Zobel said:

---

The deal depends on what we're getting. Access to 50% of future revenue in a development fund for an unknown value of unproven resources that may take twenty years to materialize - contingent upon the risk dropping to the point where the assets will be developed by companies - is hardly a lucrative, sure-fire bet. Especially when you consider that in the "best case" scenario for this deal there are a lot of Americans on the ground, in an area of extreme strategic interest to Russia. Now suddenly an area where we have only "sphere of influence" interests - basically energy and risk to our allies in the region - we have actual, no-kidding tangible interests. And a country where even a color revolution was taken as extreme hostility developing deep and lasting economic ties with western Europe and the US is absolutely going to be seen as aggression by Russia. I would argue that supplying the ukrainian military with arms and money used to kill Russians is an act of aggression. Not so much as putting troops on the ground, but aggressive nonetheless.

On the other hand, if your goal is de-fanging the warmaking abilities of the Russian Federation, $150bn and zero American lives lost is a pretty good deal. I'd also say this is the only benefit I could come up with to justify spending the money. But it wasn't the goal, it was a side benefit. And it worked to a point, but those benefits are no longer paying off. Ukraine is out of soldiers to inflict that kind of pain, so the continued funding to justify this result is not on the table anymore. They want more money, they need to provide a new reason to give it to them

I'm not saying President Trump doesn't have the prerogative to negotiate whatever deal he cares to. But we're all adults, let's call a spade a spade. Our signing up for 50% of all future government owned resource-related revenue is not generous, or gift, and I fail to see how it increases Ukranian leverage - only our own. I cant see why we need to be increasing Ukranian leverage at all. We no longer have an interest in doing so. We tried it, ultimately didn't work. Ukraine can't win. I'd argue they've done all they can do, so even if you can justify our actions to this point, you can't any longer. It's why i think the mineral deal is more than fair. It's time to start considering what our real interested in the region are, if any

I don't want a resource colony in Eastern Europe. I don't want to be entangled there.] I don't necessarily disagree with this per se, but if that is the case we need to pull out all funding completely. If you can no longer justify being involved then it's time to cut ties. which is where i am.

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

50% of all of government own natural resources in perpetuity is generous?

---

It's a fund for joint investment in Ukraine. America makes money in investing in reconstruction.

It's not onerous at all. If anything it's a layup for America to show we have economic interest in rebuilding Ukraine.

Trump isn't going to take the minerals sold money to reinvest in America or anythingread your link.

Perpetuity is silly and you're painting the deal like some awful offer to Ukraine. It's a hook up.

---

It's extortion

Quote:

---

I would argue that supplying the ukrainian military with arms and money used to kill Russians is an act of aggression. Not so much as putting troops on the ground, but aggressive nonetheless.

---

Of course it is aggression. It's a proxy war, but we're supporting the defensive side. That's a "clean" move and its not the first time we've been involved in one, on either side.

Quote:

---

I'd also say this is the only benefit I could come up with to justify spending the money. But it wasn't the goal, it was a side benefit. And it worked to a point, but those benefits are no longer paying off. Ukraine is out of soldiers to inflict that kind of pain, so the continued funding to justify this result is not on the table anymore. They want more money, they need to provide a new reason to give it to them

---

I disagree. I think that once it became clear that Russia wasn't going to topple Kiev in a few days, the US saw a golden opportunity to attrit Russia. That's why we have put handcuffs on Ukraine, slow-rolled materiel, gave them restrictions on where they could use what. It's a blatantly obvious strategy: keep the war at a stalemate as long as possible to reduce Russia's capacity for making war.

Quote:

---

I cant see why we need to be increasing Ukranian leverage at all. We no longer have an interest in doing so. We tried it, ultimately didn't work. Ukraine can't win. I'd argue they've done all they can do, so even if you can justify our actions to this point, you can't any longer. It's why i think the mineral deal is more than fair.

---

Why do you say it "didn't work"? They're still willing to fight, Russia is no closer to victory today than they were two years ago. What is the cost to America of the status quo? Another $50bn in old equipment, which we will pay American companies to replenish with newer tech?* You say Ukraine can't win, I'd argue that Russia can't either - as long as our thumb is on the scale.

Do I want the war to end as an individual? Yes, absolutely -- today. But nations face different constraints and have different motivations and imperatives.

*I will say there's a very real possibility we actually can't keep up the arms shipments. We may have depleted all of our ready stock, which would definitely explain our actions right now. Just a possibility to consider.

Quote:

---

It's time to start considering what our real interested in the region are, if any...If you can no longer being involved then it's time to cut ties. which is where i am.

---

This is the only question that matters. I don't think the US has a coherent answer, which is why there's such chaos in the explanations.

Pick whatever you like

- Prevention of being drawn into a ground war via Article 5 from NATO after Russian attack on Romania or Poland
- Continued hegemony over the west
- Kneecapping of a rival power in Russia
- Pulling Russia into our sphere of influence away from China
- De-risking our exposure in Europe altogether
- Getting out of NATO altogether

What are our goals? I have no idea. But a lot of those actions carry much more risk than continuing to supply weapons to Ukraine.

Cutting ties doesn't automatically eliminate our risk in the region, unless we're willing to ignore an Article 5 attack on a NATO country. You could argue that inaction leading to victory in Ukraine makes that more likely, not less -- especially under a future administration with a weak / democrat president.

Zobel said:

---

So now that we're clear that, yes, the deal is in fact for 50% of all future revenue from government owned minerals and related infrastructure.

President Trump himself says "we've been able to make a deal where we're going to get our money back and we're going to get a lot of money in the future, and I think that's appropriate."

I think you're not reading the deal correctly - "The maximum percentage of ownership of the Fund's equity and financial interests to be held by the Government of the United States of America and the decision-making authority of the representatives of the Government of the United States of America will be to the extent permissible under applicable United States laws."


I don't see how permanently taking half of all mineral revenue from a country isn't "onerous at all". And as the agreement stands now - which of course isn't finalized - it is open ended. "Future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets" is perpetuity.

---

I never said otherwise. I said you were making things up saying we are taking half in perpetuity. We are reinvesting in a fund for rebuilding infrastructure. That could be in American companies operating in foreign countries.

What that deal doesn't say is we are taking it and spending on whatever we want. As a matter of fact, your link literally says both sides have to agree in the investment.

So your suggestion was wrong. And whether onerous or not, that's an opinion, and a bad one if you are a reasonable person and took the time to read your own link.

I trust President Trump when he says the purpose of the deal is to repay the US for our involvement and make us a lot of money.

Zobel said:

---

I trust President Trump when he says the purpose of the deal is to repay the US for our involvement and make us a lot of money.

---

Lots of ways to do that which aren't what you suggested (us just taking the money) and certainly not stated in the confines of that agreement.

Trump would likely take that half and get it invested in paying US operators to do services in Ukraine

If we have large scale corporate activity there you can bet that gives us enough interest in the country to dissuade Russia from invading again.

Zelensky is getting bad advice from the left who thinks they can goad trump Into staying in this conflict.

in order to not keep quoting each others posts and turning this thread into a version of war and peace i'll say one more thing:

The hurt that was put on the Russian military is the only benefit I think we can claim from this whole mess. Were they weak to begin with? Likely so. So I'll capitulate that point to you. But now, it's when, not if, they will eventually overtake the Ukrainian military.

But you spoke of Ukraine wanting the keep up the fighting. It's pretty clear they can't anymore. By all metrics and reporting they're out of fighters. Where they are now is as far as they're going get. So an off ramp
is needed. And Trump is clearly working for that. He knows the deal even if Z doesn't. And I have my suspicions as to why Z wants to keep up the fight, but doing so is going to doom his country at best, and start World War III at worst. This is why, way back on this thread, I said I really dislike and distrust him. And that goes back to our discussion about the mineral deal. To me, it's more than fair, for 2 reasons:

1. we can attempt to recoup a small percentage of the hundreds of billions

2 it gives us a reason, the ONLY reason, to justify continued support of Ukraine, if that's the track the administration chooses to take. If not, then we literally have no reason to stay involved

The money can't stay in Ukraine and pay back the US at the same time.

If it's such a great thing, we should make it reciprocal.

And putting US civilians between Ukraine and Russia in a strategic hot spot is not my idea of a good time. No thanks.

john_football said:

---

Massive and potentially decisive information warfare victory for Russia. Their payloads landed and their narratives are now dominant.

---

The sickening part is how transparent it is and how willingly the targets eat it up.

I don't even understand how that happens. It genuinely boggles the mind.

Zelensky clearly laid out the reasons a simple ceasefire won't work. People ignore it completely even though it's indisputable. I genuinely do not understand it.

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

50% of all of government own natural resources in perpetuity is generous?

---

It's a fund for joint investment in Ukraine. America makes money in investing in reconstruction.

It's not onerous at all. If anything it's a layup for America to show we have economic interest in rebuilding Ukraine.

Trump isn't going to take the minerals sold money to reinvest in America or anythingread your link.

Perpetuity is silly and you're painting the deal like some awful offer to Ukraine. It's a hook up.

---

It's extortion

---

What exactly is extortion?

Zobel said:

---

The money can't stay in Ukraine and pay back the US at the same time.

If it's such a great thing, we should make it reciprocal.

And putting US civilians between Ukraine and Russia in a strategic hot spot is not my idea of a good time. No thanks.

---

It can be an investment in Ukrainian reconstruction while paying us companies to build/set up infrastructure such as pipelines and mining sites.

Zobel said:

---

The money can't stay in Ukraine and pay back the US at the same time.

If it's such a great thing, we should make it reciprocal.

And putting US civilians between Ukraine and Russia in a strategic hot spot is not my idea of a good time. No thanks.

---

How much they payin?

Waffledynamics said:

---

john_football said:

---

Massive and potentially decisive information warfare victory for Russia. Their payloads landed and their narratives are now dominant.

---

The sickening part is how transparent it is and how willingly the targets eat it up.

I don't even understand how that happens. It genuinely boggles the mind.

Zelensky clearly laid out the reasons a simple ceasefire won't work. People ignore it completely even though it's indisputable. I genuinely do not understand it.

---

I think Z himself outlined like 30+ cases of where RU violated ceasefires and broken pacts to Trump during that infamous meeting. Guess it wasn't effective in the end.

ShaggySLC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The money can't stay in Ukraine and pay back the US at the same time.

If it's such a great thing, we should make it reciprocal.

And putting US civilians between Ukraine and Russia in a strategic hot spot is not my idea of a good time. No thanks.

---

How much they payin?

---

Depending on where I am in life, I may head over for the UXO and demining phase. Pay will be...... considerable if it was anything like it was in the past.

About right:

UKRAINE: Zelensky, he goes to Europe and a lot of our European friends puff him up. They say you know, you're a freedom fighter. You need to keep fighting forever.

h/t @WesternLensman pic.twitter.com/uHEdY4BGV1

— @amuse (@amuse) March 4, 2025

john_football said:

---

Massive and potentially decisive information warfare victory for Russia. Their payloads landed and their narratives are now dominant.

---

Whats up shanked, err Mike tomlin, err a dozen previous handles?

backintexas2013 said:

---

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

50% of all of government own natural resources in perpetuity is generous?

---

It's a fund for joint investment in Ukraine. America makes money in investing in reconstruction.

It's not onerous at all. If anything it's a layup for America to show we have economic interest in rebuilding Ukraine.

Trump isn't going to take the minerals sold money to reinvest in America or anythingread your link.

Perpetuity is silly and you're painting the deal like some awful offer to Ukraine. It's a hook up.

---

It's extortion

---

What exactly is extortion?

---

How about forcing a Mineral Rights deal that is 4 times the dollars that we've given Ukraine.

Supporting a nation fighting for its survival against an imperialist dictator should not be contingent on them essentially dumping their entire economy into the United States hands.

The deal also requires them to pay back double the price of future aid? A 100 percent loan? Who would agree to that.

If you can't see how that's extortion I don't know what to tell you. It makes us no better than Russia - instead of physically pillaging their country we'd financially be doing it.

Ukraine isn't going to be building/rebuilding the infrastructure, much less extracting the resources on a meaningful scale, unless foreign investors front basically all of the startup capital... and if anyone other than the USA does it they're going to be demanding way, way more than the 50/50 split proposed in this deal.

They have the option of asking Europe to broker them a deal if they don't like our offer. Extortion would be if we were there only option, which we aren't.

Agreed. The United States should not be any part of the equation. Ukraine needs to figure it out and we'll just watch the news.

Waffledynamics said:

---

john_football said:

---

Massive and potentially decisive information warfare victory for Russia. Their payloads landed and their narratives are now dominant.

---

The sickening part is how transparent it is and how willingly the targets eat it up.

I don't even understand how that happens. It genuinely boggles the mind.

Zelensky clearly laid out the reasons a simple ceasefire won't work. People ignore it completely even though it's indisputable. I genuinely do not understand it.

---

Great, only way Ukraine can obtain a positive outcome is if the US sends its troops over there. You going on the next flight, right?

Oh, you want someone else to fight for you?

I guess looking at reality is now a Russian narrative? All the pro-Ukrainian people want to do is squabble about who started the war and other moral justifications for fighting. They never want to look at the reality on the ground and how the war will end and the consequences. Don't believe me? Go look at our own pro-uke war thread. For a couple years now it's been all military tech talk, nothing about actual strategy. That's because Ukraine has no strategy to win the war, it's over.

Quote:

---

$350B given away at a time when we are deeply in debt and can't afford it needs to be recouped somehow.

---

But it wasn't even close to $350B.

Quote:

---

Zelensky wants the war to never end, and Joe Biden could have easily stopped the war in its first month by agreeing to the Istanbul Accords.

---

The Istanbul Accords were just surrender package as "peace". Ukraine would have given up a lot that they later took back from Russia. And won't now lose in any deal or continued fighting.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

$350B given away at a time when we are deeply in debt and can't afford it needs to be recouped somehow.

---

But it wasn't even close to $350B.

---

182.8 billion just since 2022: https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/#:~:text=Congress%20appropriated%20%24174.2%20billion%20through,other%2C%20primarily%20humanitarian%2C%20purposes.

No idea how much we've funded them prior to 2022, but based on what we are learning about USAID, I'm sure sits in the billions going back years and years.

We are throwing good money after bad. If Zelensky refuses to even come to the table to talk about a ceasefire, why should we keep funding an unwinnable war??? This is insane no matter what side you are on.

rgag12 said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

john_football said:

---

Massive and potentially decisive information warfare victory for Russia. Their payloads landed and their narratives are now dominant.

---

The sickening part is how transparent it is and how willingly the targets eat it up.

I don't even understand how that happens. It genuinely boggles the mind.

Zelensky clearly laid out the reasons a simple ceasefire won't work. People ignore it completely even though it's indisputable. I genuinely do not understand it.

---

Great, only way Ukraine can obtain a positive outcome is if the US sends its troops over there. You going on the next flight, right?

Oh, you want someone else to fight for you?

I guess looking at reality is now a Russian narrative? All the pro-Ukrainian people want to do is squabble about who started the war and other moral justifications for fighting. They never want to look at the reality on the ground and how the war will end and the consequences. Don't believe me? Go look at our own pro-uke war thread. For a couple years now it's been all military tech talk, nothing about actual strategy. That's because Ukraine has no strategy to win the war, it's over.

---

Tell me how the war being "over" means that Ukraine can't have an equitable peace agreement.

Not ONCE has Trump demanded some form of concession on the part of Russia.

It's all been "You can't win" "You have no choice" "You'd be dead in two weeks without us" to Zelensky and Ukraine.

Why on Earth should Zelensky think Trump is a good faith negotiator when he hasn't even remotely made express demands for Russia to make concessions.

When did demanding an equitable peace become irrational. I don't get it.

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

john_football said:

---

Massive and potentially decisive information warfare victory for Russia. Their payloads landed and their narratives are now dominant.

---

The sickening part is how transparent it is and how willingly the targets eat it up.

I don't even understand how that happens. It genuinely boggles the mind.

Zelensky clearly laid out the reasons a simple ceasefire won't work. People ignore it completely even though it's indisputable. I genuinely do not understand it.

---

Great, only way Ukraine can obtain a positive outcome is if the US sends its troops over there. You going on the next flight, right?

Oh, you want someone else to fight for you?

I guess looking at reality is now a Russian narrative? All the pro-Ukrainian people want to do is squabble about who started the war and other moral justifications for fighting. They never want to look at the reality on the ground and how the war will end and the consequences. Don't believe me? Go look at our own pro-uke war thread. For a couple years now it's been all military tech talk, nothing about actual strategy. That's because Ukraine has no strategy to win the war, it's over.

---

Tell me how the war being "over" means that Ukraine can't have an equitable peace agreement.

Not ONCE has Trump demanded some form of concession on the part of Russia.

It's all been "You can't win" "You have no choice" "You'd be dead in two weeks without us" to Zelensky and Ukraine.

Why on Earth should Zelensky think Trump is a good faith negotiator when he hasn't even remotely made express demands for Russia to make concessions.

When did demanding an equitable peace become irrational. I don't get it.

---

We have no idea what they have demanded from Russia. 99% of this is all being negotiated behind closed doors.

What we do know is that Zelensky doesn't even want to talk peace. At all. Fine, I get it, but you can't make demands from one party if the other party has publicly said he doesn't want to negotiate a peace.

So where does that leave us? This war cannot be won unless everyone is willing to escalate it to WWIII.

We can't keep sending billions over to Ukraine for an unwinnable war.

I don't think Zelensky has said he doesn't want peace. He's negotiating too. The whole concept of a minerals deal originated with him, as far as I know. And, yeah, man of course we can keep spending billions on an unwinnable war. We spent trillions on an unwinnable war in the GWOT. This at least has been working.

Anyway, this is is a level headed take:

Finland's President is unbelievably eloquent and has obvious skin in the game — should be one of the leaders on Ukraine negotiations pic.twitter.com/cg3PEKRgLO

— Patrick Blumenthal (@PatrickJBlum) March 3, 2025

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

50% of all of government own natural resources in perpetuity is generous?

---

It's a fund for joint investment in Ukraine. America makes money in investing in reconstruction.

It's not onerous at all. If anything it's a layup for America to show we have economic interest in rebuilding Ukraine.

Trump isn't going to take the minerals sold money to reinvest in America or anythingread your link.

Perpetuity is silly and you're painting the deal like some awful offer to Ukraine. It's a hook up.

---

It's extortion

---

What exactly is extortion?

---

How about forcing a Mineral Rights deal that is 4 times the dollars that we've given Ukraine.

Supporting a nation fighting for its survival against an imperialist dictator should not be contingent on them essentially dumping their entire economy into the United States hands.

The deal also requires them to pay back double the price of future aid? A 100 percent loan? Who would agree to that.

If you can't see how that's extortion I don't know what to tell you. It makes us no better than Russia - instead of physically pillaging their country we'd financially be doing it.

---

You understand the implicit security guarantee that comes with the US benefiting via mineral rights don't you?

If we have American companies on the ground in Ukraine operating businesses to benefit both USA and Ukraine, do you think Russia is more or less likely to invade and risk a fight with the USA?

The ongoing deal benefits them because it's not just giving mineral rights, but it's also ongoing protection of their country...something Zelensky claims he cares about

He's already sold minerals and land to blackrock last year. I think the point of everything we are seeing is he was negotiating with Trump in bad faith.

ATM9000 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

LOL at Zelenskyy for showing up at the WH dressed like a custom character from Call of Duty.

Dude rolled in thinking because he was an entertainer he could go tit for tat with Trump (and Vance for that matter).

Wtf, over.

---

REPORTER to Zelensky: “Why don’t you wear a suit?! You’re in the highest level of this country’s office and you refuse to wear a suit. Do you own a suit?!”

“A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting this office.” pic.twitter.com/UOYgOizYMb

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 28, 2025

Somebody finally calls the dude out on this. This ain't a video game. Show up, and dress the part.

This is crazy, Guy thinks he's a comic book character. The more that come out about all this the more insane it is.

Zenensky showing up and coming at Trump makes about as much sense as the guy that tried to mess with Mike Tyson on a plane and got knocked out.

Z been drinking his own kool-aid. He thinks he a character in a movie. Such a wild scene that it makes you wonder if he MK-Ultra'ed.

Never seen anything like this guy.

An unbelievable course of events.

---

How do you feel about people showing up to Cabinet Meetings in Tech Support tshirts and ball caps?

---

Elon is not the leader of a nation groveling for money. Is that the best you got punkin??

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I would argue that supplying the ukrainian military with arms and money used to kill Russians is an act of aggression. Not so much as putting troops on the ground, but aggressive nonetheless.

---

Of course it is aggression. It's a proxy war, but we're supporting the defensive side. That's a "clean" move and its not the first time we've been involved in one, on either side.

Quote:

---

I'd also say this is the only benefit I could come up with to justify spending the money. But it wasn't the goal, it was a side benefit. And it worked to a point, but those benefits are no longer paying off. Ukraine is out of soldiers to inflict that kind of pain, so the continued funding to justify this result is not on the table anymore. They want more money, they need to provide a new reason to give it to them

---

I disagree. I think that once it became clear that Russia wasn't going to topple Kiev in a few days, the US saw a golden opportunity to attrit Russia. That's why we have put handcuffs on Ukraine, slow-rolled materiel, gave them restrictions on where they could use what. It's a blatantly obvious strategy: keep the war at a stalemate as long as possible to reduce Russia's capacity for making war.

Quote:

---

I cant see why we need to be increasing Ukranian leverage at all. We no longer have an interest in doing so. We tried it, ultimately didn't work. Ukraine can't win. I'd argue they've done all they can do, so even if you can justify our actions to this point, you can't any longer. It's why i think the mineral deal is more than fair.

---

Why do you say it "didn't work"? They're still willing to fight, Russia is no closer to victory today than they were two years ago. What is the cost to America of the status quo? Another $50bn in old equipment, which we will pay American companies to replenish with newer tech?* You say Ukraine can't win, I'd argue that Russia can't either - as long as our thumb is on the scale.

Do I want the war to end as an individual? Yes, absolutely -- today. But nations face different constraints and have different motivations and imperatives.

*I will say there's a very real possibility we actually can't keep up the arms shipments. We may have depleted all of our ready stock, which would definitely explain our actions right now. Just a possibility to consider.

Quote:

---

It's time to start considering what our real interested in the region are, if any...If you can no longer being involved then it's time to cut ties. which is where i am.

---

This is the only question that matters. I don't think the US has a coherent answer, which is why there's such chaos in the explanations.

Pick whatever you like

- Prevention of being drawn into a ground war via Article 5 from NATO after Russian attack on Romania or Poland
- Continued hegemony over the west
- Kneecapping of a rival power in Russia
- Pulling Russia into our sphere of influence away from China
- De-risking our exposure in Europe altogether
- Getting out of NATO altogether

What are our goals? I have no idea. But a lot of those actions carry much more risk than continuing to supply weapons to Ukraine.

Cutting ties doesn't automatically eliminate our risk in the region, unless we're willing to ignore an Article 5 attack on a NATO country. You could argue that inaction leading to victory in Ukraine makes that more likely, not less -- especially under a future administration with a weak / democrat president.

---

You seem to be analytical and intelligent in your argument. I predict that won't go over well here.

I voted for Trump and never believed in the Russia Russia Russia conspiracy, but Trump's rhetoric and actions sure don't go against the charge. I never thought I would see a Republican administration Kow-Tow to the Russians and potentially help them rebuild the Soviet Union. My god, get out of NATO? Peace through strength appears to be just a slogan. I believe we should have negotiated a peace deal long ago, but it doesn't start with us unilaterally giving Russia everything it wants.

Reading Kissinger's first memoir right now where every negotiation was thought out and there was a strategy that at is base was the trilateral relationship between Soviet Union, China and the USA. One of his strongest beliefs was never give up a negotiating chip without getting something for it first. It appears at this point we are handing over the country of Ukraine and getting nothing from Russia. It was his biggest complaint about the State Department who he complained that they negotiated with themselves. Offer something to show goodwill, if get nothing back, offer something else.

"To expect the Soviet leaders to restrain themselves from exploiting circumstances they conceive to be favorable is to misread history. To foreclose Soviet opportunities is thus the essence of the West's responsibility. It is up to us to define the limits of Soviet aims." Henry Kissinger

Putin's greatest goal is to bring back the Soviet Union in all its power and glory.

Clavell said:

---

I voted for Trump and never believed in the Russia Russia Russia conspiracy, but Trump's rhetoric and actions sure don't go against the charge. I never thought I would see a Republican administration Kow-Tow to the Russians and potentially help them rebuild the Soviet Union. My god, get out of NATO? Peace through strength appears to be just a slogan. I believe we should have negotiated a peace deal long ago, but it doesn't start with us unilaterally giving Russia everything it wants.

Reading Kissinger's first memoir right now where every negotiation was thought out and there was a strategy that at is base was the trilateral relationship between Soviet Union, China and the USA. One of his strongest beliefs was never give up a negotiating chip without getting something for it first. It appears at this point we are handing over the country of Ukraine and getting nothing from Russia. It was his biggest complaint about the State Department who he complained that they negotiated with themselves. Offer something to show goodwill, if get nothing back, offer something else.

"To expect the Soviet leaders to restrain themselves from exploiting circumstances they conceive to be favorable is to misread history. To foreclose Soviet opportunities is thus the essence of the West's responsibility. It is up to us to define the limits of Soviet aims." Henry Kissinger

Putin's greatest goal is to bring back the Soviet Union in all its power and glory.

---

The far right will come here to tell you that you are just an idiot. Won't reason with you. Oh and I believe what you said.

If Russia is so evil and so bad why does Europe keep buying gas from them? This entire thing is a farce.

And what's really sad and no one talks about this entire situation is a derivative of our foreign policy for the last 80 years. Which was crafted and guided by one single man…

Henry Kissinger. Who was a Polish Jew.

It's time we stop being guided about by the nose in mess that is Eastern Europe.
Everything we've done for the last 80 years is to be able to cheaply fund forever wars while bankrupting America. It's why we got off the gold standard. Every policy has been a detriment to the American people.

This Ukraine war is just another example in a looooong list of Americans getting screwed for the benefit of some foreign entity.

Trump is saying no more and Americans are crying about that? Brainwashed to no end.

Kissinger's lasting legacy is pretty negative, imho, though he opened relations with the Soviets and Chinese through his work. I've never met a Vietnam veteran who liked/respected him, though.

The Cold War is over, and nato is a threat to American peace and security (financial and otherwise), not a cornerstone of it.

"We will be at war in Ukraine for the next 70 years." I explained to @ASavageNation why even Trump striking a peace deal on favorable terms to the US will not satiate the Blob's demands for a trillion dollars in military funds to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/CUOaoVNnSV

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) January 7, 2025