Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hundreds of thousands dead. Perhaps a million maimed. Cities destroyed. Livelihoods and swathes of the economy destroyed.

But several million Ukrainians got to remain war-zone-Ukrainians for 4 years before inevitably becoming Russians (once again).

Thats a pretty high cost to benefit on that one. L..

---

Or, Putin simply could have not invaded in the first place and none of what was happened since he invaded would have happened.

---

True. And maybe the Biden regime shouldn't have helped facilitate war.

I didn't propose anything. I pointed out that Putin had violated an agreement twice in the last 10 years and seized territory rightfully belonging to another country.. To expect that now he will abide is foolish. Trump better have something up his sleeve, because just saying we're out and we're not backing up any police force ain't it.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hundreds of thousands dead. Perhaps a million maimed. Cities destroyed. Livelihoods and swathes of the economy destroyed.

But several million Ukrainians got to remain war-zone-Ukrainians for 4 years before inevitably becoming Russians (once again).

Thats a pretty high cost to benefit on that one. L..

---

Or, Putin simply could have not invaded in the first place and none of what was happened since he invaded would have happened.

---

True. And maybe the Biden regime shouldn't have helped facilitate war.

---

I don't recall Putin having a gun to his head by Biden and his regime forcing him to invade, much less being so inept that a brain dead geriatric who didn't know what his name was (again, Biden and his regime) , would be able to do that to one like Putin. Maybe Putin is even more pathetic than we thought?

point being what do we do moving forward...

seems to be Trump has the best plan

end the war- shift to really confront the Commie Chinese.

let Europe actually pay for defending themselves

rgag12 said:

---

We can prevent that.

If I told you that all we need is for your son to go over there and get blown up by a drone or ripped to shreds by a Chinese robo dog, would you do it? What you are proposing is a general war with Russia and China.

If Europe wants to pay that price, fine. I'm not sending my son to protect the Ukes.

---

And quite literally no one is or has ever asked you to do so.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Europe should pay for the trip wire. Not the US.

---

Again, keeping Article 5 as a deterrent to Russia costs the US precisely nothing. At all.

---

It costs nothing… until the moment it costs everything. It's an obligation I have no interest of hanging around our young men's necks.

---

So it costs us nothing.

Or are you saying you believe Russia will not honor a peace agreement to end the war in Ukraine?

Quote:

---

None of this would have happened had Obama, Merkel, and the EU not facilitated a coup against a legit

President in 2014.

---

Not this crap again.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Europe should pay for the trip wire. Not the US.

---

Again, keeping Article 5 as a deterrent to Russia costs the US precisely nothing. At all.

---

It costs nothing… until the moment it costs everything. It's an obligation I have no interest of hanging around our young men's necks.

---

So it costs us nothing.

Or are you saying you believe Russia will not honor a peace agreement to end the war in Ukraine?

---

Im saying article 5 is a big deal & extending it to forces in Ukraine is incredibly dangerous. It may sound like a nice deterrence to "shield our forces" - but it's tantamount to playing "you can't touch me" while incrementally moving close to the front line. A first "NATO death" would be inevitable. At that moment a "zero cost" diplomatic designation becomes an obligation to send our sons to die in Eastern Europe against the nation with the world's largest (although questionably deployable) nuclear arsenal.

Exactly. Putin has yet to honor any agreement concerning Ukraine. Why does anyone think he will now?
My US Army major son spent 6 months in Ukraine training them on defensive strategies and weaponry several years ago. I've voted for Trump every single time. But, this plan seems like it will not succeed. Europe is not going to let Russia steam roll any country in their theater. That means we will get drawn in because none of them, or any combination thereof, can win. We will get involved, only then it will be a bigger mess. Trump better have some cards up his sleeve because leaving Ukraine on it's own will fail. The US has guaranteed South Korea's freedom, why not Ukraine? Park a spy satellite over Ukraine/Russia border and tell Putin that any troop movements crossing the border will be met swift, massive, retaliation.

MilanoCowboy said:

---

Europe is not going to let Russia steam roll any country in their theater.

---

You say that but........

that is literally what just happened in Ukraine.

Comparing South Korea and Ukraine is comparing apples to eggs. They are not the same and it is not the US' duty to guarantee anyone's freedom.

You are stuck in the old 1980's/1990's mentality that led to the **** show that has become the middle east.

Everywhere the US has gotten involved to "defend freedom" since Vietnam has been a disaster and done nothing but further destabilize regions and made the MIC a **** ton of money at the cost of American blood and taxpayer money.

But Ukraine is historically part of Russia. It's not the same thing as is, say Russia invaded Poland.

If Ukraine wants to be independent of Russia, they need to find a way to live with Russia.

Ukraine is more like Texas would be if we seceded from the US.

We did nothing but allow it to happen and then fund it. Of course, we had to fund it to launder billions. Corrupt politicians are the only winners in this was.

pagerman @ work said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!

---

explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.

---

What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.

---

Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.

---

Considering the alternate, sending a few troops into Ukraine as a sacrificial tripwire to activate NATO would make Ukraine a de facto NATO nation. I would rather not have that work-around in effect.

---

It doesn't make Ukraine de facto anything.

It does serve as a major deterrent to Russia deciding to continue the war they started once the Ukrainian military has to stand down in some capacity and likely accept some sort of DMZ as a condition of peace.

That said, this is all likely moot as it is unlikely Putin will seriously negotiate a peace deal.

---

The current stance is shaping up to be a negotiated victory that meets Putin's maximum demands. Peace through surrender. If Trump's view is that divestiture from Europe is in our best interest then any future negative consequences of that are of no concern.

If simply ending it, regardless of outcome and repercussion is the goal, then you don't have to safeguard against anything, and signaling to Russia that they're going to get whatever they want one way or another ensures that they're going to agree to the "deal".

It may very well be that part of our plan for battling China is to forge stronger ties with Russia because Trump thinks we can, in doing so, largely remove them from the equation. Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship. It's an angle I hadn't considered up until now.

Russia wants hegemony over Europe, but China wants to control the globe. Trump makes deals. Help facilitate Russian goals in exchange for drawing away China's largest ally and potential provider of energy and resources, in the event of conflict. Whether or not you find it distasteful, it could be effective, assuming Russia didn't backstab us down the line.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I think Europe should guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in a separate agreement outside of NATO. Otherwise Russia will be tempted to recoup what it sees it "lost" in the upcoming treaty in the future.

---

Nope. That is for Europe to do.

If Europe wants to protect Ukraine then they better ****ing do it.

The US has to worry about China and keeping them from global hegemony. We can't do that and protect Europe's backyard at the same time.

They need to do some of their own goddam heavy lifting for once.

---

Well said, Not our war not our problem. America first.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

We did nothing but allow it to happen and then fund it. Of course, we had to fund it to launder billions. Corrupt politicians are the only winners in this was.

---

Oh - "we" did more than jump into defense. Look into the line of thinking where Hunter Biden claims his Barisma gig was patriotic duty. "Mr Foreign Policy" was strong arming for Ukrainian and European energy independence from Russia - along with wetting his beak. The Nord Stream attack was part of that equation. The Swamp was working to cut off Russia's financial future.

This doesn't excuse a Russian invasion any more than our oil embargo excused Pearl Harbor. But it's disingenuous to frame our role in the conflict as a valiant knight just happening by a distressed damsel besieged by the red bear.

fc2112 said:

---

But Ukraine is historically part of Russia. It's not the same thing as is, say Russia invaded Poland.

If Ukraine wants to be independent of Russia, they need to find a way to live with Russia.

Ukraine is more like Texas would be if we seceded from the US.

---

Ukraine overwhelmingly voted for independence in 1991 and it was formally recognized by Russia with no conditions. From that point on Ukraine was a free and sovereign nation.

Quote:

---

Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship.

---

Not to pop your balloon Mr. Chamberlain, but Ukraine is not ours to give. Ownership is a necessary precondition to ceding ownership.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship.

---

Not to pop your balloon Mr. Chamberlain, but Ukraine is not ours to give. Ownership is a necessary precondition to ceding ownership.

---

Practically and pragmatically speaking, it's Russia's to take if we recognize full annexation of Russia's claims and decline to support any guarantees that would present future barriers to Russia. Effectively "Giving it", in all but name. Semantics.

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship.

---

Not to pop your balloon Mr. Chamberlain, but Ukraine is not ours to give. Ownership is a necessary precondition to ceding ownership.

---

Practically and pragmatically speaking, it's Russia's to take if we recognize full annexation of Russia's claims and decline to support any guarantees that would present future barriers to Russia. Effectively "Giving it", in all but name. Semantics.

---

It's not semantics if they can't take it.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship.

---

Not to pop your balloon Mr. Chamberlain, but Ukraine is not ours to give. Ownership is a necessary precondition to ceding ownership.

---

Practically and pragmatically speaking, it's Russia's to take if we recognize full annexation of Russia's claims and decline to support any guarantees that would present future barriers to Russia. Effectively "Giving it", in all but name. Semantics.

---

It's not semantics if they can't take it.

---

I hesitate to believe that Ukraine can hold off Russia long term without US support. If Ukraine spurns whatever deal Trump works out with Putin then their resources will almost certainly dwindle quite quickly.

Teslag said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

But Ukraine is historically part of Russia. It's not the same thing as is, say Russia invaded Poland.

If Ukraine wants to be independent of Russia, they need to find a way to live with Russia.

Ukraine is more like Texas would be if we seceded from the US.

---

Ukraine overwhelmingly voted for independence in 1991 and it was formally recognized by Russia with no conditions. From that point on Ukraine was a free and sovereign nation.

---

Apparently they are not because 1/3 of their country is out if their control

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship.

---

Not to pop your balloon Mr. Chamberlain, but Ukraine is not ours to give. Ownership is a necessary precondition to ceding ownership.

---

You dont think we haven't financed UKE and whats left of their country at this point?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I think Europe should guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in a separate agreement outside of NATO. Otherwise Russia will be tempted to recoup what it sees it "lost" in the upcoming treaty in the future.

---

Nope. That is for Europe to do.

If Europe wants to protect Ukraine then they better ****ing do it.

The US has to worry about China and keeping them from global hegemony. We can't do that and protect Europe's backyard at the same time.

They need to do some of their own goddam heavy lifting for once.

---

Well said, Not our war not our problem. America first.

---

Meanwhile, Trump: "We're going to take Gaza"

So is it America first? or no new wars? or...how do we slogan this contradiction?


Also, Hegseth saying that NATO is off the table and re-establishing borders from 2014 is not happening...why is he just giving away negotiating chips with Russia? Why concede these in public if Trump just started his negotiations with Putin?

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

But Ukraine is historically part of Russia. It's not the same thing as is, say Russia invaded Poland.

If Ukraine wants to be independent of Russia, they need to find a way to live with Russia.

Ukraine is more like Texas would be if we seceded from the US.

---

Ukraine overwhelmingly voted for independence in 1991 and it was formally recognized by Russia with no conditions. From that point on Ukraine was a free and sovereign nation.

---

Apparently they are not because 1/3 of their country is out if their control

---

It's 1/5. At least get the math right when trying to be so wrong.

Teslag said:

---

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

But Ukraine is historically part of Russia. It's not the same thing as is, say Russia invaded Poland.

If Ukraine wants to be independent of Russia, they need to find a way to live with Russia.

Ukraine is more like Texas would be if we seceded from the US.

---

Ukraine overwhelmingly voted for independence in 1991 and it was formally recognized by Russia with no conditions. From that point on Ukraine was a free and sovereign nation.

---

Apparently they are not because 1/3 of their country is out if their control

---

It's 1/5. At least get the math right when trying it be so wrong.

---

Is the last sentence English or did you translate it from an Ukraine website?

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship.

---

Not to pop your balloon Mr. Chamberlain, but Ukraine is not ours to give. Ownership is a necessary precondition to ceding ownership.

---

Practically and pragmatically speaking, it's Russia's to take if we recognize full annexation of Russia's claims and decline to support any guarantees that would present future barriers to Russia. Effectively "Giving it", in all but name. Semantics.

---

It's not semantics if they can't take it.

---

I hesitate to believe that Ukraine can hold off Russia long term without US support. If Ukraine spurns whatever deal Trump works out with Putin then their resources will almost certainly dwindle quite quickly.

---

And it would still be their right and prerogative to do so, as well as not within our power or authority to give away their sovereignty.

That's also the same bet that most would have made about the colonials defeating the British. But yet here we are.

The Ukrainians aren't asking for a peace deal. The notion of forcing one on them because some people don't think they can win is despicable.

You are right. Ukraine can tell us to pound sand. They do it then we cut off all funding to them. They can fight without screaming for us to send them more.

Ukraine will need security guaranties from us going forward as part of a deal so they will play nice with a deal.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship.

---

Not to pop your balloon Mr. Chamberlain, but Ukraine is not ours to give. Ownership is a necessary precondition to ceding ownership.

---

Practically and pragmatically speaking, it's Russia's to take if we recognize full annexation of Russia's claims and decline to support any guarantees that would present future barriers to Russia. Effectively "Giving it", in all but name. Semantics.

---

It's not semantics if they can't take it.

---

I hesitate to believe that Ukraine can hold off Russia long term without US support. If Ukraine spurns whatever deal Trump works out with Putin then their resources will almost certainly dwindle quite quickly.

---

And it would still be their right and prerogative to do so, as well as not within our power or authority to give away their sovereignty.

That's also the same bet that most would have made about the colonials defeating the British. But yet here we are.

The Ukrainians aren't asking for a peace deal. The notion of forcing one on them because some people don't think they can win is despicable.

---

The colonials had quite a bit of assistance, namely from France. You remove French, Spanish, and Dutch financial assistance from the equation and the revolution likely would have concluded quite differently.

Those countries saw sufficient benefit in the colonies prevailing that they maintained a sufficient level of support, primarily via loans. We clearly no longer see any benefit in Ukraine prevailing, therefore it seems to have been deemed to be in our interest to ensure a favorable outcome for ourselves.

A positive relationship with Russia would also seem to have been deemed part of that positive outcome, and of greater strategic importance than a relationship with Ukraine.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I think Europe should guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in a separate agreement outside of NATO. Otherwise Russia will be tempted to recoup what it sees it "lost" in the upcoming treaty in the future.

---

Nope. That is for Europe to do.

If Europe wants to protect Ukraine then they better ****ing do it.

The US has to worry about China and keeping them from global hegemony. We can't do that and protect Europe's backyard at the same time.

They need to do some of their own goddam heavy lifting for once.

---

You don't get it. We don't negotiate for their rare earth metals (in eastern Ukraine near the fighting) and not guarantee their safety. We don't get them without it.

That's why it's hilarious to see the first couple of pages of this thread. This place is nothing but parroting talking points without understanding anything.

Teslag said:

---

Ukraine will need security guaranties from us going forward as part of a deal so they will play nice with a deal.

---

I don't foresee any US backed security guarantees resulting, based on the way things appear to be proceeding at this juncture.

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Quote:

---

Essentially giving them Ukraine as an initial overture would go a long way towards brokering the beginnings of that relationship.

---

Not to pop your balloon Mr. Chamberlain, but Ukraine is not ours to give. Ownership is a necessary precondition to ceding ownership.

---

You dont think we haven't financed UKE and whats left of their country at this point?

---

We've apparently financed every third world country and Hamas.

Hasn't done crap for us or changed ownership. That's a really simple minded take.

AgLA06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

I think Europe should guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in a separate agreement outside of NATO. Otherwise Russia will be tempted to recoup what it sees it "lost" in the upcoming treaty in the future.

---

Nope. That is for Europe to do.

If Europe wants to protect Ukraine then they better ****ing do it.

The US has to worry about China and keeping them from global hegemony. We can't do that and protect Europe's backyard at the same time.

They need to do some of their own goddam heavy lifting for once.

---

You don't get it. We don't negotiate for their rare earth metals (in eastern Ukraine near the fighting) and not guarantee their safety. We don't get them without it.

That's why it's hilarious to see the first couple of pages of this thread. This place is nothing but parroting talking points without understanding anything.

---

The **** we don't