The Ukraine war thread
-
So there seems to be some thought that Vance just absolutely torpedoed his future. That was not what Trump was looking for. If you watch the full 40 minutes, you will see that Trump is actually trying to be somewhat conciliatory, while still being his typical grandiose asshole self. He’s trying to work a deal, and he can’t work a deal by being an asshole to the primary adversary. So he is not going to call Putin a terrorist or a dictator. He wants to bring him to the table. And while Trump has a personal intense dislike for Zelenskyy, he will work with him in the interest of coming across as the great peacemaker and getting his Nobel… But, Zelenskyy keeps pushing for security guarantees in this setting, and Trump wants to hold that card in his deck for the negotiations with Putin. Still, Trump comes very close to saying there are Security Agreements through this deal. He talks about European boots on the ground and he comes just short of saying American boots, but strongly suggests it. The point is that Trump is not going to make those promises until they are actually negotiating the deal with Putin, because Zelenskyy is proving to be an unstable partner promising no concessions to Russia at all. Trump might very well need to use the Security Agreements to close the deal with Zelenskyy, but they need Putin at the table.
So Trump tries to play it low key, snd then Vance, rather than trying to end the press conference and moving them back behind closed doors instead decides to chuck a few grenades into the room. Things devolve from there.
Vance is moving himself out of favor quickly. I think he’s too much of a true believer and not enough of a businessman for Trump’s taste.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Ukraine war thread:
So there seems to be some thought that Vance just absolutely torpedoed his future. That was not what Trump was looking for. If you watch the full 40 minutes, you will see that Trump is actually trying to be somewhat conciliatory, while still being his typical grandiose asshole self. He’s trying to work a deal, and he can’t work a deal by being an asshole to the primary adversary. So he is not going to call Putin a terrorist or a dictator. He wants to bring him to the table. And while Trump has a personal intense dislike for Zelenskyy, he will work with him in the interest of coming across as the great peacemaker and getting his Nobel… But, Zelenskyy keeps pushing for security guarantees in this setting, and Trump wants to hold that card in his deck for the negotiations with Putin. Still, Trump comes very close to saying there are Security Agreements through this deal. He talks about European boots on the ground and he comes just short of saying American boots, but strongly suggests it. The point is that Trump is not going to make those promises until they are actually negotiating the deal with Putin, because Zelenskyy is proving to be an unstable partner promising no concessions to Russia at all. Trump might very well need to use the Security Agreements to close the deal with Zelenskyy, but they need Putin at the table.
So Trump tries to play it low key, snd then Vance, rather than trying to end the press conference and moving them back behind closed doors instead decides to chuck a few grenades into the room. Things devolve from there.
Vance is moving himself out of favor quickly. I think he’s too much of a true believer and not enough of a businessman for Trump’s taste.
Good summary. I enjoyed watching the whole thing too. It was intriguing. I agree Trump was holding back until Vance blew it up. I think both men were likely saying in private how Zelenskyy was making their deal hard and being ungrateful and Vance just went unfiltered in the moment. Bad move but not sure Trump cares imo.
-
Everyone’s worked with a JD Vance. In a meeting w/ the boss, 100% focused on scoring points for himself, every inch of his headspace directed at that purpose: "Is this a good opening for me? Maybe now?" Completely uninterested in what might be harmed in the process.
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
U.S. aid to Ukraine put on indefinite pause.
Is congress supposed to have any role here? Genuine question.
@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
U.S. aid to Ukraine put on indefinite pause.
Is congress supposed to have any role here? Genuine question.
And a common one lately too.
-
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
U.S. aid to Ukraine put on indefinite pause.
Is congress supposed to have any role here? Genuine question.
@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
U.S. aid to Ukraine put on indefinite pause.
Is congress supposed to have any role here? Genuine question.
DOGE might recommend its elimination. It appears to waste money, is morally corrupt and currently, seems to be unnecessary.
-
@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
The swear expression сука блять (syka blyat’) is Russian not Ukrainian, and is commonly used in the contemporary lexicon of both languages. Ukrainians whose families originated in Western Ukraine (under Austria and Poland) then immigrated to North America before WWII, would not use it, as their swearing would be closer to the Polish kurwa mać example in the tweet.
In any case, the term syka blyat’ is a vulgar expression of frustration or exasperation at something or at what someone either did or said. Although it cannot be translated directly into English, it is the Russian equivalent of saying Aw, for fuck sakes! or,as noted in the Tweet, fucking hell!. In any case, it is not a vulgar epithet directed at an individual person like calling them a “bitter asshole* or a “goddamned prick”.
When I was in Serbia, they liked teaching me swear words. I still remember (I think) that "son of a b*tch" is "kurvin sin" (dont think that is spelled right - pronounced like "coor veen seen". Somewhat close to the Polish word. I am sure they all relate on the Slavic language family tree (though I dont think Polish is Slavic.
).@taiwan_girl said in The Ukraine war thread:
@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
The swear expression сука блять (syka blyat’) is Russian not Ukrainian, and is commonly used in the contemporary lexicon of both languages. Ukrainians whose families originated in Western Ukraine (under Austria and Poland) then immigrated to North America before WWII, would not use it, as their swearing would be closer to the Polish kurwa mać example in the tweet.
In any case, the term syka blyat’ is a vulgar expression of frustration or exasperation at something or at what someone either did or said. Although it cannot be translated directly into English, it is the Russian equivalent of saying Aw, for fuck sakes! or,as noted in the Tweet, fucking hell!. In any case, it is not a vulgar epithet directed at an individual person like calling them a “bitter asshole* or a “goddamned prick”.
When I was in Serbia, they liked teaching me swear words. I still remember (I think) that "son of a b*tch" is "kurvin sin" (dont think that is spelled right - pronounced like "coor veen seen". Somewhat close to the Polish word. I am sure they all relate on the Slavic language family tree (though I dont think Polish is Slavic.
).The word you’re looking for is сукин сынь (sukin syn’) Pronounced sue’keen sin
Edit
still remember (I think) that "son of a b*tch" is "kurvin sin" (dont think that is spelled right - pronounced like "coor veen seen".
My bad, sorry gave it to you in Russian. They would have been teaching you in Serbo-Croatian. So yes that would be kurvin sin closer to the Polish form.
-
Everyone’s worked with a JD Vance. In a meeting w/ the boss, 100% focused on scoring points for himself, every inch of his headspace directed at that purpose: "Is this a good opening for me? Maybe now?" Completely uninterested in what might be harmed in the process.
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
Everyone’s worked with a JD Vance. In a meeting w/ the boss, 100% focused on scoring points for himself, every inch of his headspace directed at that purpose: "Is this a good opening for me? Maybe now?" Completely uninterested in what might be harmed in the process.
FFS.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
Everyone’s worked with a JD Vance. In a meeting w/ the boss, 100% focused on scoring points for himself, every inch of his headspace directed at that purpose: "Is this a good opening for me? Maybe now?" Completely uninterested in what might be harmed in the process.
FFS.
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
Everyone’s worked with a JD Vance. In a meeting w/ the boss, 100% focused on scoring points for himself, every inch of his headspace directed at that purpose: "Is this a good opening for me? Maybe now?" Completely uninterested in what might be harmed in the process.FFSСука блять (suka blyat’)FIFY
-
@Jolly said in The Ukraine war thread:
If anything, Vance's stock went up with the base.
Wrong base. And Trump knows that.
-
Everyone’s worked with a JD Vance. In a meeting w/ the boss, 100% focused on scoring points for himself, every inch of his headspace directed at that purpose: "Is this a good opening for me? Maybe now?" Completely uninterested in what might be harmed in the process.
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
Everyone’s worked with a JD Vance. In a meeting w/ the boss, 100% focused on scoring points for himself, every inch of his headspace directed at that purpose: "Is this a good opening for me? Maybe now?" Completely uninterested in what might be harmed in the process.
I think Vance is a little worse than that. Vance doesn’t just represent America First, he represents America First and Only. He’s a little more in the fringe my side that Trump’s been walking the tightrope with. Trump’s not an isolationist. Vance? I think he’s is.
-
And I was pleasantly to hear Mark Levin ripping into all of the isolationist “Republicans” tonight.
-
Mark Levin was an attorney working for the Reagan administration. He had some role in the Contragate hearings and became Ed Meese’s chief of staff.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:
Noah Rothman.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/03/republicans-are-fooling-themselves-on-the-ukraine-war/
Rothman’s original never-trump attitude is coloring his read of the issue. The security guarantees are Trump’s bargaining chip. Not for Putin, but for Zelenskyy. He can’t give that without Zelenskyy getting past his “no concessions” stance. I don’t get the impression that Zelenskyy wants to accept anything less than the 2013 borders. That’s not happening without a major escalation that Zelenskyy’s allies have no stomach for. Trump needs those security agreements to bring Ukraine to the table.
-
I don’t agree. Zelenskyi is enough of a realist to know he cannot expect Putin return so much as a metre of occupied territory. Likewise, he will agree to the concessions agreement - he will designate one of his cabinet ministers to sign on Ukraine’s behalf. He said so yesterday at presser in the UK.
