John Bolton on Trump and Putin
-
So what’s your point? Is there a problem with respecting a country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity?
Until 2014 Russia had no issue with Ukraine’s borders. On the other hand, never really accepted Ukraine’s sovereignty and on at least two occasions since Putin came to power, the Kremlin interfered in its electoral process. The Kremlin was certainly instrumental in aiding and abetting systemic corruption in Ukraine in order to undermine its democracy and impede its determination to join the EU. But if that’s okay with you then I guess you and I have zero common ground on the issue. I personally have an issue with rewarding tyrants like Putin, for their imperialist aspirations and actions.
Did you listen to the whole interview? Probably not.
@Renauda His points seem to boil down to, a forever war that will inevitably ultimately end in Ukraine defeat, is preferable to what he terms a "surrender" which would stop the fighting. Because of the precedent that will then be followed by both Russia and China in Europe and Taiwan respectively. He is welcome to his opinion, but I do not consider the weight of Bolton saying it to constitute proof of any of it.
-
If you’re looking for proof(s) in international relations and diplomacy you won’t find any. There are only lessons of history and emerging conditions that result in patterns of observable behaviour between sovereign states or groups of states in alliance or in opposition.
If you want the comfort and safety of proofs then stick to the language of maths and calculus.
-
I'm not looking for proofs and I'm sure you're right to dunk on my word choice. One of the most striking aspects of the public conversation about Ukraine has been the absence of a realistic outcome that we're to weigh Trump's goals against. He can be dunked on in any number of ways, and people from TNCR forumites to Bolton are happy to do so. Until I have a clear grasp of exactly what we were supposedly headed towards in Ukraine under a Biden/Harris administration, I disregard it as opportunistic anti-Trump rhetoric.
-
I'm not looking for proofs and I'm sure you're right to dunk on my word choice. One of the most striking aspects of the public conversation about Ukraine has been the absence of a realistic outcome that we're to weigh Trump's goals against. He can be dunked on in any number of ways, and people from TNCR forumites to Bolton are happy to do so. Until I have a clear grasp of exactly what we were supposedly headed towards in Ukraine under a Biden/Harris administration, I disregard it as opportunistic anti-Trump rhetoric.
Until I have a clear grasp of exactly what we were supposedly headed towards in Ukraine under a Biden/Harris administration…
I am not going to spoon feed you the play by play of the last three or more years.
I can only suggest you pour yourself a cup of research and find out. Your answer is out there. In fact, I am confident that the answer to your question is right in front of you in the various posts in the Ukraine War thread.
Go ahead and knock yourself out.
-
I'm sure it's nestled amongst the posts that convincingly establish that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. Maybe I can get ChatGPT to consume TNCR and write some popular politics books to share shelf space with Bolton's expose of the Trump administration.
Education is extremely important.
-
I'm sure it's nestled amongst the posts that convincingly establish that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. Maybe I can get ChatGPT to consume TNCR and write some popular politics books to share shelf space with Bolton's expose of the Trump administration.
-
No, I just find it silly. I sensed that she was eager to respond to any such accusations in her confirmation hearings (she brushed by the subject in her opening remarks), but no oppositional senator obliged. There sure were a lot of people on her side that would categorically despise any compromised person. All dupes, I guess. Useful idiots.
-
I’m pretty sure that everyone on here condemns Russia as the sole aggressor in the war. I think everyone even was cheering on every major Russian loss, especially those in the air and those at sea. We all had our popcorn in hand when the mercenary group started advancing on Moscow. But it’s also fair to ask what’s the off ramp, here? It feels like there are 3 options, here. Pre-2014 borders, pre-2022 borders, or continued war. Yes, there are dozens of other important issues such as sanctions, NATO memberships, security agreements, armaments… But it seems like those are the three primary concerns.
So, what’s the answer? I don’t particularly care about style points or how it gets done, just that it does.
-
Okay, I’ll leave that stand, but I’ll also add that I finally got an opportunity to read and listen to Trump’s statements and his proposal for repayment. It’s ridiculous and repugnant. And the implication made that Ukraine was an aggressor is morally and ethically damning.
-
Okay, I’ll leave that stand, but I’ll also add that I finally got an opportunity to read and listen to Trump’s statements and his proposal for repayment. It’s ridiculous and repugnant. And the implication made that Ukraine was an aggressor is morally and ethically damning.
@LuFins-Dad said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
Okay, I’ll leave that stand, but I’ll also add that I finally got an opportunity to read and listen to Trump’s statements and his proposal for repayment. It’s ridiculous and repugnant. And the implication made that Ukraine was an aggressor is morally and ethically damning.
That was my point in the other thread, and you made it much better and succinctly than me. Maybe I'm being emotional and illogical as Horace says, but there you are. Emotions aren't necessarily a bad thing.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
Okay, I’ll leave that stand, but I’ll also add that I finally got an opportunity to read and listen to Trump’s statements and his proposal for repayment. It’s ridiculous and repugnant. And the implication made that Ukraine was an aggressor is morally and ethically damning.
That was my point in the other thread, and you made it much better and succinctly than me. Maybe I'm being emotional and illogical as Horace says, but there you are. Emotions aren't necessarily a bad thing.
@Doctor-Phibes Spin it as you will, but my point is that the feels of Westerners about the words Trump uses is a distant secondary point, though it remains centered in the discussion, because it's centered in the minds of those doing the discussing. They use it as a cudgel against anybody hopeful that the Trump admin will actually get something accomplished here that will short circuit the path towards a Russian victory in a war of attrition. Those hopeful people just have no hearts, because they're not feeling the right feels about the words being used.
-
It is an inescapable fact that I think any honest person would admit, that if Harris had been elected, there would be no negotiations, no distant hope of a cessation of this war, and all the usual suspects complaining the loudest about how Trump is handling this, would be more content emotionally.
-
Whether Harris got elected is moot, in fact it’s a not too clever distractor from the reality of the actual situation on the ground.
Recall that Ukraine already strategically defeated Russia on the battle field during the first few weeks of the war when the Zelenskyi government remained in place and the Ukrainian military forced the Russian forces to withdraw from its ground attack on Kyiv and Kharkiv. Since then it has been understood and accepted by all interested parties that ultimately the war would be ended through negotiation. However the sole obstacle to negotiation has been and remains Putin’s maximalist demands on Ukraine arising from the latter’s initial strategic victory in the field. Laying blame on Ukraine and the Biden administration for the grinding war against of attrition is therefore wholly disingenuous. Even now Putin is only appearing to be willing to negotiate in good faith. That he has absolutely no intention of doing is a fact that will soon become painfully obvious to the Trump administration. But that’s okay, Trump has to learn the hard way what he is up against.
I am therefore all for the negotiation process before us, but only if the outcome is the permanent containment of Russia as it is today. There is no reasonable expectation for Ukraine to regain territory already lost to Russia. But there is every reasonable expectation that Ukraine can retain its sovereign statehood and its current territorial integrity wholly independent of Moscow..
-
Whether Harris got elected is moot, in fact it’s a not too clever distractor from the reality of the actual situation on the ground.
Recall that Ukraine already strategically defeated Russia on the battle field during the first few weeks of the war when the Zelenskyi government remained in place and the Ukrainian military forced the Russian forces to withdraw from its ground attack on Kyiv and Kharkiv. Since then it has been understood and accepted by all interested parties that ultimately the war would be ended through negotiation. However the sole obstacle to negotiation has been and remains Putin’s maximalist demands on Ukraine arising from the latter’s initial strategic victory in the field. Laying blame on Ukraine and the Biden administration for the grinding war against of attrition is therefore wholly disingenuous. Even now Putin is only appearing to be willing to negotiate in good faith. That he has absolutely no intention of doing is a fact that will soon become painfully obvious to the Trump administration. But that’s okay, Trump has to learn the hard way what he is up against.
I am therefore all for the negotiation process before us, but only if the outcome is the permanent containment of Russia as it is today. There is no reasonable expectation for Ukraine to regain territory already lost to Russia. But there is every reasonable expectation that Ukraine can retain its sovereign statehood and its current territorial integrity wholly independent of Moscow..
@Renauda said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
Whether Harris got elected is moot, in fact it’s a not too clever distractor from the reality of the actual situation on the ground.
Recall that Ukraine already strategically defeated Russia on the battle field during the first few weeks of the war when the Zelenskyi government remained in place and the Ukrainian military forced the Russian forces to withdraw from its ground attack on Kyiv and Kharkiv. Since then it has been understood and accepted by all interested parties that ultimately the war would be ended through negotiation. However the sole obstacle to negotiation has been and remains Putin’s maximalist demands on Ukraine arising from the latter’s initial strategic victory in the field. Laying blame on Ukraine and the Biden administration for the grinding war against of attrition is therefore wholly disingenuous. Even now Putin is only appearing to be willing to negotiate in good faith. That he has absolutely no intention of doing is a fact that will soon become painfully obvious to the Trump administration. But that’s okay, Trump has to learn the hard way what he is up against.
I am therefore all for the negotiation process before us, but only if the outcome is the permanent containment of Russia as it is today. There is no reasonable expectation for Ukraine to regain territory already lost to Russia. But there is every reasonable expectation that Ukraine can retain its sovereign statehood and its current territorial integrity wholly independent of Moscow..
I believe the current lines will be maintained. I don’t think that NATO membership is in the offing, but I do believe that other independent security agreements will take place, including European and US Troops on the ground.
The Brad
-
@Renauda said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
Whether Harris got elected is moot, in fact it’s a not too clever distractor from the reality of the actual situation on the ground.
Recall that Ukraine already strategically defeated Russia on the battle field during the first few weeks of the war when the Zelenskyi government remained in place and the Ukrainian military forced the Russian forces to withdraw from its ground attack on Kyiv and Kharkiv. Since then it has been understood and accepted by all interested parties that ultimately the war would be ended through negotiation. However the sole obstacle to negotiation has been and remains Putin’s maximalist demands on Ukraine arising from the latter’s initial strategic victory in the field. Laying blame on Ukraine and the Biden administration for the grinding war against of attrition is therefore wholly disingenuous. Even now Putin is only appearing to be willing to negotiate in good faith. That he has absolutely no intention of doing is a fact that will soon become painfully obvious to the Trump administration. But that’s okay, Trump has to learn the hard way what he is up against.
I am therefore all for the negotiation process before us, but only if the outcome is the permanent containment of Russia as it is today. There is no reasonable expectation for Ukraine to regain territory already lost to Russia. But there is every reasonable expectation that Ukraine can retain its sovereign statehood and its current territorial integrity wholly independent of Moscow..
I believe the current lines will be maintained. I don’t think that NATO membership is in the offing, but I do believe that other independent security agreements will take place, including European and US Troops on the ground.
I agree NATO membership is not in the immediate offing. For one, Ukraine wouldn’t meet the basic criteria required for membership. The other is, of course, it border issues remain unresolved. That however is not to say that in ten years time it could apply for NATO and meet all requirements.
To early to say about security guarantees and boots on the ground. If such guarantees are written into the mineral concession joint venture with the US, then yes there would be boots on the ground and a credible deterrent to further Russian aggression. As it stands now in the absence of explicit security guarantees, the proposal offers little in the way assurance to Ukraine. Again, I ask why is the US reluctant to put any security guarantees in the proposed contract?
