Teslag said:

---

I think these answers just reinforce the belief that the pro-russian side on this thread, just like the Russian Federation, doesn't want a "negotiated peace" or even a "peace" at all. They want complete capitulation on the part of Ukraine. That's not a negotiation at all. They simply won't or refuse to state what Ukraine should get out of any peace.

---

They're allowed to live.

In Russian slavery, but at least they're alive.

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success?

---

That's why NATO and EU membership is key.

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

How are they becoming "part of other countries"? NATO and EU are voluntary pacts. It's not like they're being annexed and lose their internal decision making power.

The US has an interest in global stability. Ukraine is, or was, a major exporter of steel, pig iron, aluminum and manganese. Those are all materials on which we are fairly reliant. Steel costs shot up about 50% in the 3 months after Russia invaded and we saw all sorts of production delays while supply chains figured out how to meet demand. The cost of steel alone cost US industry about $2.5-$3.5 billion dollars. The cost of delays or expediting new sources likely cost just as much, if not more. Then there's the whole global grain shortage problem. You think anything good is going to come from a bunch of starving and desperate people in the ME and Africa?

---

EU is not voluntary once you sign up, see Brexit. And see Ireland folks not being able to harvest and sell peat for fuel as not having any internal decision making power.

For NATO, is there not a "an attack on one is an attack on all" or some such nonsense? Seems like if France decides to FAFO with someone in the Middle East then we get dragged in to the consequences of bad decision making by the French.

US can enforce global stability without propping up the Ukes and pissing off the Russians. See Trump foreign policy for reference.

---

That's not an attack on France and probably wouldn't activate Article 5.

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success?

---

That's why NATO and EU membership is key.

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Ukraine joining NATO will be a redline for Putin.

You want them to shell the hell out of Ukraine and use strategic nukes?

This is how you convince them that the only way to secure their national security interests is to turn Ukraine into a nuclear wasteland.

Putin sees that Russia needs a geopolitical or geographical buffer between Russia and the EU/NATO.

That is a big part of what this whole thing has been about.

And yet there are still yahoo's on here who think doing the very thing that antagonized Putin is the solution to the problem.

Ag with kids said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think these answers just reinforce the belief that the pro-russian side on this thread, just like the Russian Federation, doesn't want a "negotiated peace" or even a "peace" at all. They want complete capitulation on the part of Ukraine. That's not a negotiation at all. They simply won't or refuse to state what Ukraine should get out of any peace.

---

They're allowed to live.

In Russian slavery, but at least they're alive.

---

A strong moral is of little use in a dead body. - Napoleon

WCrew04 said:

---

I like Ukraine

---

I do too. Despite the drive by comments on this thread, I think it is sad it will almost certainly not exist in 2030. Supportive comments for their fascist/totalitarian/nazi government regarding their war with Russia is an odd barometer of support for the people there, but that is where 'some' are.

Time will tell, but nothing I've seen has indicated this war which was prompted/provoked by our treasonous president, in conjunction with his family's business partners in China and Moscow, is serving American interests. I remain dubious. I've also asked for an 'approved by Ukraine war boosters' list of sources/daily coverage that they term/feel acceptable, but have yet to see any such list posted.

Good piece explaining network of Russian & Chinese companies involved in transferring non lethal military (dual use) equipment from PRC to support war in Ukraine. Notably protective gear traded in bulk, but for commercial UAV activity is more low profile. https://t.co/Zk0BO7O06t

— Alex Luck (@AlexLuck9) July 24, 2023

I also still haven't seen a cogent analysis of how it can make sense when a commander is on the payroll of China/Russian oligarchs he should be trusted to procure a war that depletes American and European resources ostensibly in the interest of…America and Europe. Freedom, sovereignty, and democracy are just lovely catch phrases though, in the MSM.

Ag with kids said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think these answers just reinforce the belief that the pro-russian side on this thread, just like the Russian Federation, doesn't want a "negotiated peace" or even a "peace" at all. They want complete capitulation on the part of Ukraine. That's not a negotiation at all. They simply won't or refuse to state what Ukraine should get out of any peace.

---

They're allowed to live.

In Russian slavery, but at least they're alive.

---

Cool. Now show me the thread where you advocated for arming the Uyghrs in China so they couldn't be taken as slaves and put in concentration camps.

If we are going to be the moral police the world over then we should be consistent.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

I'd take the lines where they are right now.

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

The Ukrainians can prevent any offensive the Russians can muster with what we've given them. Your post literally says nothing and you once again refuse to outline any peace scenario that's palatable for even Ukraine or Russia.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

No one is asking you to put together a full binding multi page peace deal both parties can sign. Some vague bullet points will do fine.


But there's a reason you don't want to...

Old Tom Morris said:

---

I'd take the lines where they are right now.

---

I think that's fair and probably the most realistic outcome, though the Ukrainians can probably still free a bit more land by end of the summer.

Teslag said:

---

Old Tom Morris said:

---

I'd take the lines where they are right now.

---

I think that's fair and probably the most realistic outcome, though the Ukrainians can probably still free a bit more land by end of the summer.

---

I think they'd be better off not trying to take small amounts back and instead using those resources to fortify a defense of the new line. A disaster move would be to deplete themselves attempting to back small gains while supporters grow weary, then have their negotiating position weakened by a russian push back

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

No one is asking you to put together a full binding multi page peace deal both parties can sign. Some vague bullet points will do fine.


But there's a reason you don't want to...

---

Yes because it is a stupid exercise. I've already outlined how you and the war fan boys have been living in a delusional present. So in a few months you will be where I'm at now. Luckily I possess a means of factoring in the future. It is a magical thing.

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

No one is asking you to put together a full binding multi page peace deal both parties can sign. Some vague bullet points will do fine.


But there's a reason you don't want to...

---

Yes because it is a stupid exercise. I've already outlined how you and the war fan boys have been living in a delusional present. So in a few months you will be where I'm at now. Luckily I possess a means of factoring in the future. It is a magical thing.

---

Ya, you attributed a bunch of positions and quotes that I haven't made. Basically, just trolling and not looking for discussion.

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

The Ukrainians can prevent any offensive the Russians can muster with what we've given them. Your post literally says nothing and you once again refuse to outline any peace scenario that's palatable for even Ukraine or Russia.

---

As out mentioned tens of pages back, Ukraine can't play defense and win. Their economy is destroyed. The people are emigrating in large numbers. Russia is humming along nicely and will be until the West wages economic war (oil and gas) which it won't do because of Climate change.

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

So you keep talking about, "peace is better than continuing this war," but you can't even form your own opinion on what that peace should look like? This isn't Jeopardy!, it's someone asking your opinion.

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

EU is not voluntary once you sign up, see Brexit. And see Ireland folks not being able to harvest and sell peat for fuel as not having any internal decision making power.

For NATO, is there not a "an attack on one is an attack on all" or some such nonsense? Seems like if France decides to FAFO with someone in the Middle East then we get dragged in to the consequences of bad decision making by the French.

US can enforce global stability without propping up the Ukes and pissing off the Russians. See Trump foreign policy for reference.

---

That's not an attack on France and probably wouldn't activate Article 5.

---

If they piss off a country in the ME and the ME launches a drone strike of Paris, that triggers Article 5. Hence the FAFO designation.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

So you keep taking about, "peace is better than continuing this war," but you can't even form your own opinion on what that piece should look like? This isn't Jeopardy!, it's someone asking your opinion.

---

Exactly.


And Russia is " humming along nicely"

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

From the latest reports, it appears everyone is running out of ammunition except Russia. Ukraine obviously doesn't have the staying power that Russia has. They are running out of trained soldiers, ammo, equipment, and money etc. and Russia isn't. As Ukraine's position approaches disaster level defeat, it will be interesting to see what our grossly incompetent Commander in Chief and his Administration Leaders do about it. They are already probably figuring out how to blame Trump !

Ag with kids said:

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

As I am not dictator of Ukraine like the Great Z, its not particularly my place to answer.

But, my counsel to Z would be for him to work to negotiate the best deal possible. That likely means giving up all contested areas and I would ask in return for compensation from Russia for the damage to infrastructure and for a binding UN resolution regarding further incursions.

Russia could pay for any reparations through the lifting of sanctions and embargos currently in place on Russia and its oligarchs.

But again, that's just me brainstorming off the top of my head. My position isn't that Ukraine should surrender or fight to death. I am agnostic on that. My position is that quite simply it is not our fight and our involvement comes at a cost to our own stability and security and that resources and funds could be better spent on our Country or at least in our hemisphere.

Which "latest reports"?

I don't see any way in hell Russia pays a dime for reparations. They won't even admit to that destruction, much less pay for it.

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

EU is not voluntary once you sign up, see Brexit. And see Ireland folks not being able to harvest and sell peat for fuel as not having any internal decision making power.

For NATO, is there not a "an attack on one is an attack on all" or some such nonsense? Seems like if France decides to FAFO with someone in the Middle East then we get dragged in to the consequences of bad decision making by the French.

US can enforce global stability without propping up the Ukes and pissing off the Russians. See Trump foreign policy for reference.

---

That's not an attack on France and probably wouldn't activate Article 5.

---

If they piss off a country in the ME and the ME launches a drone strike of Paris, that triggers Article 5. Hence the FAFO designation.

---

So you're saying that Britain couldn't do exactly what they did and peacefully leave the EU simply because they didn't want to be in it anymore? I mean telling them, "Hey, were just not feeling it anymore. Bye." and them being cool with seems pretty damn voluntary to me...

The EU countries are all still sovereign countries. They can do what Britain did and just leave if they don't like the EU restrictions they've voluntarily agreed to abide by. So yes, they are still sovereigns. It's not complicated.

You have absolutely 0 understanding of NATO's Article 5. Member nations are required to give support in the event that a member country is attacked, but it is up to those member countries to determine what they support is. It could be as little as allowing military or combat flights to use their airspace or as much as putting boots on the ground alongside them.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

So you're saying that Britain couldn't do exactly what they did and peacefully leave the EU simply because they didn't want to be in it anymore? I mean telling them, "Hey, were just not feeling it anymore. Bye." and them being cool with seems pretty damn voluntary to me...

The EU countries are all still sovereign countries. They can do what Britain did and just leave if they don't like the EU restrictions they've voluntarily agreed to abide by. So yes, they are still sovereigns. It's not complicated.

You have absolutely 0 understanding of NATO's Article 5. Member nations are required to give support in the event that a member country is attacked, but it is up to those member countries to determine what they support is. It could be as little as allowing military or combat flights to use their airspace or as much as putting boots on the ground alongside them.

---

Man, do you always get other people to help explain things to you? No, you do not get to just walk away. Took over a decade and much negotiation, and that was with the UK being a EU-lite member to begin with and having the biggest stick to bargain with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

Teslag said:

---

I don't see any way in hell Russia pays a dime for reparations. They won't even admit to that destruction, much less pay for it.

---

I don't either. But that's part of the negotiation process. It was asked what I think should be a part of a peace deal and that is part of my peace deal. Whether you think its viable it patently irrelevant.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

So you keep talking about, "peace is better than continuing this war," but you can't even form your own opinion on what that peace should look like? This isn't Jeopardy!, it's someone asking your opinion.

---

I know you think you are this brilliant savant that is the living incarnation of George Washington and Rambo but some of us don't have our egos that highly inflated. Not knowing what the peace would be doesnt mean I don't think they should negotiate for it. Ukraine was on track to lose this war several months ago. Now they have little to bargain with. Their biggest chips are concessions to be made by the Western allies. Something the progressives won't want to do.

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

This post should honestly shut up a few of the posters for at least 48 hours. The ones screaming for sovereignty admit the only solution is to cede sovereignty. Yet they are going to be like well you didn't lay out a perfect peace deal based on all countries involved so you can't be right. So juvenile.

Quote:

---

Ukraine was on track to lose this war several months ago. Now they have little to bargain with.

---

Dude, even Russian mil-bloggers didn't believe this. 3 months ago Russia had just spent an entire winter throwing their only elite force, which were private mercenaries, into a grinder with only Bakhmut to show for it.

Russia wants more, there's no realistic way they can take it. Ukraine wants Crimea and all held lands free. There's no realistic way they can make that happen. So they will need to eventually come to terms. The only thing up in the air is how close that line is to what we see today.

fka ftc said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Key to what? They have to become part of other countries in order to remain "sovereign"? Makes no sense.

NATO... makes no sense.

EU... makes sense for those weak arse Euro-****** countries who cannot or do not want to be their own sovereign powers. UK only dabbled in the EU and said no thanks several years ago due to the asinine and weak policies of the EU.

If EU wants to add to their list of weak nations, then let them add Ukraine. It does not involve us. Nothing in Ukraine involves the U.S., except our interest in trying to end the billions of dollars in corrupt payola we send them that enriches Uke oligarchs, US NGOs and the pockets of US politicians.

---

Joining NATO and/or the EU doesn't mean they're becoming part of other countries.

We're in NATO and last I checked, we weren't part of another country. France is part of the EU and also isn't part of another country.

Ukraine joining NATO gains them defensive securities to prevent Russia from what they have continued to do in the past, which is break peace agreements with Ukraine and invade and absorb territory.

---

Something tells me you are not familiar with the EU much. Let me help with a Wikipedia introduction. You can do further learning on your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

Quote:

---

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are signatories to the founding treaties of the union and thereby share in the privileges and obligations of membership. They have agreed by the treaties to share their own sovereignty through the institutions of the European Union in some, but not all, aspects of government. State governments must agree unanimously in the Council for the union to adopt some policies; for others, collective decisions are made by qualified majority voting. These obligations and sharing of sovereignty within the EU (sometimes referred to as supranational) make it unique among international organisations, as it has established its own legal order which by the provisions of the founding treaties is both legally binding and supreme on all the member states (after a landmark ruling of the ECJ in 1964). A founding principle of the union is the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions are taken collectively if and only if they cannot realistically be taken individually.

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

AND THEY CAN ALWAYS LEAVE AND STOP SHARING

If they can simply say, "Bye," and go right back to complete and total independence they are still a sovereign country. Why is this so difficult for you? "But but but when they're in the EU they share sovereignty!" But but but nothing. They are in a voluntary agreement that they can leave at anytime because they're still a sovereign country. They have not permanently and irrevocably handed plenary or decision making power to another country. They have not changed their borders. They have done nothing that would constitute becoming part of another country. Texas becoming a state in the US would be becoming part of another country. Ukraine joining the EU, a voluntary pact from which they are always free to leave and return to the current status quo, is not.

HTH

texagbeliever said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You expect Russia to just say oh we are sorry let's pay hundreds of billions to Ukraine in reparations and return to their country.

---

Where have I said this? I've been clear that I would fine if they agreed to current fronts as new borders, ceased hostilities, and Ukraine joined NATO to prevent any further aggression on the part of the instigator.

Think Russia would go for that pace?

---

Wait why would Ukraine agree to this? They are about to kick Russia out of their country and retake Crimeria with their spring offensive. Are you admitting the spring offensive is a dud and just causing mass casualties on both sides?

---

I believe that retaking Crimea was always a pipe dream, and probably even known by Zelensky. The offensive has slowly retaken land and liberated many small towns and villages, and each of those is worth liberating. In a negotiated peace neither side is going to get everything they want.

---

So the offensive is a dud. Small towns and villages for another 5% of young adult population and probably 20-30% negativr impact on future GDP. What a brilliant initiative.

---

That is only a question the Ukrainians can answer. It's their home, not mine. If they want to fight and die for their fellow citizens that's their call and their call alone.

---

So when Ukraine doesn't exist in 20 years because their population emigrated and Russia just is able to annex it then that will be mission success? Sometimes you don't enable people to be stupid even if it is seemingly courageous.

---

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

Well now it is bad news for Ukraine. They have very little threat and Russia has to love the damage thus causes to western Europe and America. The time to negotiate wasn't after your major spring offensive failed and your country's morale dropped and western financiers started pulling back.

They should have negotiated land gains and some pipeline access back during the winter when things looked less certain.

---

That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question.

What Is YOUR DEFINITION of the peace deal that Ukraine should accept RIGHT NOW?

---

No. Just because I can't answer an extremely complex question doesn't make you right. It just means I know the limits of valuable speculation. Sorry you are too immature to handle that.

---

So you keep talking about, "peace is better than continuing this war," but you can't even form your own opinion on what that peace should look like? This isn't Jeopardy!, it's someone asking your opinion.

---

I know you think you are this brilliant savant that is the living incarnation of George Washington and Rambo but some of us don't have our egos that highly inflated. Not knowing what the peace would be doesnt mean I don't think they should negotiate for it. Ukraine was on track to lose this war several months ago. Now they have little to bargain with. Their biggest chips are concessions to be made by the Western allies. Something the progressives won't want to do.

---

No one's asking what it would be. They're asking what you think it should be. You keep twisting the question and moving the goal posts because you don't want to answer.

What, in your opinion, beyond just this very vague "peace" should they be negotiating for?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

So you want to explain how "sharing of sovereignty" is not becoming effectively part of another country?

---

AND THEY CAN ALWAYS LEAVE AND STOP SHARING

If they can simply say, "Bye," and go right back to complete and total independence they are still a sovereign country. Why is this so difficult for you? "But but but when they're in the EU they share sovereignty!" But but but nothing. They are in a voluntary agreement that they can leave at anytime because they're still a sovereign country. They have not permanently and irrevocably handed plenary or decision making power to another country. They have not changed their borders. They have done nothing that would constitute becoming part of another country. Texas becoming a state in the US would be becoming part of another country. Ukraine joining the EU, a voluntary pact from which they are always free to leave and return to the current status quo, is not.

HTH

---

You skip the lesson on withdrawal form the EU. If so easy, then Brexit could have been done with an email or tweet.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Also, what borders do you think exist in the EU? Part of the whole point is to be able to freely travel between the member states. They entered into treaties that then set forth a process for withdrawing (a concept that until Lincoln's nonsense in the Civil War was part of our own history).

The density in understanding this very simple concept explains a lot.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

No one's asking what it would be. They're asking what you think it should be. You keep twisting the question and moving the goal posts because you don't want to answer.

What, in your opinion, beyond just this very vague "peace" should they be negotiating for?

---

I answered your nonsensical question and just crickets and some bizarre take from your vaccine friend.

Instead of antagonizing folks with goal post comments, engage in a discussion.

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

No one's asking what it would be. They're asking what you think it should be. You keep twisting the question and moving the goal posts because you don't want to answer.

What, in your opinion, beyond just this very vague "peace" should they be negotiating for?

---

I answered your nonsensical question and just crickets and some bizarre take from your vaccine friend.

Instead of antagonizing folks with goal post comments, engage in a discussion.

---

He wasn't talking to you. You actually had the courtesy and spirit to engage in discussion.