Another win for Trump (breaking news)

[Will B Good]

Another win for Zelenski (breaking news)

[ChicagoExpat]

23 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I'm not Ukrainian. I've never lived in Ukraine. I've never even visited Ukraine.  But I'm pretty sure Russia could overrun the entire country if that's what they wanted to do.  But they don't.  To think they do is silly.  Nor do they want to continue on and re-establish the old Soviet Union or occupy all of Europe.  The old Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to hold it all together.  They won't try that again. 

 

As I understand it, Russia's primary concern is to establish a situation whereby they have a neutral buffer zone with no possibility of NATO missiles and no possibility of any other kind of foreign missiles on the Russian border.  Putin has been saying that for years.  And it makes sense.  Short and intermediate range missiles give their enemy an advantage, as  parts of Russia's strategic defense systems would be compromised. 

 

So that's one of their objectives.

 

In addition, they want a "de-Nazification" of Ukraine.  I guess they've had enough of those people over the years.  They still remember Hitler.  They won't let that happen again.  Makes sense to me. 

 

And they want the international community to recognize the fact that parts of what used to be Ukraine are now Russian.  Reality.  Ukraine won't get that territory back. 

 

Give them that, stop the war, and stop the killing.  That's the best Ukraine can expect, I'm afraid.  

 

Or do you think we should have to have WW III because Russia won and the world isn't fair? 

I'd refer you to the start of the war, where Russia poured in over the entire Russian and Belarusian border in an attempt to take Kyiv.  It seems you're not familiar with the war's first year or so -- it might be a good thing to study as you're obviously very interested in the topic.  Yes, Russia DOES (or did) want to take the entire country and the current disaster is what they have to settle for.  No one denies this was Russia's original goal, including Russia.  And you're claiming they COULD overrun all of Ukraine... but are settling for a costly stalemate?  Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

 

I know you think Russia is entitled to use other countries as buffer zones -- same as the Soviets -- even if against their will, but those same countries have the right NOT to be Russian vassal states.

 

Again, the Nazi thing is a silly and transparently false pretext.  Everyone knows that some unit did use some Nazi symbolism, a few still do.  But that's entirely different than a "Nazi state", which is the claim.  And just as important -- as I mentioned, Russia has even more of this stuff than Ukraine does.  I already mentioned Rusich and Wagner.

 

It might be that Ukraine won't eventually get its territory back.  But that would be part of a negotiated settlement in which Russia gives up some of its claims.

 

Finally, the only people that claim this might become WW3 are Russia and their supporters.  The threat -- both implicit and explicit -- don't resist us because who knows where this might end up.  It's nonsense.  If WW34 starts from this, the fault will be entirely Russia's -- and those in the West who carried their water for them.

[ChicagoExpat]

33 minutes ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

True.  Lefties all look and sound alike.

Love it!  Hey everyone look at me, I'm a LEFTY!!!!!  🤡🤣🏆

[sandyf]

5 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Regardless of the 24hours, he is still trying to end the war, which would not have happened had the warmongers puppet Harris won, I think the situation would have escalated rapidly. 

Zman got all gobby in the WH the first time and ruined that deal, then brought Crimea into the mix which is a big 'no' for Russia, so it seems Z man is purposely prolonging things, probably under fear of death

The Trump mentality,  "a big 'no' for Russia," equates to surrender for Ukraine.

 

If countries have a dispute over territorial rights there are pathways to resolution, occupation by force should not be one of them.

Of course it is no surprise the US is in favour of taking what it wants by force.

Remind us, what was said about Greenland.

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The Trump mentality,  "a big 'no' for Russia," equates to surrender for Ukraine.

 

If countries have a dispute over territorial rights there are pathways to resolution, occupation by force should not be one of them.

Of course it is no surprise the US is in favour of taking what it wants by force.

Remind us, what was said about Greenland.

Good idea, but how far back to go,

India back to the Raj

USA back to the native Americans 

Australia back to the aborigines 

NZ back to the Maori 

Israel back to the Palestinians 

And many more that don't immediately come to mind.

 

Give us a date and then justify your choice!

[sandyf]

44 minutes ago, jas007 said:

As I understand it, Russia's primary concern is to establish a situation whereby they have a neutral buffer zone with no possibility of NATO missiles and no possibility of any other kind of foreign missiles on the Russian border.

So you are saying that policy will be extended to Finland and it will also be invaded by Russia.

[frank83628]

3 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The Trump mentality,  "a big 'no' for Russia," equates to surrender for Ukraine.

 

If countries have a dispute over territorial rights there are pathways to resolution, occupation by force should not be one of them.

Of course it is no surprise the US is in favour of taking what it wants by force.

Remind us, what was said about Greenland.

 The war has been lost for Ukraine for a long time, but you only found out since trump and cannot process that fact, the only thing propping them up was the backing of the USA and military aid.

They have realised they cannot win, youre  calling it surrender because you have cold war, Hollywood movie mind set, its called being realistic, continue and more Ukrainians perish, and Ukraine has more debt.

 

[jas007]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The Trump mentality,  "a big 'no' for Russia," equates to surrender for Ukraine.

 

If countries have a dispute over territorial rights there are pathways to resolution, occupation by force should not be one of them.

Of course it is no surprise the US is in favour of taking what it wants by force.

Remind us, what was said about Greenland.

Of course, pretty much every territorial nation state on Planet Earth was established by way of force.  You  might be able to find one or two that weren't, but that's not the way the world works.  

[jas007]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

So you are saying that policy will be extended to Finland and it will also be invaded by Russia.

Right now, Finland is not a focus for Russia.  And for what it's worth, Finland probably knows better than to allow missiles to be installed on its territory.  Like it or not, they're probably neutral territory. 

[sandyf]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Good idea, but how far back to go,

India back to the Raj

USA back to the native Americans 

Australia back to the aborigines 

NZ back to the Maori 

Israel back to the Palestinians 

You have highlighted how over the years indiginous peoples were beaten into submission to such an extent they do not have any say. Some should remember where they came from when running down Europe.

Ukraine however does have a voice which should be heard.

There is something like 63 countries that have negotiated severence from dominence by Westminster over the years.

 

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You have highlighted how over the years indiginous peoples were beaten into submission to such an extent they do not have any say. Some should remember where they came from when running down Europe.

Ukraine however does have a voice which should be heard.

There is something like 63 countries that have negotiated severence from dominence by Westminster over the years.

 

Severance from Westminster does not equate to returning land to its original owners.

[Nick Carter icp]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

 

Israel back to the Palestinians 

 

 

  Judea/West bank and Gaza back to the Jews

[sandyf]

13 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Of course, pretty much every territorial nation state on Planet Earth was established by way of force.  You  might be able to find one or two that weren't, but that's not the way the world works.  

It is a sad state of affairs when countries that claim to be civilised are not prepared to move away from that.

But then Americans have never really seen the cost of war on their own soil.

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Judea/West bank and Gaza back to the Jews

Ok, so you choose Roman times as the date.

Which would mean returning most of northern Europe to the descendents of the Germanic tribes. I'd be happy to support that idea, as I am one of those people.

[BritManToo]

Just now, sandyf said:

It is a sad state of affairs when countries that claim to be civilised are not prepared to move away from that.

But then Americans have never really seen the cost of war on their own soil.

Tell that to the native Americans!

[jas007]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It is a sad state of affairs when countries that claim to be civilised are not prepared to move away from that.

But then Americans have never really seen the cost of war on their own soil.

Of course, but, as I've said, the world doesn't seem to work that way.  

[sandyf]

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Severance from Westminster does not equate to returning land to its original owners.

You perfectly free believe the British overseas territories were not under foreign rule.

[metisdead]

Posts using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly, this applies to both sides of the political debate.

[sandyf]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Tell that to the native Americans!

Did they claim to be civilised?

[Nick Carter icp]

18 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Ok, so you choose Roman times as the date.

Which would mean returning most of northern Europe to the descendents of the Germanic tribes. I'd be happy to support that idea, as I am one of those people.

 

   Germans came from Africa, so you would have to go back to Africa

[ThreeCardMonte]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Tell that to the native Americans!

Don’t forget the Brits!

[sandyf]

3 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Of course, but, as I've said, the world doesn't seem to work that way.  

Of course it does, numerous regions have negotiated or pursued legal channels both successfully and unsuccessfully in respect of claims.

Crimea should have done the same rather than the nanny state taking control by force. Indications are that there was  probably not the numbers for a legal challenge so Russia makes a grab, and the so called democratic countries stand by and watch.

[GroveHillWanderer]

8 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

He’s negotiating in case you haven’t figured that out.

 

Biden did nothing but extend the war at the expense of the American taxpayers with a blank check.

 

He's negotiated a deal with Ukraine here, however it has nothing to do with ending the war, except perhaps in the most indirect sense. This is a deal to invest in a fund for the future rebuilding and development of Ukraine but does nothing, in and of itself, to end the war.

 

For instance, it doesn't involve Russia in any way and I don't know about you but I reckon any deal to end the war would have to involve them.

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 5/1/2025 at 6:36 AM, thesetat said:

Zelenski gives in and signs the minerals deal with Trump. This will impact the war in Ukraine because now America will begin to supply weapons and aid to the war effort. 

 

https://kyivindependent.com/breaking-ukraine-us-sign-minerals-deal/

 

I guess now Trump will have to deal more with Russia as well to end the war so America can reap the benefits from the minerals deal. Either that or commit more resources to Ukraine. 

I'm not sure I'd refer to this as a win for Trump. I'd say it's more of a win for Ukraine.

 

What the deal actually does, is create a: 

 

Quote

Reconstruction Investment Fund for Ukraine, attracting global investments into the country ..

 

Where the minerals/resources come into it is as follows:

 

Quote

50% of funds from new licenses for projects in critical materials, as well as oil and gas, [...] will be directed to the budget after the fund is established. 

 

So the short term effects of this fund being established, will all go to investment within Ukraine, so pretty much exclusively to Ukraine's benefit.

 

And while there should be some gains for the US eventually, that's unlikely to be for at least a decade, given the following provision. 

 

Quote

during the first 10 years, profits and revenues from the fund will not be distributed, but can only be invested in Ukraine—in new projects or reconstruction. 

 

Svyrydenko and Bessent signed an agreement to create a US–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund

 

https://odessa-journal.com/svyrydenko-and-bessent-signed-an-agreement-to-create-a-usukraine-reconstruction-investment-fund

 

[thesetat]

5 hours ago, jas007 said:

"Marginal gains."  No Nazis in Ukraine?  LOL

 

What surprises me is how anyone who actually supports Ukraine is OK with a US proxy war in which Ukrainians die to the last Ukrainian for a bunch of Neocon nutcases who couldn't care less about Ukraine, Ukrainians, or Ukrainian "democracy." 

 

What you're going to end up with is no Ukraine at all and thousands of more dead Ukrainian kids.  

So you mean this year will be the same as last year and the year before and the year before? 

[thesetat]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

Funny how the trumpeteers can put different spins on the same scenario.

The first deal was nothing more than a manipulated surrender.

How can you call it a spin? It was in all the news. Including the Vdo of them together in the WH supposedly to sign the agreement. The only thing not shown was their meeting prior to the public signing. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

12 hours ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

He’s negotiating in case you haven’t figured that out.

 

Biden did nothing but extend the war at the expense of the American taxpayers with a blank check.

Well, he's not negotiating any more. 

 

Quote

The United States will no longer act as a mediator in peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, the State Department has confirmed, signalling a shift in Washington’s role in the ongoing conflict.

 

US pulls out of formal peace talks between Ukraine and Russia

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-withdraws-ukraine-russia-peace-talks-b1225632.html

[thesetat]

17 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Well, he's not negotiating any more. 

 

 

US pulls out of formal peace talks between Ukraine and Russia

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-withdraws-ukraine-russia-peace-talks-b1225632.html

yeah.. and the US ha already approved of the first haul of weapons to be sent there.