Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky
-
Putin has no just cause to resort to nukes. He knows in reality that NATO is not a threat and has never posed a real existential threat. He also knows that even now the Alliance has zero intention to occupy Russia.
His fear is that democracy will someday hold him personally responsible for his own crimes against his nation. For that reason alone he wishes to wipe out Ukraine as a sovereign nation state.
I don't anticipate the Trump administration flirting with nuclear war over this. (Nor any other recent admin.))
I would agree. This one, Trumpigula, is not a war time president. Too much of a micro-manager and scatter-brain. Moreover he is not at all comfortable with foreign affairs files. He is at home with the domestic stuff- like Obama but with a different focus, good or bad. Last president with war time abilities was GHW Bush. He at least had first hand experience of war and the Cold War. Then again, behind the scenes, he might have been carried by Dick Cheney when things got hot with Hussein.
-
Update: 26/02/25 @ 23:05 MDT
I have seen and reviewed an English version, allegedly translated from Ukrainian, of the pending minerals deal between Ukraine and US. Unfortunately I cannot provide a copy here, although I can personally vouch for the source.
Not knowing what the first two draft proposals contained, this version, which Zelenskyi will fly to Washington to sign, is a pretty straight forward joint venture mineral concession agreement to set up a 50/50 fund from natural resource earnings for the reconstruction of Ukraine and from which either signatory can drawn down upon as necessary.
It is not an assignment of receivables as I had been earlier led to believe. That is a good thing for Ukraine in both the short and long term provided Putin or a post Putin Russia behaves like a civilised person or country for once in their respective stained histories.
On the other hand, there are no security guarantees or reference to Ukrainian territorial integrity past or present. It seems entirely dependent on the good faith of the signatories and by implication that as a firm and long term business partnership venture, and assumes the willingness of all non signatory third parties to accept and respective the good faith between the signatories.
A good business deal, but diplomatic and international relations are not business transactions that can be arbitrated through civil courts in the event of a force majeur brought on by a third party act of war and tnings go south. Nevertheless, it is very useful for now.
Not sure if the Kremlin, understands what that could (not would) mean for its attitude and behaviour going forward. Personally, I still do not expect Putin to act in good faith in any diplomatic negotiations ahead or in honouring any armistice agreement arising from the upcoming negotiations.
-
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public, that have a workable plan to end the Ukraine War?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
It's hilarious you post stuff like that with a straight face, while wailing for your fainting couch if anybody restates anything you write, with any slightly different words. Your ideas are simply too precious to be filtered through other human minds, but other people's points? Let's just swallow them without chewing, shit them out, and fling them on the board.
-
It’s a slight exaggeration but I got the gist of it. It’s Maga Panglossianism. It’s hard to defend his decisions per se, so you make the case it’s the best possible world.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public, that have a workable plan to end the Ukraine War?
@Jolly said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public, that have a workable plan to end the Ukraine War?
Ask Putin that question not us.
But then you have nothing to say of any consequence on the matter anyway just like the rest of us here.
In the meantime, Foghorn, just keep on
roosteringcrowing away on your perch. -
It’s a slight exaggeration but I got the gist of it. It’s Maga Panglossianism. It’s hard to defend his decisions per se, so you make the case it’s the best possible world.
@jon-nyc Or many of us (including many outside of this board in the mainstream who don't happen to have diseased cognition regarding all things Trump) recognize the path we were on under Biden, and where it was inexorably leading. We also recognize a change under Trump, and a welcome ambiguity about where this actually ends up.
-
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public, that have a workable plan to end the Ukraine War?
-
One more time….
Told ya so, and not just once or twice in past year or more:
The Kremlin on Thursday ruled out relinquishing control of Ukrainian regions it claims to have annexed, setting a major red line as Russian and U.S. officials met in Istanbul for talks aimed at normalizing relations.
"The territories that have become subjects of the Russian Federation, which are inscribed in our country's constitution, are an inseparable part of our country," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
"This is undeniable and non-negotiable," he said during a daily briefing.
Marco Rubio has my full sympathy.
-
@Jolly said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public
I guess it's possible, but not likely.
@Copper said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
@Jolly said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public
I guess it's possible, but not likely.
Ain't been any ideas from our resident geniuses, has it?
-
Jon and Renauda are on team Escalate, but without actual danger of nuclear conflict. Renauda would first prefer that Russia establishes its unwillingness to negotiate a peace deal. Of course I do not presume to speak for either of them, but that is my understanding.
-
Horace, I am sure that the y’all cock of the walk, Beauregard Foghorn, is fully capable of reading my posts but only if he were to grow a pair of cojones and remove the cowardly block he is pretending to hide behind. I will however continue to call out his bullshit and gossip as I see fit, and at my choosing. Same goes for the trite huckleberry troll.
-
Since TNCR loves a good conspiracy theory, here is one: President Trump was recruited as a Soviet spy back in 1987
The USSR reportedly recruited Donald Trump as a KGB agent in 1987, a former Soviet Intelligence officer has claimed. This officer, Alnur Mussayev, was the head of the Kazakhstan's National Security Committee. Mussayev said his job was to recruit "businessmen from capitalist countries" and claimed that Trump was one of his recruits. The now-US President was then a 40-year-old New York real estate developer.
-
@Horace LOL
I would rank it up with the "stolen election" conspiracy". 555
-
I’ve completely lost the plot on what we’re trying to do in Ukraine now.
Do we just want our money back? (I don’t think so)
Do we want the war to end for humanitarian reasons? (We don’t care about all wars in the world, so this can’t be the only thing)
Do we think we there’s a risk of nuclear escalation with Russia? (Sure, but they did support the opposite side as us when the Syria war was going on)
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
I don’t understand what the current goal is. I’m not even debating what’s right or wrong. I really don’t get the objective.
-
I’ve completely lost the plot on what we’re trying to do in Ukraine now.
Do we just want our money back? (I don’t think so)
Do we want the war to end for humanitarian reasons? (We don’t care about all wars in the world, so this can’t be the only thing)
Do we think we there’s a risk of nuclear escalation with Russia? (Sure, but they did support the opposite side as us when the Syria war was going on)
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
I don’t understand what the current goal is. I’m not even debating what’s right or wrong. I really don’t get the objective.
@xenon said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
Except we were letting Russia capture land through conquest. Not letting them, would have required military escalation.
Maybe such escalation could exist without any threat of nuclear war. Doesn't seem like that's a provable claim either way, though.
Education is extremely important.
