John Bolton on Trump and Putin
-
@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.
I was only joking
-
@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..
‘a-blowe yow and be-kele yow wel, and comyth up all with your ease’ ~ attributed to Henry V
-
@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.
-
VDH's thoughts, starting at 19:30
Link to video -
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?
-
Watched it from 19 to 34 minutes when he started talking about the left and Palestinians.
He didn’t really say a lot other than what has at one time or another already been mentioned or argued over here in the last three years. He ends it saying Putin isn’t going to cede back any of occupied territory. As you know, and in the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, that has been a well established known known by virtually everyone concerned for quite some time.
Like I said, VDH brought nothing new to the discussion in that rant.
‘a-blowe yow and be-kele yow wel, and comyth up all with your ease’ ~ attributed to Henry V
-
-
-
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Renauda So it's simultaneously a "rant", while it mirrors what cooler heads have been saying all along. I see.
It's possible that it is a "rant" that happens to include a few things that mirrors what cooler heads have been saying.
-
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
-
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I liked VDH when he first came on the scene. A smart counter-narrative voice. Now he’s become just as predictable as the rest on what his position on any given subject is going to be.
Audience capture is a hell of a thing.
He certainly has a predictable directionality, but I suspect you would be hard-pressed to listen to him and point out what he's demonstrably wrong about.
Funny thing about politics and culture, it's very rare for anybody to be provably correct or incorrect, because the issues are actually infinitely complex. It's not an inherent fallacy to make arguments from a consistent perspective. Where people differ, is in the quality of their arguments.
-
‘a-blowe yow and be-kele yow wel, and comyth up all with your ease’ ~ attributed to Henry V
-
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
And the non-asinine perspective is embracing a forever war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win, because losing face by accepting a peace deal penned by a guy who said mean words about them, would be unthinkable. Interesting priorities, but they have a faint whiff of armchair principles.
-
@Renauda said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Renauda So it's simultaneously a "rant", while it mirrors what cooler heads have been saying all along. I see.
Of course it’s a rant and an animated and, at times, mirthful rant at that.
I particularly enjoy when he impersonates Obama. He is surprisingly mirthful, especially with his Skeletor face and tone.
-
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
And the non-asinine perspective is embracing a forever war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win, because losing face by accepting a peace deal penned by a guy who said mean words about them, would be unthinkable. Interesting priorities, but they have a faint whiff of armchair principles.
I don’t think the option set is war of attrition or peace. There’s zero guarantee that Putin holds up his side of any bargain that’s struck here. I don’t think they’re afraid of losing face, they’re afraid of being oppressed (or worse).
-
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
And the non-asinine perspective is embracing a forever war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win, because losing face by accepting a peace deal penned by a guy who said mean words about them, would be unthinkable. Interesting priorities, but they have a faint whiff of armchair principles.
I don’t think the option set is war of attrition or peace. There’s zero guarantee that Putin holds up his side of any bargain that’s struck here. I don’t think they’re afraid of losing face, they’re afraid of being oppressed (or worse).
I have no territorial claims in the Sudetenland. Sorry, sorry, Ukraine.
-
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@Horace said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
@xenon said in John Bolton on Trump and Putin:
I just don’t get how you expect a people who have been paying in blood to accept falsehoods about themselves to get to peace.
It’s asinine. These people have already gone to war for their rights and dignity. They’re not gonna give it up for Donald Trump of all people. This isn’t a bank loan application.
And the non-asinine perspective is embracing a forever war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win, because losing face by accepting a peace deal penned by a guy who said mean words about them, would be unthinkable. Interesting priorities, but they have a faint whiff of armchair principles.
I don’t think the option set is war of attrition or peace. There’s zero guarantee that Putin holds up his side of any bargain that’s struck here. I don’t think they’re afraid of losing face, they’re afraid of being oppressed (or worse).
Ok. The absence of an alternative plan is still remarkable. The unspoken implication remains that it is America’s obligation to up the ante in a war against Russia until Russia leaves Ukraine alone. For some reason, the people who pigeonhole their attitude to exactly that, don’t really want to say it out loud.
I like Rubio’s point that if America has an economic and strategic interest in Ukrainian resources, as per the settlement on the table, that constitutes a nice de facto guarantee of our support against aggressors.
