Putin is taking an L. This posturing helps him save some face to take that L. Zelensky needs to realize he's never gonna kick Russia out. They are getting a piece and always were. Zelensky gets to keep his job as long as there is war. Beware of a leader in that position. What an idiotic constitution built to motivate its leader to engage in endless war

TheNotoriousP.I.P. said:

---

The United States used to fight wars to protect free peoples from invading forces. Some of them against the very same aggressor that now threatens Ukraine. And we did this because it was morally right to do so. If you are not disgusted by our leader openly bullying the leader of a defensive country and saddling up to minimize the atrocities of the aggressor, then I don't know what to tell you. We shouldn't base our wars and military support off of what benefits us monetarily, we should base them off of what's right and what's wrong. Why else are we spending by far the most money on military advancements if not to defend free peoples where they are threatened?

---

This is painfully naive. "It's morally right!" is what the military industrial complex and their congressional stooges scream before they drag us into endless quagmires that waste American lives and money for nothing (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq). Or in this case, risk world War 3 over some ethnically Russian territories that don't even want to be part of Ukraine.

Yes, Putin is a murderous psycho just as you'd expect from a former KGB officer, but make a compelling case for why it's morally right to drag out a war + risk a catastrophic escalation to help Ukraine retake Crimea. Go on and tell me what you'd tell the parents of the young American boys we'd send to die over there wresting it from Russian forces. "Your son died to protect freedom, which is why we... ignored the wishes/freedom of a bunch of ethnic Russians on the other side of the world and forced them to rejoin Ukraine? Anyway, here's a folded American flag."

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

Not sure if you've answered this before but why are you so afraid of Russia? They aren't even close to being our enemy anymore.

Teslag said:

---

I think it's clear Putin completely miscalculated which president to invade under. Had Trump been president in 2022 he'd have just berated Zelenskyy into instantly surrendering the entire country without a fight.

---

Zelenskyy is probably learning that it's easier to surrender an entire country than to try and go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump in an argument. The man is relentless.

Teslag said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

---

Bad analogy.

It's more like the small kid just took a swing at you for trying breaking it up.

And you send him away to cool down. He is too emotional to be rational is needlessly getting others killed.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

TheNotoriousP.I.P. said:

---

The United States used to fight wars to protect free peoples from invading forces. Some of them against the very same aggressor that now threatens Ukraine. And we did this because it was morally right to do so. If you are not disgusted by our leader openly bullying the leader of a defensive country and saddling up to minimize the atrocities of the aggressor, then I don't know what to tell you. We shouldn't base our wars and military support off of what benefits us monetarily, we should base them off of what's right and what's wrong. Why else are we spending by far the most money on military advancements if not to defend free peoples where they are threatened?

---

The U.S. also invaded Iraq, stayed in Afghanistan for 20 years too long, screwed up in Vietnam, conducted many covert activities to overthrow regimes, which led to disasters. Yeah, the U.S. post WWII has really held the moral high ground.

"We shouldn't base our wars and military support off of what benefits us monetarily, we should base them off of what's right and what's wrong."
- what? We should absolutely base our decisions on our national security, which includes our economy.

---

"Leading the Free World" carries with it a bit of responsibility, and part of what aids our economy and security is American hegemony. We like to think of ourselves as "the good guys," which means adhering to some sense of morality, decency, and defense of our values. Values can count as currency too, in the political realm. Many Ukrainians bristled at the mineral deal that fell apart today, as it would ultimately make them vassals of the USA, but stated they would prefer to be colonized by us rather than the Russians, because of who we are.

Yes we have problems at home that need addressing, but that doesn't mean that we should neglect the rest of the world in the process, if we wish to remain THE dominant power in the world. If isolationism is what we want, we should at least understand that that comes at a cost too, and part of that cost will be allowing near-peers to become peers, with equal shares of power and prestige, seeking things like undermining the dollar as the most powerful reserve currency. Having powerful peers also makes large-scale conflict more likely, as peers will feel more emboldened to flex for a bigger portion of the global pie.

Jbob04 said:

---

Not sure if you've answered this before but why are you so afraid of Russia? They aren't even close to being our enemy anymore.

---

Who said I'm afraid of them? I've said repeatedly that they are a shell of who they were. And I'm not entirely convinced we even still need to arm Ukraine to keep them in a stalemate.

Jbob04 said:

---

Not sure if you've answered this before but why are you so afraid of Russia? They aren't even close to being our enemy anymore.

---

Seriously. Paper tiger who, in spite of all efforts, can only capture a sliver of a former soviet state - which said sliver is full of ethnic russians.

Zobel said:

---

Russia succeeding in Ukraine comes with a much bigger potential for WWIII than ongoing stalemate in Ukraine. In fact, the longer the stalemate goes on, the lower the probability of a Russian aggressor conflict goes.

---

I have a prediction. The narrative that Russia winning the war is inevitable is completely false. They are currently losing in a spectacular fashion and there is little evidence they can win even without our help. Vance was rambling about how Ukraine needs to mobilize more people but Russia has just as big a manpower problem. They are using North Koreans to make up for manpower shortages because Putin knows if he does another round of mobilization he is probably done for.

Of course I believed yesterday that Trump was going to pull a rabbit out of his hat with this negotiation so what the hell do I know.

Tell Zelensky he can stay on his side of the pond and turn to countries over there for help and support. It is not our war and at least they are in the neighborhood.

He wouldn't have green lighted the invasion like Biden did with his lukewarm warnings to Putin.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

Not sure if you've answered this before but why are you so afraid of Russia? They aren't even close to being our enemy anymore.

---

Seriously. Paper tiger who, in spite of all efforts, can only capture a sliver of a former soviet state - which said sliver is full of ethnic russians.

---

rootube said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Russia succeeding in Ukraine comes with a much bigger potential for WWIII than ongoing stalemate in Ukraine. In fact, the longer the stalemate goes on, the lower the probability of a Russian aggressor conflict goes.

---

I have a prediction. The narrative that Russia winning the war is inevitable is completely false. They are currently losing in a spectacular fashion and there is little evidence they can win even without our help. Vance was rambling about how Ukraine needs to mobilize more people but Russia has just as big a manpower problem. They are using North Koreans to make up for manpower shortages because Putin knows if he does another round of mobilization he is probably done for.

Of course I believed yesterday that Trump was going to pull a rabbit out of his hat with this negotiation so what the hell do I know.

---

Depends on your definition of winning, relative to each side.

I think putin/russia will consider it an win if they keep what they have.

I think many will consider it a loss if ukriane losses territory to russia. Zelenskyy clearly feels that way.

Old McDonald said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the way trump has handled ukraine so far is roosevelt urging churchill to sue hitler for peace on any terms, and demanding england's coal reserves in return. shameful.

---

You have no plan other than Trump bad give Ukraine money. That's shameful

---

and trump has no plan other than give putin what he wants and hope he doesn't do it again. unamerican and cowardly.

---

I thought Putin wanted Ukraine. Didn't realize Trump was giving it to him.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

---

Bad analogy.

It's more like the small kid just took a swing at you for trying breaking it up.

---

Understandable when you tell the little kid that the bully gets to keep the shoes and lunch money he stole from you but it's ok because he promises he won't do it again.

If you want to end this then there has to be something in place that gives Ukraine a reason not to feel like they're just selling out for a slow death instead of a fighting chance (slim as it might be).

mallen said:

---

Zelensky is a hero, Trump and Vance are imbeciles.

---

Did not realize there were 191 people (blue stars) that don't know the horrors of war. It is not pleasant I assure you. Zelensky is not trying to end it.

Looks like somebody is profiting from this conflict!

Putin wants far more than what they have now

Teslag said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

---

I think it's more like it's ending with the biggest kid telling the kid to lay there until he's done negotiating with the bully on how it ends.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

by threatening Russia, we run the risk of getting into a hot war with them or furthering the current war.

---

This sounds exactly like the Democrats crying over Reagan referring to the Russians as the evil empire. Reagan called them the carpet. He wasn't afraid of them. I don't know why Trump is.

---

You are conflating two very different things here. At that point in time, the Russians and the US were at odds with each other directly. The insults in the threats were coming from a conflict that was between us and them

This isn't about us, it's about Ukraine. That's what I think A lot of people don't understand. If Putin directly threatens the US, then I expect Trump to go after him, and what about his past behavior would make you think he wouldn't?

This marrying of Ukraine being a part of the US just isn't correct. that's what most people need to understand. This has nothing to do with us

It's really hard to say what Russia's manpower issues are, or how many troops they've actually lost. But one thing we do know for certain, Russia has more troops to lose, and in war that usually determines the winner.

Quote:

---

This lie right here needs to die in a fire. There were NO security guarantees in the deal. Zero. None. Zilch. Absolutely nothing in writing. Zelenskyy was on board with the monies. He NEEDs the security guarantees and after the hell Ukraine has gone through in the last generation, I do not blame him. Hell, I agree with him.

---

While technically speaking the mineral rights deal is not a literal "security guarantee," it is the closest that Ukraine is going to be able to get that mimics the dynamics of a literal "security guarantee."

In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, the mineral rights deal will not only constitute long-term US investment and economic interest in Ukraine (in a way that actually benefits us), with all the US assets and (non-military) personnel physically on the ground in Ukraine, it will still serve as a deterrent, albeit a lesser one than NATO membership, to future Russian military aggression. It's not a perfect comparison, but it mimics to a degree the dynamics of The Berlin Airlift in that it would shift the onus of starting WW3 back onto the Russians if they chose to attack Ukraine again.

Combine that with a commitment by all parties to Ukrainian neutrality, and a demilitarized zone along the negotiated border garrisoned by a combination of European and Turkish troops (not covered under NATO Article V); that's the absolute best realistic "security guarantee" Ukraine is going to get.

The kind of security guarantee that I believe you're referring to, one in writing that commits US military forces to going to war against Russia, is simply not going to happen. Not only will the American people (not to mention the Trump Administration) not agree to it, more importantly Russia will never agree to it under any circumstances, for it would be the de facto equivalent of NATO membership.

Remember, Putin also has to sell whatever he agrees to to both the competing political factions within Russia, not to mention his own people. While there's no way he can agree to NATO membership, he may be able to get away with acknowledging Trump's mineral rights deal, which will have the effect of a lesser de facto security guarantee.

The other main benefit of Trump's mineral rights deal, is that it is leverage that Trump/Zelensky can use in negotiations to perhaps get Putin to agree to slightly more favorable for Ukraine territorial settlements in Eastern Ukraine, as what's left of Ukraine would have to have access to some of those resources in the east to be able to fulfil its obligations to the United States under the mineral rights deal.

Teslag said:

---

Putin wants far more than what they have now

---

Okay. So what. Then they can both be considered losers. Or both be considered winners. Its doesnt matter to me

Its pretty clear to me that, based on the response from today's meeting, if the war ended today with Russia maintaining what it has today, putin would be a winner despite whatever he thinks of the situation.


Its also clear Zelensky wants what he can not have- his land back. Thats gone and it won't come back without american or european boots on the ground

BQ78 said:

---

He wouldn't have green lighted the invasion like Biden did with his lukewarm warnings to Putin.

---

And we can get a pretty good idea of how Putin perceived those warnings from Biden...

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

---

Grow up. We're not going to hold productive peace negotiations with Russia if our representatives go excoriate Russia in the press every time they get up from the negotiating table.

Here's reality: Whether you think it's bull**** or not (and I tend to think it's bull****), Russia/Putin felt like they had to invade Ukraine to maintain their national security. Therefore, any fruitful negotiation must acknowledge and accommodate that belief. You have to say "yes I can see where you're coming from" and at minimum convincingly act like you mean it. The peace negotiations MUST address those security concerns in some way and you initially do that by acting like you're taking him seriously.

That's why Z sounded like such a dumbass today. He knows that's what we have to do but instead of sitting there like an adult, he threw a tantrum over it like a toddler.

---

Imagine Reagan telling his staff to be nice to Russia and not upset them. Jeez weve fallen far.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Teslag said:

---

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I think it's clear Putin completely miscalculated which president to invade under. Had Trump been president in 2022 he'd have just berated Zelenskyy into instantly surrendering the entire country without a fight.

---

Dude, you are usually right about a lot of stuff, but you are overly emotional about the war in Ukraine.

---

It's not emotional at all. And again stop attacking posters instead of their arguments so we don't get this thread locked again.

What have you seen out of Trump to think he would threaten Russia with any consequences in 2022?

---

He kicked the crap out of ISIS in a year and nearly went to war with Little Rocket Man during his first term. He was a deterrent, which is why Putin stayed at bay, so your hypothetical argument is moot anyway.

---

Except Putin literally attacked an American base while he was president. And did nothing to respond.

---

Two separate arguments and a complete logical fallacy.

---

I can add some more. There is strong evidence that Russia paid bounties to the Afghans for killing US servicemen in Afganastan. There is strong evidence that Russia recently harmed US state department employees in Cuba and Europe. Russia is our enemy. There is no doubt about that fact. Every single time we have fought a war since WWII it was against an adversary armed with Russian weapons. Do you think thats a coincidence?

Its not the same world.

How would you help end this conflict if you were president?

mallen, you are showing your true marxist democrat colors. Where would z be without us? z is also a marxist.

Rossticus said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

---

Bad analogy.

It's more like the small kid just took a swing at you for trying breaking it up.

---

Understandable when you tell the little kid that the bully gets to keep the shoes and lunch money he stole from you but it's ok because he promises he won't do it again.

If you want to end this then there has to be something in place that gives Ukraine a reason not to feel like they're just selling out for a slow death instead of a fighting chance (slim as it might be).

---

Ukraine is not in a position to make terms. Only we are. Do you want WW3? Then they aren't getting the land back. That was our fault. Biden's really.

But at the end of the day you break up the fighting before more people die needlessly over a war that is already over. Without US boots on the ground its over.

Time to make for peace. Sometimes when you get jumped in the ally you break up the fight and live to fight another day even if the bully took your wallet and your watch. Just the reality of life. Time to move on.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Its not the same world.

How would you help end this conflict if you were president?

---

Well for starters I wouldn't lay my cards down in the media at all. And if I did I'd let both sides know that they will have to give up something. And I sure as **** wouldn't play the innocent mediator that doesn't blame either side.

Russia doesn't have a lot of cards either. And yet we keep handling them with kid gloves. Trump once said that he'd get a deal and said that if Russia didn't play along he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth. And now he literally can't say a single negative thing about them.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Putin wants far more than what they have now

---

Okay. So what. Then they can both be considered losers. Or both be considered winners. Its doesnt matter to me

Its pretty clear to me that, based on the response from today's meeting, if the war ended today with Russia maintaining what it has today, putin would be a winner despite whatever he thinks of the situation.


Its also clear Zelensky wants what he can not have- his land back. Thats gone and it won't come back without american or european boots on the ground

---

That's not clear at all. He wants security guarantees so he won't be back here again in four years. Like the last two times he made deals with the US and Russia.