Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky
-
You guys talk as if the only two possibilities were status quo or Trump switching sides and completely adopting every last one of Putin’s talking points while shaking down our former ally.
Seems there might have been other possibilities.
@jon-nyc said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
You guys talk as if the only two possibilities were status quo or Trump switching sides and completely adopting every last one of Putin’s talking points while shaking down our former ally.
Seems there might have been other possibilities.
No. We’re just pointing out that this solution seems to at least be better than continuing what was going on… Do I personally believe it could have been accomplished without being a repugnant dick? Of course! I am Mr. How To Win Friends and Influence People…
But, that doesn’t change the fact that Ukranian and Russian kids aren’t going to continue dying in a proxy war with no reasonable shot at success for either side. There will be reasonable security agreements in place, and the US will receive at least some return.
I’m not a big “ends justify the means” person, but at least there is a not unreasonable end in sight.
-
@jon-nyc said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Especially such a complete capitulation. It’s humiliating to be an American this week.
There are other countries...
@Jolly said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
@jon-nyc said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Especially such a complete capitulation. It’s humiliating to be an American this week.
There are other countries...
True, but I’m an American after all. So when Trump humiliates us in front of the world, I can’t help but feel it.
-
It's been obvious for a long time that the principled western defenders of Ukraine, do not want to broach a talking point about potential military escalations against Russia. The discussions would feel a lot more honest if they did. But those discussions would immediately become a lot more complicated, as we openly consider a military escalation between nuclear powers. I can understand that the simple virtue-based talking points are a lot easier to get behind.
I don't consider military escalation against Russia by NATO members to be a non-starter. I only think it's remarkable how the principled defenders of Ukraine don't want to talk about it, as if there is another way Ukraine gets out of this, in the presence of what I am told are immutable and maximalist demands from Putin.
I don't consider military escalation against Russia by NATO members to be a non-starter. I only think it's remarkable how the principled defenders of Ukraine don't want to talk about it, as if there is another way Ukraine gets out of this, in the presence of what I am told are immutable and maximalist demands from Putin.
Now you’re resorting to passive aggression.
A tactic of the weak and defensive. Used to be a very obnoxious bitch of a woman who employed passive aggression on a regular basis in one or two incarnations of this forum. You don’t want to be associated with the likes of her.How do you want loyal Ukraine defenders like me to respond?
To say that NATO should have sent troops three years ago? it was too late by then, Putin had already invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Should NATO have responded when Crimea
was stolen and the rape of the Donbas started? In retrospect yes. Obama should have immediately spearheaded either a credible NATO military response or built a coalition of the willing to come Ukraine’s assistance as it had zero credible military capability to defend itself. Ten years ago a concerted show of force combined with economic sanctions would have either stalemated Putin or deterred him from escalating into the Donbas and fomenting a civil war. Obama could have and should have done exactly that. Then Trump did very little other than supply a few weapons and add a handful of new sanctions during his first term. But that’s neither here nor there. It was on Obama’s watch that action needed to be taken, not Trump’s.But to wait and then make a decisive military response such as a no fly zone or boots on the ground in 2022 when Putin was fully prepared and financed to wage war, would have resulted in a whole scale war in Europe and the very real danger of the deployment of nuclear weapons all the way up the ladder.
Happy now?
-
@renauda I can't see any direct support of a current military escalation within that hindsight, nor an alternative to solving this for Ukraine without such an escalation. I am accepting for the sake of discussion that Putin's demands are maximalist and immutable.
I have insight into the Biden admin's thinking on the issue, since I listened to his security advisor talk about it transparently. Provide Ukraine with indefinite support at a level where they are slowly losing the war, and wait for them to negotiate a conclusion with Russia.
-
One thing I don’t understand yet. How is Trump proposing to end the war? How does planting the US flag on Ukrainian mineral fields end the war? How is this less provocative than Ukraine joining NATO?
I might have just missed it, but I don’t get how this ends the war.
-
I agree. A very fair question on an apparent paradox.
You haven’t missed anything. You asked it yesterday and received no answer.
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/329492
Let’s see what today brings. I too am curious.
-
One thing I don’t understand yet. How is Trump proposing to end the war? How does planting the US flag on Ukrainian mineral fields end the war? How is this less provocative than Ukraine joining NATO?
I might have just missed it, but I don’t get how this ends the war.
@xenon said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
One thing I don’t understand yet. How is Trump proposing to end the war? How does planting the US flag on Ukrainian mineral fields end the war? How is this less provocative than Ukraine joining NATO?
I might have just missed it, but I don’t get how this ends the war.
The implication is that America would defend its interests more vigorously than they would if they didn't have those interests.
I appreciate that you're confused about that, but I continue to notice the selective lack of confusion about how this ends in Ukraine's favor, absent an escalation on the part of NATO that nobody wants to talk about.
Education is extremely important.
-
Actually what I’m saying is that giving America territorial/mineral interest in Ukraine seems like more of a provocation than NATO.
America defending its interest sounds like a euphemism for American war with Russia.
I’m not confused about how this ends for Ukraine. I always thought it was either Russia truly runs out of steam, or Ukraine loses the will to fight. Ukraine is the one paying the human price, but still seems to want to pay it.
-
@xenon said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
One thing I don’t understand yet. How is Trump proposing to end the war? How does planting the US flag on Ukrainian mineral fields end the war? How is this less provocative than Ukraine joining NATO?
I might have just missed it, but I don’t get how this ends the war.
The implication is that America would defend its interests more vigorously than they would if they didn't have those interests.
I appreciate that you're confused about that, but I continue to notice the selective lack of confusion about how this ends in Ukraine's favor, absent an escalation on the part of NATO that nobody wants to talk about.
… continue to notice the selective lack of confusion about how this ends in Ukraine's favor, absent an escalation on the part of NATO that nobody wants to talk about.
Sure I’ll talk about it but in the end it is entirely up to Putin if he wants to cross the military threshold and beyond. At this point in the war, I doubt he will- I don’t believe he has the necessary unconditional support from China to play that card.
As for Ukraine it theoretically retains its sovereignty with security guarantees. The only hook is that for at least the next four years Donald Trump holds the mortgage and an assignment of receivables on the country’s natural resources. Presumably, Ukraine will be elevated to the status of a vital US interest rather than an unfair and abusive parasite on the American taxpayer. Hell, it may even escape punitive tariffs on what it exports to the US.
On the other hand…the alternative is indisputably worse. Putin would have unfettered control over the state executive, legislature and bureaucracy, hold the mortgage, and have an assignment of receivables on everything the country produces in perpetuity.
At least with the US, Ukraine will retain a future option of renegotiating the terms of the deal, joining the EU and even possibly joining NATO - in the event Trump doesn’t blow the Alliance up in the next four years.
Elbows up!
-
… continue to notice the selective lack of confusion about how this ends in Ukraine's favor, absent an escalation on the part of NATO that nobody wants to talk about.
Sure I’ll talk about it but in the end it is entirely up to Putin if he wants to cross the military threshold and beyond. At this point in the war, I doubt he will- I don’t believe he has the necessary unconditional support from China to play that card.
As for Ukraine it theoretically retains its sovereignty with security guarantees. The only hook is that for at least the next four years Donald Trump holds the mortgage and an assignment of receivables on the country’s natural resources. Presumably, Ukraine will be elevated to the status of a vital US interest rather than an unfair and abusive parasite on the American taxpayer. Hell, it may even escape punitive tariffs on what it exports to the US.
On the other hand…the alternative is indisputably worse. Putin would have unfettered control over the state executive, legislature and bureaucracy, hold the mortgage, and have an assignment of receivables on everything the country produces in perpetuity.
At least with the US, Ukraine will retain a future option of renegotiating the terms of the deal, joining the EU and even possibly joining NATO - in the event Trump doesn’t blow the Alliance up in the next four years.
@xenon said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Actually what I’m saying is that giving America territorial/mineral interest in Ukraine seems like more of a provocation than NATO.
America defending its interest sounds like a euphemism for American war with Russia.
It's not that categorical, like a declaration of war. I don't really understand why it's so hard to imagine that an American economic interest, which they would be willing to defend, would change the risk/reward calculation for an aggressor.
-
… continue to notice the selective lack of confusion about how this ends in Ukraine's favor, absent an escalation on the part of NATO that nobody wants to talk about.
Sure I’ll talk about it but in the end it is entirely up to Putin if he wants to cross the military threshold and beyond. At this point in the war, I doubt he will- I don’t believe he has the necessary unconditional support from China to play that card.
As for Ukraine it theoretically retains its sovereignty with security guarantees. The only hook is that for at least the next four years Donald Trump holds the mortgage and an assignment of receivables on the country’s natural resources. Presumably, Ukraine will be elevated to the status of a vital US interest rather than an unfair and abusive parasite on the American taxpayer. Hell, it may even escape punitive tariffs on what it exports to the US.
On the other hand…the alternative is indisputably worse. Putin would have unfettered control over the state executive, legislature and bureaucracy, hold the mortgage, and have an assignment of receivables on everything the country produces in perpetuity.
At least with the US, Ukraine will retain a future option of renegotiating the terms of the deal, joining the EU and even possibly joining NATO - in the event Trump doesn’t blow the Alliance up in the next four years.
@Renauda said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
… continue to notice the selective lack of confusion about how this ends in Ukraine's favor, absent an escalation on the part of NATO that nobody wants to talk about.
Sure I’ll talk about it but in the end it is entirely up to Putin if he wants to cross the military threshold and beyond. At this point in the war, I doubt he will- I don’t believe he has the necessary unconditional support from China to play that card.
As for Ukraine it theoretically retains its sovereignty with security guarantees. The only hook is that for at least the next four years Donald Trump holds the mortgage and an assignment of receivables on the country’s natural resources. Presumably, Ukraine will be elevated to the status of a vital US interest rather than an unfair and abusive parasite on the American taxpayer. Hell, it may even escape punitive tariffs on what it exports to the US.
On the other hand…the alternative is indisputably worse. Putin would have unfettered control over the state executive, legislature and bureaucracy, hold the mortgage, and have an assignment on receivables on everything the country produces in perpetuity.
At least with the US, Ukraine will retain a future option of renegotiating the terms of the deal, joining the EU and even possibly joining NATO - in the event Trump doesn’t blow the Alliance up in the next four years.
That seems like a rational and understandable take on the situation, and I don't think it supports any dunking on what we know so far of the Trump administration's approach. I appreciate that you compare it to the alternative.
-
The plot thickens. Seems that Putin might be or is hoping on being a part the grand and bigly rare earths and other minerals deal.
Putin said in televised comments that Russia was ready to work with "foreign partners including Americans" on developing reserves of rare and rare earth metals, including "in our new regions," referring to regions of Ukraine controlled by Russia……
"We are also ready to attract foreign partners to our so-called new territories — our historic territories that have gone back to being part of Russia," Putin said, referring to the regions of Ukraine Russia has occupied through its invasion…. There are also certain reserves there. We are ready to work with our partners, including Americans, in our new regions too."
Just yesterday I said here the Ukraine deal wouldn’t be acceptable to the Kremlin. Now this. Not confusing, just bewildering. From what I can tell out there I’m not alone.
Further proof that nothing is ever what it seems when Russia is involved
-
People in the State Department have to follow the presidents policy, but I wonder how many are struggling with this. I wonder if Sec. Rubio is shaking his head internally as he speaks about how it is a good thing that the US voted against a resolution that did not condem Russia for invading Ukraine.
-
I totally disagree. An abstention would have accomplished a similar result viz a viz a peace deal but without appearing to be on the side of the Russian aggressor and its immediate allies, Belarus and North Korea. Also, shame on Israel for its decision to vote with Russia.
-
I totally disagree. An abstention would have accomplished a similar result viz a viz a peace deal but without appearing to be on the side of the Russian aggressor and its immediate allies, Belarus and North Korea. Also, shame on Israel for its decision to vote with Russia.
@Renauda said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Also, shame on Israel for its decision to vote with Russia.
The justification I heard for this is that Ukraine has voted consistently against Israel in every UN resolution regarding their behavior as they prosecute their war.
