your children?
@ TiG 1.1.18
I cannot open images copied and pasted directly from sites blocked here. It is necessary to copy them to your computer picture library and paste them from there.
Obviously. For generations.
You may have heard some American sayings:
Give me liberty or give me death (Patrick Henry)
Those who forsake liberty for safety deserve neither. (Ben Franklin paraphrase)
Now personally, my entire family are vaccinated. We consider that the best decision.
But forcing such compliance on other people against their will violates the core of our ethos as Americans. I will stand up for the right of a Mennonite (or anyone else) to reject vaccination the same way I will stand up for the right of my Jewish neighbor to put a menorah in their window or my Muslim neighbors to celebrate Ramadan.
I may not like what people say on social media, but if we start imprisoning them like is happening in Britain (or Canada), I will join the riot without hesitation or concern for personal safety.
There is no freedom in cowardice.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean those who had genuine religious beliefs about not being vaccinated. It's their choice to gamble with their children's lives. I was thinking of the usual anti-vax persons who don't have a religious reason for it, but are just being ignorant, and endangering the lives of innocent people around them. One of the reasons why so many Americans died of the Covid pandemic was because too many people were more concerned about their own selfish "personal rights and freedoms" than they were about anyone else in the world.
No worries. You mentioned West Texas, where the measles outbreak is centered around a Mennonite community. Some of them vaccinate and some don't, but
Same rules apply. I'm going to stand up for their right not to get vaccinated if that's what they choose, no matter how stupid I think the choice is.
It wasn't selfish. Yes, people were stubborn (stupidly so, IMO), but they weren't impacting anyone else.
The efficacy of the vaccines became mathematically obvious very early on. By the time we got into the summer of 2021, fatalities among vaccinated people were almost non-existent. We kept hearing "we are in a pandemic of the unvaccinated". To a vaccinated person, the stairs in their house were more of a threat than Covid.
Unvaccinated people are kinda like the guy who rides a motorcycle with no helmet. He doesn't care about his own life, but he's not interfering with yours, so he has a right Darwin himself out of existence.
Murphy and company need to be investigated for trying to negotiate on the behalf of the US without the consent of the president. He is not the first one to do this against Trump. Lurch Kerry did the same before Trump took office the first time.
Once these people see that doing this type of sabotage will not be tolerated, they will get the message and stop doing it, especially all in the name of "get Trump".
There are those who want him prosecuted for treason.
BTW there are unsubstantiated reports about Susan Rice, the Obama operative, also getting to Zelensky. I don't know if they are true, so on those I will wait for some kind of verification. Murphy made the mistake of going on record.
From past actions of the Obama operatives, I do not find this surprising and believe she did everything she is accused of.
Seems almost treasonous, doesn't it?
I will always remember her going on all those Sunday morning shows and blatantly lying about the reason for the Benghazi attack.
Seems almost treasonous, doesn't it?
Have they ever been held accountable for their plots & schemes?
Utter stupidity. Neither Murphy or anyone else convinced Zelensky not to sign the deal. He had no intention of signing it without security guarantees before he even met with Murphy or anyone else.
How do you know that.
Why else would he meet with Zelensky before the White Hose visit....THAT HE AGREED TO TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT?
How many hundred other people did he meet with prior to the Whitehouse staged fiasco?
Don't know and don't care.
Bottom line is Murphy, et al, broke the law by trying to influence US policy without the approval of the president.
If you pay attention to credible sources, you will find that there was nothing staged, except for the acting Zelensky did on the behalf of democrats.
What a dumb ass move that was.
So you only care about the one that goes along with your own partisan narrative?
Bottom line is that it has yet to be proven.
Not staged? Then why were all the cameras there? Coincidence???
With 30 reporters standing in formation?
With a rep from TASS and MTG's boyfriend standing directly behind Vance?
No coincident there, nope, none at all /S
I don't know how to put this in more plain terms - Zelensky said PRIOR to the White House meeting that there would be no agreement without security guarantees.
He said it before he went to Washington. Are Trump and his officials too fucking stupid or damn lazy to read the news every day? Zelensky's mistake was in thinking he could get there in person with Trump and Vance and actually influence what they are thinking by telling them the truth.
What the oval office debacle showed more than anything is how unstable Donald Trump is.
The Ukrainian government announced acceptance of the deal before Zelensky came to Washington.
Then why did he accept an invitation to the White House to SIGN A DEAL?
Murphy and his band of idiots gave him bad (and illegal) advice and he is paying for it today.
Who was happier watching the deal Ukraine agreed to fall apart, Democrats like Murphy or Putin?
I would say I was the happiest.
We need to stay the hell out of third world fascist shitholes like Ukraine.
The quicker we cut and run the better. Putin can have his buffer state. Russia will take decades to recover militarily and economically. That is if they ever get smart enough and learn how to fight a modern war. Until they do it won't matter how fast they rebuild.
If it wasn't for their threat of nuclear weapons we would have rolled into Moscow long ago.
So thank you Democrats for being so deranged and unwilling to give Trump any type of win that you sabotaged peace. The US taxpayer will save billions in rebuilding Ukraine for an ungrateful, corrupt, fascist POS government that will stab us in the back the first chance they get.
And Trump made clear there would be no security guarantees on the minerals deal. That deal was the purpose of Zelensky coming to the White House Friday.
He said it before he went to Washington. Are Trump and his officials too fucking stupid or damn lazy to read the news every day?
The stupid fuck is Zelensky. Security is something he gets AFTER SITTING DOWN WITH PUTIN AND PUTIN GETTING SOMETHING. Now the pompous ass gets nothing.
Zelensky come in with his hand out and it got slapped away.
For those with their heads in their fourth points of contact, what it showed was Trump is no longer carelessly handing over money to Ukraine like his predecssor did. Let the EU do that.
It looks like they're thinking about it. That's enough "bread" to feed the war machine for quite awhile
"For those with their heads in their fourth points of contact, what it showed was Trump is no longer carelessly handing over money to Ukraine like his predecessor did. Let the EU do that.
As Europe Mobilizes Behind Ukraine, It Sits on a $218 Billion Ace Card - Business Insider
And one thing people don't understand. It's the US ALONE vs. the EU as a GROUP. No other single country has matched what the US has already provided. Yet they are all crying that the US didn't hand over anything.
[✘]
removed for context
... and together they have taken in well over 6 million Ukrainian refugees supplying food, housing, education, medical assistance and employment.
Gotta love facts. Here's another one.
Wonder how much of that $218 billion will end up buying US arms and munitions.
Europe's military industrial complex can even supply their militaries that you can drowned in a bathtub. How is it going to ever bring their military up to snuff to provide for their own defenses; while supply Ukraine with enough to fight Russia?
If Ukraine has to wait on Europe for arms- Putin will own the country.
Good for them. That is what they should be doing. Ukraine is a European problem not a US problem.
How many illegal immigrants does the US have? Guaranteed it is well over 6 million.
We need to restock and rebuild our military to be ready for the real threat to the world China. Not wasting our resources in Ukraine, Israel, Syria, and anywhere else proxy wars.
Xi is pissed that Trump has more brains than Biden and won't continue to waste billions in an endless war. He was counting on the US to be too weak economically and militarily to stop China when it finally decides it is time to move on Taiwan.
Then he is too fucking stupid to lead a country.
ESPECIALLY since he took advice from members of a party that got their asses handed to them only a few short months ago.
Seriously. To believe that was a good strategy with a possibility of success is disqualifying from ever claiming to have even an average IQ. .
Imagine this thought process:
"Let's reach an agreement and request a big, public stage to sign it. Then, once on stage, make more demands. Knowing Trump, I'm sure he'll appreciate being played for a chump and will meekly go along with our double cross..."
Obviously missed that we have a new president. He must have been surprised to see it was not Biden sitting across from him.
I bet his first thought was "Hey, where is my bitch Joe"?
2 thoughts.
Nope, they read it. Now Trump can claim that Zelensky didn't break up with him, HE broke up with Zelensky.
I think there's no question that this was a setup.
Susan Rice on Trump-Zelensky Clash: "No Question That This Was A Setup," "JD Vance Did That Deliberately" | Video | RealClearPolitics
Right on cue.
She had to say that to try and not get the spotlight on her.
It failed.
We can always count on them to project from what they are doing.
2 questions for you then.
So the idiot anti-Trump Democrats are responsible for tanking the deal. I really wish I could say I'm surprised.
That's a possibility that can't be ruled out. They do like war.
I recently saw a poll, I believe from Gallop, that showed 60 percent of Americans wanted this war to end quickly, but only 30 percent of Democrats wanted it to end quickly.
You are right...Democrats do love thier war.
Stupid Zelensky doesn't even understand that Americans working on mining in his country is the security buffer that would protect him. Ukraine would have the security of NATO in that regard, but Zelensky has always stood with democrats. He felt comfortable with them and as the VP noted, he even campaigned for Biden.
Now Zelensky screwed himself.
Tough shit, I say.
Perfect partisan thinking. Forget about the specifics of the situation, because Zelensky 'stood with democrats' GOP partisans emotionally say 'fuck Ukraine'.
The focus should be on ending this war in a way that dissuades Putin from continued aggression against his neighbors. That should be the objective. It does not appear to be so with Trump.
And US companies working in Ukraine is not a security buffer. You think Putin would not invade Ukraine merely because US companies have workers there (mostly Ukranian citizens most likely)? That is ridiculous. Putin clearly does not give one shit about factors like that. What would happen is that the US companies would shut down operations and bring their people back to the USA. The USA would retaliate with sanctions, etc. and Putin would continue to spend the blood and treasure of Russia in spite of the opposition. Just as he has been doing for three years now.
Putin has to lose.
Tell us how we reach that objective peacefully?
You think Putin would not invade Ukraine merely because US companies have workers there (mostly Ukranian citizens most likely)?
Correct. That was a brilliant plan, which benefitted both Ukraine and the US. Biden didn't come up with that plan, Chris Murphy didn't come up with it, nor did Susan Rice. President Trump came up with that plan.
Putin has to lose.
Then you want to fight it out .... which btw IS the partisan democrat position.
I am not so sure it can be done peacefully. But the approach is to amass overwhelming commitment USA and EU against Putin. It amounts to making the stick bigger.
Putin, however, is a madman. He has shown that he will continue to spend the blood and treasure of Russia in his obsession to regain all the lost territory of the former USSR. So, unfortunately, I suspect that he simply must be defeated.
No, I want a negotiated peace where Ukraine is secure and Putin cannot claim victory. I just do not think it is likely. That is very different from wanting to fight it out.
Also, where do you get the idea that the Ds want this war to continue?
What you can't seem to understand is that Putin is not going to lose. That's the reality TiG. Sadly, he has the manpower and hardware to go on indefinitely....Ukraine has very little, no matter how much money is wasted on this lost cause. The US has made it clear via Trump that we cannot financially keep sending good money after bad into this mess, and sending US troops is not an option. Can you present a workable viable option, or do you just want to continue bashing Trump
"Also, where do you get the idea that the Ds want this war to continue?"
Then why do the progressives vehemently reject Trump's plan? A first common sense first step is to get Trump and Putin talking, then call for a ceasefire so that negotiations can begin, accepting the fact that Russia holds all the cards. Ukraine has no chips with which to bargain.
Which means you don't believe it can be done peacefully, otherwise you would be forced to concede THAT PUTIN HAS TO GET SOMETHING TOO. AND IT IS OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE THAT YOU CAN"T GO THAT FAR.
No, I want a negotiated peace where Ukraine is secure and Putin cannot claim victory.
That is not a negotiated settlement. For the hundredth time: What would Putin get out of the deal????
That is very different from wanting to fight it out.
That is precisely wanting to fight it out. Putin is not accepting surrender terms. Zelensky has not won anything.
Also, where do you get the idea that the Ds want this war to continue?
From the three years of tossing billions to Ukraine without ever trying to end the war.
Any idea of a plan B then?
Maybe Ukraine should "find" a couple tactical nukes they forgot to hand in in 94. That would give them a pretty big stick.
Calm down. Shouting does not make your points logical.
It means what I wrote. Of course both Putin and Ukraine must get something out of any deal. That is basic logic. I do not think Putin will accept any reasonable terms for peace.
It sure as hell would be.
Take a breath. Cease with the ridiculous exaggerations.
There are many ways to formulate a deal. The key is to first understand what Putin wants and what Ukraine wants, and then formulate scenarios that get closer to that then what we have. I have explained in detail how I would approach this and also noted that I do not have the resources that Trump has. I am not going to explain this all again since clearly it is not registering with you.
That is what we should try. And, as I noted, a strong, unified, committed USA-NATO/EU-Ukraine position would provide a bigger stick sitting in the corner which will help with negotiations. Given Putin strikes me as obsessed, I am not convinced he will accept any deal short of winning the land he occupies and no NATO for Ukraine, but a strong attempt should be made.
Then you just illogically presume the Ds want to keep fighting it out. Partisan emotion.
What you should realize is that we have a PotUS who is parroting Putin's talking points and is siding with Putin against an ally. Trump is a disgrace and is too stupid to realize that Putin is manipulating him via his immature ego. Trump will never see this, but at some point his apologists should. When will that happen?
An irresponsible, non-serious comment.
Are you suggesting this has not taken place the last 3 years? At this point anything short of boots on the ground will be a waste of time.
Again, how would this differ from the last 3 years where Putin would finally see the light?
No, I am suggesting that we can do better. I had originally hoped that Trump would be able to take advantage of the fact that we have a new administration to produce a strong show of force against Putin. I obviously no longer give Trump the benefit of that doubt.
And I doubt that Putin can be persuaded (as I noted) but we should still try. (Although now I think Trump has blown that up.)
Read what I wrote. You are asking questions already answered.
Maybe, maybe not. It is called thinking outside the box which is different that proclaiming what Putin has to do when the world knows he won't.
It seems we keep giving more powerful weapons to Ukraine in hopes they will scare Putie Pute, might as well go right to the end conclusion.
That would fit right in with your "committed USA-NATO/EU-Ukraine position would provide a bigger stick sitting in the corner which will help with negotiations".
Not really. You have yet to have anything concrete other than "we can do better".
Bullshit. I laid out how I would approach this to Vic days ago.
And just here I pointed out that a key step is to rally the allies and build a stronger show of force as the backdrop for new negotiations. That Trump could have done that but now he has basically fucked that up.
Only the United States can provide security guarantees to Putin and Russia. It is the nuclear umbrella of the United States that provides security for Europe. Ukraine, Europe, and NATO have been threatening Russia with US nuclear weapons. But Ukraine, Europe, and NATO have not contributed to maintaining and upgrading the US nuclear arsenal. Europe has not been giving submarines, aircraft, or missiles to the United States. The US tax payer has been required to pay for the nuclear umbrella that guarantees the security of Europe.
IMO there has to be an element of punishment towards Russia for invading a sovereign nation. I think you could do that and also "give" Putin something at the same time. Let him keep HALF the territory he conquered. That's where I would start the negotiation.
There are plenty of scenarios which can be devised. While I have my doubts that Putin can be reasoned with, it is not as if we are out of options for negotiation. Just keep the buffoon out of the negotiation room.
Bullshit is right. I have no idea what you said to Vic the other day.
That is nothing more than wishful thinking unless you actually have a plan on how to do that. I have yet to see that plan. It is like saying we need to eradicate world hunger by coming up with a way to feed more people
Just more of the same. You are happy too blame Trump for something you have not defined what it is he had to do other than some pie in the sky bumper sticker slogan .
Name a few and tell us why they were not tried over the past three years. Were they waiting for Trump to be president?
I think Putin has made it clear about his feelings about negotiation. With him there seem to be no options. What makes you believe there are more options?
Assuming you are talking about Trump and not Biden he has not been in the negotiation room in the past 3 years. How has that gone for us?
Your loss.
I have to lay out the plan? If I were PotUS, I would. I would tap into the experience and intelligence at my disposal and formulate a negotiation strategy. Here is what I described a week ago:
The specifics of the various strategies would be the result of smart analysts and diplomats using their experience and knowledge. I do not have access to these individuals, but Trump does.
What Trump is doing is not even negotiation. It is capitulation. He is taking the easiest route ... throw Zelensky and Ukraine under the bus. And I expected this because Trump flat out does not care about anyone other than himself. He wants the war to end, no matter what, so that he can brag about himself. The first clue that this would be his approach was when he stupidly claimed he could end the war with a phone call.
That is ridiculous. Get to an equivalent scale.
I have defined it. I laid out an obvious method for devising a strategy.
Obviously you are just blindly defending Trump. This idiot is supposed to be the facilitator of a diplomatic peace deal. So what does this moron do? He publicly sides with Putin and throws our ally Ukraine under the bus. He blames Ukraine for starting the war and labels Zelensky a dictator with a 4% approval rating.
That is what I am blaming him for. Instead of engaging in normal methods for diplomatic negotiation, this loose-cannon buffoon starts parroting Putin's talking points.
And you are here trying to defend him. Sickening.
If you were elected President as a Republican today your only options to put together a working Republican administration would be to draft disaffected Trump first termers and ousted Congress men and women like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinsinger. Or, as MAGA now refer to them, "TDS Ridden Leftists"!
How would I know the inner working of the Biden administration? Stupid question.
But there are many potential negotiation scenarios that one can devise once we understand the key desires of the players. Right off the bat you have:
One can play with the various factors, create new ones, identify threats against Russia, propose trade benefits to Russia, etc. There are many possibilities and thus many scenarios can be devised, tested, refined by international experts available to Trump.
Here, though, is a scenario which is brain dead stupid:
Pretend to be a neutral arbiter of peace and then make a public statement to the world which parrots Putin's talking points and throws our ally under the bus by calling its leader a dictator with a 4% approval rating and blaming Ukraine for starting the war. Or a public meeting where Trump and Vance try to bully Zelensky and try to make him capitulate.
And you continue to defend this asshole buffoon.
[✘]
[✘]
Yes, negotiations 101. Obviously did not work.
Next
Yes, the same ones that Biden could have used. Butttttttttt Trump!
A new administration means we start over. And, of course, when Trump came in he ostensibly did just that.
Except instead of engaging in "negotiations 101", Trump sucked up to Putin and publicly sided with the invading dictator instead of the invaded ally.
The reality is that serious negotiation by a neutral facilitator was not even attempted. Pay attention to reality.
Get a grip.
Trump is the PotUS so when we talk about negotiations we will of course be talking about Trump. What on Earth did you expect??
You, however, want to talk about Biden and then ironically pull out the feeble platitude line of "Butttt Trump".
Not only do you not have an argument (not even a hint), your comment is laughably illogical.
Yes, negotiations 101 again and again and again expecting different results.
Pay attention to reality instead of just looking for ways to blame trump.
If the platitude fits...........
No, I just explained how Trump did not even engage in basic negotiation.
You have nothing, you are not paying attention, your comment is irrational.
Pay attention to what I am saying. If doing it a certain way has not come up with any results why should anyone do it the same way again. Try to not think about trump for a second when answering
Explaining the obvious yet again.
Trump has not tried negotiation 101 to achieve an end to the war. If you think otherwise, then explain to us all the details of Trump's negotiation scenario. What did he propose for Putin, what did he propose for Ukraine? When did the parties sit down to hammer out details?
An amazingly ridiculous demand.
Trump is the PotUS and the agent of negotiation. Of course we will think about Trump when discussing this negotiation.
An amazingly ridiculous demand
And there we have it.
Thanks for lunch.
[deleted][✘]
Make the stick too big Putin simply nukes everything and calls the world to an end. That type of stupid thinking is how we got into this position to begin with. The only thing that makes Russia a threat to the world is his nuclear weapons. So stop poking the damn bear already!
With what military? Think he can take any NATO countries- which will put him in direct conflict with the US? Think Russia can win a war against the US? Russia is a paper lion. They aren't a military threat to Europe much the less the world. But keep up with the old BS rhetoric; maybe you will get your wish and find out there will be no winners in WWIII.
Only leftists think losing countries can dictate terms. Russia is winning this bloody war; whether Democrats like it or not.
Because only D's think that throwing more US resources into this war will change the outcome. Ukraine doesn't have enough bodies to fight Russia forever; and I don't see leftists flooding into Ukraine to support their idol Zelenskyy. Europeans sure as hell aren't going to do it. They want the US to do all of the heavy lifting with Russia like normal. A war with Russia is in no one's best interests except China. Of course Democrats love China- so maybe that is their goal?
Now that is a perfect example of a defeatist attitude.
Then you recognize he can be defeated.
You are not following the discussion. The idea is that the USA can logically negotiate peace. Make up your mind. Either Putin is invincible or can be defeated.
Whatever follows this kind of an opening is stupid by definition.
PM Starmer says he’ll put “boots on the ground and planes in the air” in Ukraine.
Moments later he says he’ll only do so with “strong U.S. backing.”
But Trump has always ruled out U.S. troops in Ukraine.
Strange, isn't it?
Is that who Zelensky is depending upon?
The idea of Europe, which is now essentially a museum for people who accomplish things to visit, being able to provide the military armaments to sustain years of high intensity warfare is pretty funny.
That's right.
Zelensky has only one place to go if he really wants peace.
That now begins with a public apology.
There is no apology strong enough.
Either Ukraine removes Zelensky and installs someone new with a brain who realizes the US needs to be compensated somehow; or there is no peace deal; no more US military or financial aid to fight the war; and sure as hell no US aid for rebuilding.
Also, that Ukraine is losing the war; and will need to accept loss of some south eastern territory- including Crimea. Which was never their's to begin with. When the Soviet Union "gave" Crimea to the Soviet satellite state of Ukraine- it was like someone switching their wallet from their left pocket to their right. It is still their wallet; and it is still on their being- even if the location has changed.
Zelensky will screw the US over the second he thinks he no longer needs us. Just like President Ashraf Ghani did when he fled Afghanistan with millions in US taxpayer dollars.
He is willing to fight til the last standing Ukrainian; because he will have fled with his family and cronies (along with millions or maybe billions of aid money) long before Russian forces arrive in Kyiv.
I'm glad the American people got to see where Zelensky stood. It sure wasn't a good look. He arrived in his Captain Kirk costume and departed for maybe the last time with a boot up his ass.
IMO Starmer is talking about a peacekeeping mission. (Remember Bosnia and Herzegovina? Russia was one of the peacekeepers.)
Now might be a good time for a cursory review of the . Of course, the purpose of that sort of thing would be to intentionally provoke Russia. Starmer can't commit the UN to peacekeeping and Putin won't accept a NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine.
This is a good example of how European diplomacy poisons a peace process by provoking a reaction. It's a very liberal type of politics.
Trump tried to take advantage of Ukraine's situation to extort them without giving them security in return. Trump then engaged in truly disgusting tactics in the Oval office —the most unpresidential behavior the public has ever seen from a sitting PotUS outside of the traitor who tried to steal the 2020 presidential election— when he realized that his extortion was not going to work and that he could not fabricate something to brag about.
The problem, unfortunately, is the scoundrel we elected as PotUS and those who continue to blindly support this asshole.
Zelensky could have had a special relationship with the US, which would have provided security to his country long after the man you hate is gone.
Instead Zelensky listened to the democrats. Over the weekend Russia hit Kyiv with missiles. At some point soon, I am afraid the Ukraine will fall.
Pure fantasy. Trump was out to extort Ukraine. There was no security deal. You are just making shit up in blind support of a tyrant.
Those who view Zelensky as the bad guy in this situation have proven to me that they will support Trump no matter what the scoundrel does.
And you have proven that the left will support anyone or any other country other than the one led by President Trump.
That is just emotional nonsense, Vic.
Further, it presumes that Trump is representing the interests of the USA. He is not. He operates for the benefit of Trump.
Trump is an embarrassment and a danger. Giving a loose-cannon narcissist the power of the USA presidency is irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic.
at the left will support anyone or any other country other than the one led by President Trump.
Literally the same people like Murphy who worked with the ayatollahs to oppose Trump.
All of that amounts to nothing.
You don't want a deal, and you hate Trump. We got it already.
Murphy is a traitor. Pure & simple.
Trump could be the president of Mexico and magically the left would hate Mexico and demand all illegals get deported.
LOL what kind of idiotic foolishness is this
Not according to leftists on here.
The new definition only covers Trump and supposedly has nothing to do with treason.
Your blind partisanship is showing, and here comes those tired and worn out cliches.
Is it not illegal for someone to try and negotiate a deal on the behalf of the US without the approval of the president?
Another stupid comment. You have no argument so you engage in taunting ... with projection no less.
A blind partisan is one who follows a particular party no matter what. Given I was supporting Sununu and then Haley for the presidency (against Biden) that alone contradicts your ridiculous claim. The Ds on this site know this, what is your excuse?
Make an argument instead of engaging in witless, irrational taunts.
Actually, in reality, that is very illegal...
Thank you for agreeing.
Nothing in return? That's exactly what the US has gotten for the $163.3 billion the US has already sent. Or did you forget about that?
I know. How dare he tell somebody "No".
If you were Zelensky, would you make a deal to provide mineral rights to the USA if the USA was not going to provide security in return?
How pathetic. You totally ignore the disgraceful, unpresidential behavior which contradicts the long-standing position of the USA (and the PotUS) as the leader of the free world and simplify it down to merely saying 'no'. Just pathetic.
The mineral rights are in and of themselves security.
Russia would not dare attack Ukraine again with US interests in the country, and even more so, with US troops there to provide security for the mining operations, if that were the case.
The original agreement called for mineral rights first, then negotiation on security measures if a ceasefire or end of the war were to be agreed on.
"How pathetic. You totally ignore the disgraceful, unpresidential behavior which contradicts the long-standing position of the USA (and the PotUS) as the leader of the free world and simplify it down to merely saying 'no'."
Seems like you were perfectly OK with the last president rolling over when Ukraine said they needed something. I guess his "losing his temper" in 2022 was just a show as he didn't seem to be concerned with turning over billions more of American dollars since then.
We have a different president in office now, and that is what makes you upset.
THAT is pathetic.
Marco Rubio said this morning Trump is "the only person on Earth" that could get Putin to the negotiating table.
They MUST be best friends then.
So you either did forget about the $163.3 billion in aid or you are willingly ignoring that fact. My guess is the latter. The US has no obligation to provide any kind of security. They aren't a member of NATO, they owe the US $163.3 billion.
What's pathetic is prior to Zelensky's arrival the Ukrainian government was expecting to sign the agreement. Then there was a meeting between Zelensky and the Democrats to talk Zelensky out of the agreement. When you go on one of your expected partisan rants, explain:
Wrong. And Zelensky is smart enough to realize that. Putin does not care if there are USA companies (hiring mostly Ukranians by the way) in Ukraine. There were quite a few technology, agricultural, energy, manufacturing, etc. firms operating out of Ukraine when he started this war.
Clearly (see above) you are wrong.
Was that part of the 'deal'? How many troops? What were the limits of their orders?
And of course you cannot deal with the point so you run to the cliche and feeble attempt to identify hypocrisy where none exists.
Another utterly stupid fantasy. I wanted a different PotUS. The problem is not that we have a different PotUS but that the PotUS we have is an irresponsible, incompetent, narcissistic, lying sack-of-shit buffoon.
All you did is deflect from the question. You have no argument.
I totally recognize the aid we have supplied to Ukraine. So you think Zelensky should just cover that with a mineral deal and not ensure that the USA will stick with Ukraine?? That would be putting a lot of trust in Trump ... a stupid thing to do.
Trump just engaged in another first. He is the only PotUS who has publicly attacked and tried to extort an ally. Trump is the most unpresidential PotUS in our lifetimes. He is ostensibly trying to negotiate peace yet he publicly demeans and insults Ukraine and Zelensky with claims that Ukraine started the war, that Zelensky is a dictator with a 4% approval rating, etc.
Your comments suggest pride that the PotUS is, for the first time in our lifetimes, siding with Russia against the free world and an ally who was invaded by Russia.
Disgusting.
Don't cry about avoiding a question when just now answer the question.
The US has no obligation to provide security. NATO can step in and provide it. But, even NATO has taken the stance that the US is important to that. So, with that being said, it puts the US in a position to ensure we get back our money. It also gives the EU to step up and provide aid. Especially NONE of the EU nations have come close to what the US has provided.
So we are going into the fiction and opinion side again. Have fun with that.
Correct. That is why Zelensky would be smart to NOT give up mineral rights without protection. See how that works?
And I think the nations will provide more support. They have serious, adult leaders who understand consequences. We have a transactional buffoon who thinks he is the star of a reality show and is only concerned about how transactions affect him personally.
And with that he can expect nothing to be coming from the US. Going to cause problems when NATO won't do anything without the US.
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. COLLECTIVELY they barely matched or surpassed what the US ALONE has provided. And none of it can provide a victory for Ukraine, not with out putting boots on ground.
You mean the ones that have already stated the US is important when it comes to what they want? They are going to have to really step up for once to make up for when the US tells them no as well.
Given Trump as PotUS, that may indeed be reality.
Who cares. Logically, these adults understand the big picture and know that the long-term stability of the region depends on curtailing Putin.
Yes, those leaders. And yes, they recognize how critical the USA is to long term stability. And yes the recognize that they are dealing with an egotistical man-child and a bunch of supporters who apparently do not see or do not care about the big picture.
THAT is the reality. Did you not pay attention?
Then let them fill the void they are expecting the US to fill.
Then they need to put on their big boy underwear and figure out how to do it themselves. They've relied on the US for far too long.
Of course, your comment is in lockstep with Trump's irresponsible behavior.
In your dreams I am wrong. How do you know what Zelensky realizes. Obviously, he did not realize that Trump would hand him a new ass when he tried to negotiate in the public eye in the Oval Office.
"Clearly (see above) you are wrong."
See above
"Was that part of the 'deal'? How many troops? What were the limits of their orders?"
Reading is essential. The agreement for those things were to come after the mineral deal was signed, not in the public forum of the Oval Office. When will you realize how wrong you, et al, are for demeaning and blaming Trump and Vance for the blow up when it was your side the coached him on what to do when he was in front of the cameras.
"And of course you cannot deal with the point so you run to the cliche and feeble attempt to identify hypocrisy where none exists."
No different that your partisan left wing talking points when you cannot come up with anything else.
"I wanted a different PotUS. The problem is not that we have a different PotUS but that the PotUS we have is an irresponsible, incompetent, narcissistic, lying sack-of-shit buffoon."
No, the problem is you cannot get to the acceptance phase of defeat.
Because it takes no special intelligence to understand that merely having US companies in Ukraine is not security. There were plenty of US businesses operating in Ukraine when Putin invaded. As I noted.
You are actually trying to deny what the world just witnessed.
You have nothing but lies to post.
I saw it, as did you. Difference is most Americans saw it through the correct way, ie, the way I described. [deleted][✘]
Show us all then where Zelensky was the aggressor, where Zelensky was unpresidential or even unprofessional.
All one need do is watch the video to see where Vance started the attack and then Trump took over and escalated into a disaster.
Basically you are just making shit up.
Correct.
He knew who was president then and also knew he would get no pushback from a weak leftist government you, et al, supported for the entirety of the term. Biden was a weakling and Putin knew he was going to do nothing.
Exact same reasoning for him taking Crimea. He knew he would get zero pushback from Obama. He didn't.
There seems to be a bit of a resemblance to the two scenarios
I wonder what that is s/
The irony is strong.
You are mechanically parroting Trump's bullshit ... that this war would have not started if he were PotUS. That is a bullshit claim since it is unfalsifiable. And clearly Biden, et. al. did take plenty of action so you are factually wrong about him being a pushover. Biden led a support effort wherein aid and financial constraints were provided by USA, Canada, NATO, UK, Germany, France, Poland, Baltic States, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, UN, IMF, and the World Bank. Short of engaging in full scale war, that is hardly 'weak'. Would you have preferred Biden go to war with Russia?
And what does strongman Trump do? He talks with Putin who strokes his ego and turns the PotUS into his water boy to parrot his talking points on the world stage. You never saw Biden publicly claim that Ukraine started the war, but there is Trump like a good puppet lying outrageously about our ally in favor of our adversary. And you think that is strength?? Trump is bowing to Putin (and continues to do so) and you think that this buffoon would have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine. Trump is demonstrably a pushover against Putin. Open your eyes.
Realize that Biden could have ended this war using Trump's approach. He could have just sided with Putin and held back aid and not try to forge an alliance. In result (if the EU, et. al. did not try to go it alone) the bloodshed might have been minimized, Zelensky and others would have been executed, and Putin would have control over Ukraine as a whole.
You pretend to know the mind of Putin. More bullshit. Note again that the USA is not the only player in these matters. So you have to also presume that Putin believed that nations and organizations I mentioned above would also do nothing. It is not just the USA at play here.
That was a lot to just admit I am right.
Typical feeble tactic. You have no rebuttal so you ignore what was written and invent a little fantasy.
This seed is chock full of Putin apologists showing their fealty to rightwing authoritarianism. Disgusting and shameful. For those who love Putin and strong men so much, why not immigrate to Russia? Clearly that's the society you want and it's already built over there. No free and fair elections, just a strong man assassinating his political opponents which seems to be exactly what rightwing conservatives in America want. They have clearly abandoned any respect and love for our constitutional Republic so why don't they just get the fuck out.
What are the security guarantees that Zelensky wants? Isn't Zelensky wanting to use the United States nuclear arsenal as a threat? That is how the United States has guaranteed the security of Europe over the last 85 years. But no European country or NATO member contributes to the maintenance, safeguarding, and upgrades for the United States nuclear arsenal. Remember Barack Obama telling us that there was an urgent need to spend between $1 and $1.5 trillion on the nuclear arsenal? And that cost has gone up at least 20 pct due to Biden's inflation.
Europe's sphincters are burning because it looks like Trump could withdraw the security of the United States nuclear umbrella. Trump is raising doubts that the US would nuke Russia if there is an incursion into NATO territory. Europe may have to rely on British and French nukes. OMG.
Using the United States as a threat is not a substitute for defense planning and preparation.
We're going to see a parade of European leaders through the Oval Office cajoling Trump to extend nuclear protection to Ukraine. And maintain that guarantee for Europe. Europe wants to continue relying on US taxpayers maintaining a nuclear umbrella for their benefit. Europe has been spending our money to defend itself for well over half a century.
Why would Putin want Ukraine? Ukraine is sprinkled with 15 potential Chernobyl zones. Most of those nuclear power stations are of the same vintage and design as Chernobyl. Chernobyl bankrupted Russia and was a major contributor to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And Russia wants 15 more? Does Zelensky's demands for security guarantees include expectations to clean up Ukraine's Soviet past? Are we to believe that the anti-nuke activists won't dump that problem onto US taxpayers?
Lithium deuteride (LiD) is the fuel for thermonuclear reactions in the big bombs. Ukraine's lithium reserves guarantees their security. As long as US taxpayers cover the cost of the bombs, missiles. and safeguards. European leaders will pressure the US using the threat of a nuclear Ukraine. (Ukraine was a bomb factory for the Soviet Union. Ukraine knows how to build nukes.) The US taxpayer has been on the nuclear front line since 1952 when the US military demonstrated it could kill cities. The US taxpayer has been on a war footing since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis made annihilation a bed partner. The US taxpayer has been on the hook for preventing nuclear proliferation by making security guarantees. That's why Russia wants to negotiate security guarantees with the United States. Russia wants a guarantee that NATO won't threaten Russia with the US nuclear arsenal. Ukraine and Europe cannot offer any sort of security guarantee to Russia. Only the United States can make those kind of promises by committing the US taxpayer to pay for it all.
Maybe we should have allowed the unthinkable. Nukes for the one European nation we denied nuclear weapons to.
Is Zelensky a Russian agent? I doubt it, but would he be acting differently at this point?
He just sabotaged a deal his government agreed to and Russia opposed that would give his country the ability to fight on. Rather than make amends he now goes on a media tour and continues to publicly shit on Trump's plan for a negotiated settlement, telling the AP we are far from peace. Trump's "demands" are pretty simple. Enter into talks to stop the war that is destroying Ukraine. He refuses.
Someone who wants Ukraine to win should kidnap Zelensky and keep him far away from a microphone. He's Russia's best weapon at this point.
So the traitorous democrat's met with Zelenskyy to undermine the negotiation with the duly elected president of the United States, this is treason, but the left will ignore it. because Orangeman bad overrides everything. maybe Gabbard should start the process of revoking security clearances with Bondi charging these unamerican assholes with treason.
In conclusion:
I am proud to report:
1) President Donald Trump is reportedly refusing to engage in talks with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky unless the latter issues a public apology, according to Fox News .
2) President Donald Trump ordered a pause to all military aid to Ukraine, turning up the heat on Volodymyr Zelenskiy just days after an Oval Office blowup with the Ukrainian president left the support of his country’s most important ally in doubt.
US-Ukraine Deal: Trump Pauses Military Aid to Ukraine After Clash With Zelenskiy - Bloomberg
Amazing that you actually admit this.
Trump and his team were the only ones who wanted peace.
Then he is incompetent.
More likely the warmongers are just too determined.
Who else wanted peace?
Putin will be happy to keep putting his young men through the meat grinder as long as he keeps making strides to win the war.
Zelensky wants the war to go on because he thinks he can beat Russia with US support. Maybe....maybe not.
A majority of democrats do not want the war to end quickly. Only 30 percent of them want it to end quickly.
Vic is right.
Zelensky and Ukraine want Putin to stop the hostilities and leave them alone.
There is a big difference between 'ending the war quickly' and 'capitulating to Putin'.
I suspect most people believe that ending the war quickly will require that Putin wins something. That Putin will not agree to an end to the war if he does not have something to show for it. I also suspect that most people are not in favor of a protracted war on the slim chance that Ukraine can retain all of its territory.
The specifics of the questions matter.
I, for example, want the war to end quickly; I wanted it to end the day it started. And at this stage, I am not in favor of continuing to fight it out as it has been going. The choices are to bring in overwhelming force and drive Putin out or negotiate a peace where neither Putin nor Ukraine get what they want but get enough to end this war. Negotiating such a peace requires a competent, neutral facilitator. I originally had hope that Trump might be able to pull this off. Clearly, Trump has shown that he is entirely incompetent in this regard and all that he is going to do is try to force our ally Ukraine to largely submit to our adversary Russia (Putin).
In result, Trump is likely to cause a protracted war as Europe fights back Putin without US support.
Trump is capitulating to Putin. He is weak; instead of bravely dealing with Putin to peacefully end this war, he takes the easy way out and throws Ukraine under the bus. Putin strokes Trump's ego and Trump parrots his talking points on the world stage ... literally blaming our ally —the nation that was invaded— as starting the war.
This is just pure partisan nonsense. The reality on the ground determines the peace settlement. Trump can't grow Ukrainian soldiers in the lab, and without more of them, the reality on the ground isn't changing. Trump, nor anyone else, can change that. We can borrow billions more to give to Ukraine and thousands more Ukrainians will die and the resulting peace will only be worse for Ukraine. It's losing and its situation gets worse is a reality TDS sufferers can't seem to grasp.
Not really. Zelensky keeps asking for things he knows he won't get until the mineral agreement is signed.
"I suspect most people believe that ending the war quickly will require that Putin wins something"
Yes, speculation at best.
"That Putin will not agree to an end to the war if he does not have something to show for it. "
Of course not. Zelensky with the same.
"I also suspect that most people are not in favor of a protracted war on the slim chance that Ukraine can retain all of its territory."
Maybe but the fact remains that only 30 percent of democrats want it to end quickly.
"I, for example, want the war to end quickly; I wanted it to end the day it started. And at this stage, I am not in favor of continuing to fight it out as it has been going."
So you are one of the 30 percent of liberals that want it ended quickly. Good.
"The choices are to bring in overwhelming force and drive Putin out or negotiate a peace where neither Putin nor Ukraine get what they want but get enough to end this war."
Good to know you agree with the Trump amin. That will be a first.
" Clearly, Trump has shown that he is entirely incompetent in this regard and all that he is going to do is try to force our ally Ukraine to largely submit to our adversary Russia (Putin)."
Clearly, speculation
"In result, Trump is likely to cause a protracted war as Europe fights back Putin without US support."
Yes...we know. It's Trump's fault. That is the left's playbook and it will net end well with that.......but I guess you can keep trying.
Strawman. Deal with what I wrote instead of creating an argument I have not made. I have not argued that this war should continue; your entire post is dishonest.
I stated that Trump is capitulating to Putin. That he is not bravely dealing with Putin to peacefully end this war but rather is taking the easy way out by throwing Ukraine under the bus. Putin strokes Trump's ego and Trump parrots his talking points on the world stage ... literally blaming our ally —the nation that was invaded— as starting the war.
It is logic. Do you think Putin would ever agree to peace if he does not walk away with some win? That is not mere speculation, it is near certainty.
This is a fine example of how you get things wrong.
No, it is not speculation that Trump threw our ally under the bus and publicly declared that Ukraine started the war. That Trump publicly is siding with Putin.
You have nothing but bullshit. No argument, no facts, just feeble quips.
Trump is capitulating to Putin. He is weak; instead of bravely dealing with Putin to peacefully end this war, he takes the easy way out and throws Ukraine under the bus. Putin strokes Trump's ego and Trump parrots his talking points on the world stage ... literally blaming our ally —the nation that was invaded— as starting the war.
Let's face it, Zelensky has been very political. He has interfered in US elections to defeat Trump. His fate lies with Trump and he is a subject, not an equal. As soon as Zelinsky can come to terms with that we may get peace & security for Ukraine.
Zelensky is a war time president trying to protect his nation from a Russian invasion.
Trump is an asshole who only cares about matters that are to his personal advantage.
Trump is not employing the strength of the USA to persuade Putin to come to the table. Rather, he is cowardly using that strength to beat down our ally.
Trump is a bully and a blowhard coward who is of course taking the easy way out even if that reverses the historical role and positions of the USA as the leader of the free world and pisses on an ally while parroting the talking points of adversary Putin.
It is sickening to watch and even worse to see Trump supporters try to defend this cowardly buffoon.
He has needs, so does the US.
When you are done with the name-calling, let me know.
Yeah, ignore my argument Vic, You have no rebuttal since it is undeniable that Trump is cowardly carrying Putin’s water and bullying our ally.
You have no argument. You called Trump a lot of names and his supporters names.
Are you even aware of what Zelensky just posted on X?
I would like to reiterate Ukraine’s commitment to peace. None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians. My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.
We are ready to work fast to end the war, and the first stages could be the release of prisoners and truce in the sky — ban on missiles, long-ranged drones, bombs on energy and other civilian infrastructure — and truce in the sea immediately, if Russia will do the same. Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the US to agree a strong final deal.
We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence. And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins. We are grateful for this.
Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive. Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format. We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський on X: "I would like to reiterate Ukraine’s commitment to peace. None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than Ukrainians. My team and I stand ready to work under" / X
He is one apology away from being on the same page as the President, his patron.
Here is my argument:
Zelensky is a war time president trying to protect his nation from a Russian invasion.
Trump is an asshole who only cares about matters that are to his personal advantage.
Trump is not employing the strength of the USA to persuade Putin to come to the table. Rather, he is cowardly using that strength to beat down our ally.
Trump is a bully and a blowhard coward who is of course taking the easy way out even if that reverses the historical role and positions of the USA as the leader of the free world and pisses on an ally while parroting the talking points of adversary Putin.
It is sickening to watch and even worse to see Trump supporters try to defend this cowardly buffoon.
Make your point.
We all know that Zelensky wants peace. So what is your point?
I addressed the first line, didn't I?
The other 4 lines are nothing but hate.
You have no rebuttal. A lot of pathetic excuses, but no rebuttal.
Understandably because Trump clearly is siding with Putin against our ally.
Why does that not bother you?
I already made it.
Your boy keeps telling us he needs, he needs, he needs security.
We have needs too. We need rare earth minerals.
And although, Zelensky hates MAGA, it is Trump that holds his fate.
GOT IT?
In the words of Ceasar, some don't know when they've been conquered.
Zelensky is not 'my boy', he is the president of an ally who was invaded by Putin, an adversary. Trump is carrying the water for that adversary and is cowardly trying to force Ukraine to capitulate rather than do the hard work and really be a 'tough guy' and put the screws to Putin.
Yes we do. Try to focus on the topic of ending the war.
Zelensky is trying to save his nation. You are trying to defend a scoundrel.
Trump aligning with an adversary (Putin) against an ally (Ukraine) is worsening Ukraine's situation.
Trump is not a tough guy. He is a bully. If he had balls and great negotiation skills he would have created a level playing field to broker peace. Instead he is parroting Putin's talking points.
Putin has Trump on puppet strings. It is embarrassing and dangerous yet Trump supporters remain blind to this reality.
Instead of quoting a fictitious movie character, we might better be served to remember how a real Julius Cesar met his end and why.
I think it is funny how the left will get upset for calling Zelensky "your boy", but have no problem calling us "stooges of Putin", or tell us that we are Putin supporters when they have no coherent rebuttal.
.
Are they allies? Is there a treaty in place?
Yes. But he can't do that without help, and realistically can't do it without our help.
We've already spent between 150-200 billion on the Ukrainian war. That's more than we've spent on TANF during that time. It's not unreasonable to start asking when that is expected to stop.
Ukraine is an ally of the USA.
Correct.
Agreed.
Your last two points seem to be rebuttals to claims I have not made.
My points have been that Zelensky is focused on saving his nation — his people and sovereignty. Exactly what a good president should be focused on. And it makes perfectly good sense for him to remain presidential and diplomatic; as he has done in spite of the public spectacles of Trump.
The USA, being an ally of Ukraine and an adversary of Putin, should use our influence to broker a peace that does NOT give Putin all the he asks for but enough for him to save face sufficiently to end this war. The USA has substantial diplomatic influence yet Trump is wasting it.
Bizarrely, Trump is aligning with the aggressor and adversary (Putin) against an ally and victim (Ukraine). He is not operating as a neutral facilitator but rather is worsening Ukraine's situation.
Trump is not a tough guy; he is a bully. If he had balls and great negotiation skills he would have created a level playing field to broker peace. Instead he is parroting Putin's talking points. Putin has Trump on puppet strings. It is embarrassing and dangerous yet Trump supporters remain blind to this reality.
Per what terms of what treaty?
Not at all. They simply introduce additional pertinent information for consideration.
And his position.
You keep saying we're allies with Ukraine, but I'm unaware of any such formal arrangement.
Has Trump entered into any negotiations with Russia? It seems far too early to make a declaration about with whom he aligns. That relies on a large
His job is to pursue the best interests of the United States. That isn't always nice or kind.
I'm curious how such a thing would be done. If we are not willing to commit our forces, Russia has the clear upper hand. If we are, we have the dominant upper hand. At no point does Ukraine have equal standing in anything. We can arm them, but they're outnumbered 4-1.
I don't remember the last time any two nations negotiated on a level playing field. It's most certainly not the norm.
You do not consider Ukraine an ally?? A formal treaty is not required for a nation to be an ally.
You mean his personal role as president? Seems to me anyone trying to preserve the sovereignty of their nation against an invading power would have that as priority one with politics as something to be dealt with later. Someone like Trump maybe, but I see no indication that Zelensky is an irrational narcissist but rather a normal human being with a staggeringly difficult and important goal at hand.
What is this nit-picky obsession with the word 'ally' and a need for a formal arrangement? A formal arrangement is NOT required to be an ally. In this war, the USA has been (prior to Trump) against Putin and for Ukraine. Use that concept if the word ally bothers you.
Amazing.
Do you see Trump saying anything negative about Putin ... our adversary and the aggressor? Now note what he says about our ally and victim. What greater clue do you need beyond Trump publicly stating that Ukraine started the war, that Zelensky is a dictator with a 4% approval rating and then the sickening display in the Oval Office where Trump lied and trolled Zelensky for his audience. Prior to that, the USA sided with Russia in a UN resolution that blamed Russia for the invasion. And now Trump has paused military support for Ukraine. On top of that, we find that Hegseth had earlier paused offensive cyber operations against Russia (not sure what this means, but not a good sign).
Trump is further tilting the table in favor of Putin. It should be glaringly obvious that he has aligned with Putin. Do not hold your breath waiting for Trump to accuse Putin of being a Russian dictator who started the Ukraine war. Or for Trump to take adverse actions to weaken Russia.
Yes, and when serving as the arbiter of peace, his job is to produce conditions conducive to negotiation. If the plan is to just force Ukraine to capitulate, that is an easy out which results in a historical reversal of the USA's role as leader of the free world.
A strong negotiator armed with the resources of the USA has a big stick sitting in the corner. The USA always can commit more weaponry and encourage the other allies supporting Ukraine to do likewise. Trump claims to be a strong negotiator yet all he has done so far is throw the weaker side and victim under the bus and praise the aggressor stronger side.
To better level the playing field, the USA could take a variety of steps such as (not exhaustive):
Trump represents a new administration. As such, he does not need to be consistent with Biden. He could have come in as one of his superhero alter egos and, in effect, place a much larger stick in the corner of the negotiation room. He has done the opposite.
The Korean war and the Iran-Iraq war both ended because of a stalemate. It the USA, et.al. do not put forth a strong threat to Russia then the result is essentially a Ukraine surrender rather than a negotiated peace. In this case, the aggressor who the EU, et.al. wants to dissuade from pursuing empire rebuilding is rewarded and the victim, an ally and fellow Democrat state, is ruined.
No. The Russians would not invade an US ally.
The prevailing US Govt definition seems to say it is.
So you claim. But your repeating it does not make it so.
It's only amazing because you have already made up your mind and don't want to consider alternatives. He talks about Zelensky because he's negotiating with Zelensky. I haven't seen Trump say much about Putin one way or another. I suspect (conjecture) that's because his team isn't seriously negotiating with Russia yet, and I also suspect the rhetoric will change once those talks commence. Entering those negotiations with half a trillion dollars of skin in the game changes the conversation.
Ignoring how that hasn't worked very well so far.
These negotiation ideas are not nearly as simple as you suggest. There will undoubtedly be American national security concerns with putting increasingly more advanced weaponry in the hands of a country who is not our ally and could still very easily lose the war without our troops. NATO membership would amount to a declaration of war, and there are many NATO member countries who are simply not interested, including Germany, Hungary, Belgium and Spain. Putin has been preparing for sanctions since the Crimean invasion and also has China to help him evade them.
Do we actually know if there have been negotiations with Russia yet?
They clearly did. Maybe you wanted to say that Russia would never invade a NATO member.
Oxford : " a country that has agreed to help and support another country, especially in case of a war "
English words typically have several usages. Focusing on one usage to the exclusion of others is dishonest. Besides, it is pointless nitpicking.
How exactly does publicly trashing Zelensky and Ukraine help negotiate peace? I know this is Trump's style in business. Now, how is this productive diplomatically when one is trying to negotiate a complex peace agreement?
Good point; he has certainly not trashed Putin. Consider that.
But he has praised Putin in this context. Remember what he said of Putin when he invaded Ukraine?: "Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion"
You actually wrote this ⇡
So when negotiations start with Russia you expect that Trump will do a similar number on Putin as he did on Zelensky? He will get on the world stage and declare Putin a dictator who invaded a sovereign nation (yet again) unprovoked? You really think that Trump is going to go negative on Putin?? And, worse, do you actually believe that would be productive?
Do you really believe that Trump must have a minerals deal to create clout for negotiation with Putin? I identified several areas where Trump could put more skin in the game. You apparently have made up your mind (agreeing with Trump's move as the only move) and do not want to consider alternatives ... even when identified for you.
So you just proposed negotiation and now you dismiss negotiations because thus far we have not seen success. Look, either you are in favor of negotiation for peace or you are in favor of war. Make up your mind. If you are in favor of negotiation for peace then what is the point of saying that thus far negotiations have not worked? We know that, that is why we are trying again (ostensibly).
Where did I suggest this was simple? Of course there is no simple solution to this problem; if there was it would have been applied already. So, again, now you speak of complexity. Does that dissuade you from pursuing negotiation? If not, why did you bring it up?
We have no public information that I know of that states that any negotiations have begun with Putin.
Again, there isn't a treaty in place. If there were, we wouldn't be talking about a mineral rights deal.
So no, Russia is not going to invade an actual US ally, NATO or otherwise. If Ukraine were actually our allies, we would not have sat on our thumbs as they were run out of Crimea.
I think that remains to be seen. I do think it makes no sense to sit down with Putin if you can't get Zelensky to agree to anything.
Kind of a strange question. It's a totally different conversation, for obvious reasons. As Trump has said (accurately for once) Zelensky holds no cards. He has no leverage. He represents the neediest charity on the planet.
Putin is not in that position. Ignoring the nuclear situation for a moment, Putin has multiple kinds of leverage and plenty of it. He knows both Zelensky and Trump are on short time windows, and he can simply outlast them. Putin can tell both Trump and Zelensky to go fuck themselves and just keep doing what he's doing. If they're not careful, he will. Zelensky doesn't have that option, especially without Trump's backing, and Trump has about 22 months before the Democrats retake congress and start endless hearings again.
I think Trump's team will use whatever tactics they think will get them the desired result. They are in no position to strongarm Putin. The minerals deal gives us a vested interest and therefore more leverage.
I think it helps. It certainly changes the conversation. It also puts Trump and Zelensky on the same team, as opposed to Trump as some sort of feeble referee.
No. Kindly do not misrepresent. I am skeptical about using negotiating tactics that have already proven ineffective. I'm not sure how that's a controversial stance.
I never stated nor implied that there was a treaty in place.
You keep arguing about a word. I gave you the definition of ally as I used it. The USA is supporting Ukraine in a time of war and that means it is perfectly correct to refer to Ukraine as an ally — colloquial usage of that word. This is petty nitpicking (and is wrong) and seems to be arguing just for the sake of argument.
I agree with that. So maybe Trump should put forth some scenarios to Zelensky. Extorting a mineral deal to pay for past support with no guarantee of security does not qualify as a realistic scenario. Would you accept such a deal where Trump gives you nothing to secure your nation's future?
Explain to us all a realistic scenario that Trump has presented to Zelensky. One that a rational, responsible leader like Zelensky would be able to accept. Or one that you would accept if you were in Zelensky's role.
So because Zelensky is in a weak position, it makes sense to you that Trump would publicly berate him and lie about him. But since Putin is in a stronger position, it makes sense to you that Trump would improve Putin's position by parroting his talking points and NOT attack him personally or Russia.
In short, you think it makes sense for Trump to go negative on the weaker side and go positive on the stronger side.
So because they cannot (in your opinion) strong-arm Putin, they should strong-arm Zelensky instead?? Sounds like the perfect bully scenario. Irrational and counterproductive.
Using your logic, the minerals deal with security commitments for Ukraine gives us a vested interest as well as real skin in the game. Even more leverage. And Zelensky would sign up for something like that because his focus is on protecting his nation.
I am too. But I never even implied using the same tactics. I have stated, quite clearly, that the USA should devise negotiation strategies using current conditions and the advantage of a new administration that does not have to follow the style of the prior administration.
Flat out, put forth a deal where both sides lose but gain enough to agree to peace. Putin must save face so he needs to gain something. Ukraine needs to secure their sovereignty which means protection from future attacks by Russia. There are all sorts of scenarios that can be devised within that framework.
Instead of publicly berating the weaker side, who is also an ally, how about publicly supporting the weaker side to make the playing field more level and then put forth terms of a peace deal and work to get to specific terms that both sides can agree to. And do it privately so that public humiliation, pride, emotions, etc. are not factors screwing up the process of crafting a complex deal.
Trump is a buffoon.
Yeah. And I disagree with the use of that definition in this context.
The armchair quarterbacking here is hilarious. You have no clue who or what has been involved in any of these discussions. You don't know if anybody is already talking to the Russians or what they might be saying. You don't know if/what the Russians and Chinese might be developing as contingency plans. You don't know what the Germans or the English or the Swedes or Fins are saying.
Once again, the body of information you don't know utterly dwarfs the body of information you do know, so naturally you completely commit to an obviously uninformed point of view.
Stop misrepresenting my comments.
And again.
And again.
I'm not interested in disabusing you of your ridiculous strawmen. If you lack the interest or intellectual wherewithal to discuss the actual points I make, then find somebody your speed.
Security commitments put us perilously close to war with Russia, which is one large reason why Zelensky likes the idea so much. His people have been killed, he's understandably emotional about it, and would love nothing better than for Putin to enjoy the Saddam Hussein experience.
A minerals deal with without security commitments is more subtle. It gives us skin in the game, but allows more flexibility in negotiations.
Wasn't Zelensky at the WH to sign a deal they'd already agreed to? So the private discussions had, in fact, already been done.
Yes, yes, we know. Trump bad.
Deal with it, Jack. The word is proper, my meaning is and was clear, and it is ridiculous for you to continue with this petty nitpicking.
Correct, where did I say that I did? As usual, you take a discussion and start playing these obnoxious, dishonest games and basically turn the discussion into shit. Here you go again.
There is no evidence that I have seen that Trump has put forth scenarios to Zelensky. Nothing has been reported. So given that, it is perfectly reasonable for me to opine on what Trump should do.
Same old crap. I am not misrepresenting your comments. I am writing what your words mean to me as a reader. If you think I have misunderstood what you wrote then make the correction. Just claiming I am misrepresenting your comments sans any clarification is just another dishonest tactic.
So clear it up. Explain why you think it is okay for Trump to publicly lie about Ukraine starting the war and Zelensky being a dictator with a 4% approval and to publicly berate him on the world stage. Your net answer is that Putin is in a stronger position and can keep doing what he's doing. So Trump doing to Putin what he did to Zelensky is not appropriate. How, exactly, does that justify Trump throwing an ally under the bus? How is it rational, given the uneven playing field you recognize, for Trump to attempt to further weaken Zelensky rather than strengthen his position?
Putin invaded Ukraine even though US manufacturing businesses, et. al. were operating over there. He does not seem to care. Further, most of the employees would naturally be Ukrainian, not US citizens. So a minerals deal is not much 'skin in the game'. Your argument (of course you will deny this too) is that it makes sense to have the minerals deal because that would dissuade Putin from further hostility. Not likely. But a security commitment would.
Second, have you not noticed that the USA has been providing substantial support to Ukraine ... weapons that are used to kill Russian invaders? It is not as though the USA has been on the sidelines providing mere CARE packages. We are not going from no military support to some, we would be committing to stronger military support. That is one way to make that stick in the corner more impressive.
We are either going to put forth something that would realistically dissuade Putin or engage in a ridiculous fantasy that a mineral deal would magically dissuade a guy like Putin.
Clearly they were not in agreement on the details. My point, which you intentionally ignored, is that interactions like the fiasco in the Oval Office should be done privately. The Oval Office meeting should be used once they had a detailed agreement and were just going through the ceremony of signing. You know, like every other PotUS would do?
Apparently you think Trump good.
Sorry Jack.
Putin started this shit.
Putin kills children and civilians indiscriminately because the model has worked for decades if not centuries.
Putin kidnaps children to indoctrinate them. Putin condones killing of Ukraine POWs.
Putin always picks on smaller countries like Chechnya, Georgia, Azerbaijan to take what he wants, when he wants it and uses some flimsy excuse about rescuing Russian speaking populations.
Aligning our country with this behavior of an invader and thief is just appalling.
Trump, bad.
I am. I am rejecting the use of the word in this context. It's one of many erroneous statements you've made.
Germany is an ally. The United Kingdom is an ally. Australia is an ally. Ukraine is not, the same way they were not in 2014 and the same way Afghanistan was not in the 1980s.
The key difference being that we are not obligated to save them.
Well... if it wasn't reported, it must not have happened.
The fuck you're not. And it gets worse with every post.
Bullshit. You don't read that poorly. You're intentionally fabricating views and assigning them to me because you cannot intelligently argue against the actual points being made.
If you did it once or twice, or if I thought for a moment it was accidental, I would. But you don't and it's not. I am not defending perfectly clear statements because you pretend they say something they don't.
Don't be.
Yes.
Why do we think that's happening? Why do we think we're "aligning" with anyone? Serious question. What do we really know?
We haven't seen any terms of any deal with Russia. We don't even know whether or not such a deal is even being discussed.
We think we know that we had/have some form of mineral rights agreement with Ukraine that would have/could possibly have/maybe still might benefit the United States in some way we're not really clear about at some undetermined time in the future, but it has a very large number in the advertising, so that seems good.
So any conclusions we're drawing about whether this is a good deal, bad deal, and whether we're aligned with whoever about whatever are all exceedingly premature and pretty much products of our imaginations that fits our pre-existing belief sets.
Just amazing how you are obsessing over me properly referring to Ukraine as an ally ( and ignoring the fact that the media is replete with references to Ukraine as an ally ). Your continued absurd objection is laughably ridiculous.
Given this is a pointless deflection by you that has nothing to do with the content of the discussion, this post deals exclusively with your objection.
Read the following and explain how it is improper to refer to Ukraine as an ally per the Oxford definition I supplied a while back:
Oxford : " a country that has agreed to help and support another country, especially in case of a war "
Not once did you provide correction. All you did was object in the abstract.
The reason is obvious. You are unable to refute my points so you make up this bullshit about me misrepresenting your comments.
It is a tired, pathetic tactic.
Your posts are not serious.
Because there is a legal distinction between an alliance and a partnership. Because the supposed transition from partnership to alliance was reportedly a catalyst for the Russian invasion. Because throughout various conversations about Ukraine on this forum debate the various ideas surrounding NATO membership... which would make Ukraine an actual ally.
You're going to amazing lengths to avoid admitting that you misspoke.
I told you I wasn't interested. What part of that was unclear?
I have no intention of lending any validity whatsoever to your nonsensical misrepresentations. It's a bullshit game you play whenever you find your position indefensible.
Of course, if you did clarify you would have to contradict yourself. How convenient that now ... all of a sudden ... you are 'not interested'.
Projection.
Of course, you might as well use every dishonest tactic at this point.
It is funny watching you deny proof that your claim is bullshit.
Oxford : ally = " a country that has agreed to help and support another country, especially in case of a war "
You deny an English usage of a word, deny the fact that Ukraine is commonly referred to as an ally, deny the formal agreements noted which prove an agreement to help and support Ukraine especially in case of war, and even deny the fact that we have been helping and supporting Ukraine ; fine proof that you are engaging in an absurd level of dishonesty.
Pathetic.
1) i don’t care about that. IF midgetman apologizes it will be an empty, meaningless gesture.
2) good! We can’t keep dumping money we don’t have into ukraine without some sort of reimbursement.