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.
-
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.
-
Yes, Ukraine too could have - and probably ought to have - abstained in those resolutions. Nevertheless it chose instead to vote with EU membership. To my thinking a considerable difference as regards to choice of voting blocs.
But that’s fine, the UNGA, I am told, is a farce controlled by nations like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and a host of other dictatorships and “shitty countries” anyways. Really no place for civilized countries to have a membership as its authority is really of no consequence. A bit like this forum.
-
The actual arguments…
Ambassador Dorothy Shea
Chargé d ’Affaires ad interim
New York, New York
February 24, 2025AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, excellencies, colleagues. Today marks three years since the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine war. We have all been concerned about the suffering in Ukraine and the war’s effects on the rest of the world.
Since the start of the war 11 years ago, the United Nations has repeatedly condemned Russia’s blatant violations of the UN Charter. Multiple resolutions of the General Assembly have demanded that Russia withdraw its forces from Ukraine.
Those resolutions have failed to stop the war. It has now dragged on for far too long, and at far too terrible a cost to the people in Ukraine, in Russia, and beyond.
Generations of Ukrainians and Russians have died unnecessarily as the war has brought the world closer to a nuclear confrontation. The longer it continues, the greater the suffering for both nations. This war must end now.
It is time for Members States to return to the purposes and principles of the Charter – mainly, to maintain international peace and security, including through the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Mr. President, as we gather today on this third anniversary, what we need is a resolution marking the commitment from all UN Member States to bring a durable end to the war.
The draft resolution submitted by the United States makes this very point. Our draft implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.
This is what is needed now, and we urge all Member States, including Ukraine and Russia, to join us in this effort. A simple, historic statement from the General Assembly that looks forward, not backwards. A resolution focused on one, simple idea: Ending the war. A path to peace is possible.
Mr. President, that is why the United States opposed putting forward another resolution. And that is why we cannot support Ukraine’s resolution, and we urge its withdrawal in favor of a strong statement committing us to end the war and work towards a lasting peace.
The United States also requests the General Assembly take action on the United States’ proposed resolution immediately following consideration of the Ukraine-drafted resolution.
I thank you.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, the United States urges Member States to vote “No” on the European Union and Russian Federation amendments to the U.S. draft resolution. We cannot support them.
These amendments pursue a war of words rather than an end to the war. The attempt to add this language detracts from what we are trying to achieve with this forward-looking resolution: A firm consensus from the members of this body to unite behind a resolution calling for the end to this conflict.
We urge other members to join us in rejecting these amendments as we work toward the goal of building a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.
I would ask all members to remember that the U.S. resolution is not the peace deal. It is the path to peace.
Mr. President, if these amendments pass, the United States would consider that the resolution will no longer be able to achieve the consensus of this body on the most solemn pursuit, the pursuit of peace.
Neither these amendments, nor the resolution offered by Ukraine will stop the killing. The UN must stop the killing. We urge all Member States to join us in returning the UN to its core mission of international peace and security.
Thank you, Mr. President.
-
The actual arguments…
Ambassador Dorothy Shea
Chargé d ’Affaires ad interim
New York, New York
February 24, 2025AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, excellencies, colleagues. Today marks three years since the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine war. We have all been concerned about the suffering in Ukraine and the war’s effects on the rest of the world.
Since the start of the war 11 years ago, the United Nations has repeatedly condemned Russia’s blatant violations of the UN Charter. Multiple resolutions of the General Assembly have demanded that Russia withdraw its forces from Ukraine.
Those resolutions have failed to stop the war. It has now dragged on for far too long, and at far too terrible a cost to the people in Ukraine, in Russia, and beyond.
Generations of Ukrainians and Russians have died unnecessarily as the war has brought the world closer to a nuclear confrontation. The longer it continues, the greater the suffering for both nations. This war must end now.
It is time for Members States to return to the purposes and principles of the Charter – mainly, to maintain international peace and security, including through the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Mr. President, as we gather today on this third anniversary, what we need is a resolution marking the commitment from all UN Member States to bring a durable end to the war.
The draft resolution submitted by the United States makes this very point. Our draft implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.
This is what is needed now, and we urge all Member States, including Ukraine and Russia, to join us in this effort. A simple, historic statement from the General Assembly that looks forward, not backwards. A resolution focused on one, simple idea: Ending the war. A path to peace is possible.
Mr. President, that is why the United States opposed putting forward another resolution. And that is why we cannot support Ukraine’s resolution, and we urge its withdrawal in favor of a strong statement committing us to end the war and work towards a lasting peace.
The United States also requests the General Assembly take action on the United States’ proposed resolution immediately following consideration of the Ukraine-drafted resolution.
I thank you.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, the United States urges Member States to vote “No” on the European Union and Russian Federation amendments to the U.S. draft resolution. We cannot support them.
These amendments pursue a war of words rather than an end to the war. The attempt to add this language detracts from what we are trying to achieve with this forward-looking resolution: A firm consensus from the members of this body to unite behind a resolution calling for the end to this conflict.
We urge other members to join us in rejecting these amendments as we work toward the goal of building a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.
I would ask all members to remember that the U.S. resolution is not the peace deal. It is the path to peace.
Mr. President, if these amendments pass, the United States would consider that the resolution will no longer be able to achieve the consensus of this body on the most solemn pursuit, the pursuit of peace.
Neither these amendments, nor the resolution offered by Ukraine will stop the killing. The UN must stop the killing. We urge all Member States to join us in returning the UN to its core mission of international peace and security.
Thank you, Mr. President.
@LuFins-Dad said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
These amendments pursue a war of words rather than an end to the war. The attempt to add this language detracts from what we are trying to achieve with this forward-looking resolution: A firm consensus from the members of this body to unite behind a resolution calling for the end to this conflict.
Looks familiar, and reasonable.
