*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (5 Viewers)

[Stoneworker]

Now try again while incorporating reality

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Hard things that take a long time often seem impossible at the start. Russia is very very weak. The fact that they cannot take Ukraine with literally every resource they have thrown into the fight tells you that. Keep pushing.

How well did the "keep pushing" strategy work in Vietnam and Afghanistan?

 

[eighsse2]

As you're seemingly admitting, you're going to have to make them do that. What method do you propose?

Supporting Ukraine for as long as they can oppose Russia seems like a really good, cost-effective start. What they've done for the last few years is working - they've stopped Russia cold. I don't know why we'd stop the count at this point given Ukraine can still fight and still wants to fight.

And IMO the investment there is worth every penny -- halting Russian aggression has all kinds of long-term benefits outside of Ukraine as well as for them. Some parochial, just good for the US, but many of them potentially good for the world. This was the post-WWII consensus for decades, but as the horrors of ~1915-1945 fade we seem to be forgetting all the lessons we learned at the time.

I don't know anything. But "cost-effective" and "worth every penny" are not terms I would use when we're talking probably $200B+, and it ends ... when?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

As you're seemingly admitting, you're going to have to make them do that. What method do you propose?

Supporting Ukraine for as long as they can oppose Russia seems like a really good, cost-effective start. What they've done for the last few years is working - they've stopped Russia cold. I don't know why we'd stop the count at this point given Ukraine can still fight and still wants to fight.

And IMO the investment there is worth every penny -- halting Russian aggression has all kinds of long-term benefits outside of Ukraine as well as for them. Some parochial, just good for the US, but many of them potentially good for the world. This was the post-WWII consensus for decades, but as the horrors of ~1915-1945 fade we seem to be forgetting all the lessons we learned at the time.

There's plenty of horror to go around from that time period including the actual war part. A similarity I see is the stalemate today is similar to the trench warfare phase of WWI where France and Germany had an almost literal policy of bleeding each other dry.

Fighting aggression is noble, absolutely. But there are practical considerations too - things like losing a country's entire generation and then some to war.

I think most of us have the same goal here - stop the bad guy from doing bad things. The subtleties of HOW that happens are enormously complex.

Anyway - good discussion. I'm going to head out to go look for some golf equipment I don't need. Let's hope Putin drops dead today.

 

[Atomic Punk]

I’m out to buy a new fish tank … remember to play nice in here everyone.

 

[djmich]

Do we continue to support Ukraine in fighting a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

The inability/unwillingness to put forth an alternative end game is glaringly missing from all those denouncing the current (admittedly imperfect) peace initiative.

I think the endgame for Zelensky is complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Russia rebuilds Ukraine, or the destruction of Ukraine. He said as much during the press conference.

Has everyone watched all 50 minutes of the fireside chat? The last 7 minutes was a disaster, but Zelensky very much brought it to that point during the prior 40 minutes. Whatever objective he had going in, he did a terrible job.

I very much admire Zelensky for many reasons, not the least of which is his transparency, authenticity and honesty.

That said, in this particular instance IMO he needed to apply more of a "slippery statesman" skillset similar to what Macron and UK PM Starmer used in the days prior.

Evidently Zelensky and Starmer are meeting today so hopefully there will be some coaching in that regard. Unfortunately, a little sucking up and ego-flattery may be required to get this over the finish line.

I agree with this but also acknowledge we haven’t lived in this guys shoes watching his countrymen die and living like they have the last three years. Once JD started inserting himself and making some unnecessary comments, that is when Zelensky lost a bit of his polish.

JD addressed a reporter question, to the reporter, and nothing in his response said anything about Zelensky or Ukraine. Zelensky then initiated contact. That's not losing polish, that's royally ****ing up.

I don’t think we watched the same interview. What channel were you watching?

Video

Reporter asks question at 38:24
JD begins speaking at 39:59
Zelensky confronts JD at 40:35

 

[Stoneworker]

At this stage of the game - if Russia were to invade a NATO country - I honestly have no idea who's side we would be on.

At this stage of the game, smart *ss comments like this serve no purpose in a productive discussion

It's a valid thought. I do not believe we would voluntarily support NATO. We would look to make a deal for potential support.

Ok. I'll withdraw. Seems far-fetched but respect the POV

 

[uwillbsoon]

Do we continue to pay Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

This is a deeply misleading and false framing.

We aren't paying the Ukrainians to do anything. We're supporting them in a fight against a known tyrant who invaded their country.

It's disheartening how many people are adopting the Putin framing of what's happening all of the sudden. If you don't want to be involved in overseas conflicts that don't directly involve the U.S., I can at least u

Do we continue to support Ukraine in fighting a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

The inability/unwillingness to put forth an alternative end game is glaringly missing from all those denouncing the current (admittedly imperfect) peace initiative.

I think the endgame for Zelensky is complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Russia rebuilds Ukraine, or the destruction of Ukraine. He said as much during the press conference.

Has everyone watched all 50 minutes of the fireside chat? The last 7 minutes was a disaster, but Zelensky very much brought it to that point during the prior 40 minutes. Whatever objective he had going in, he did a terrible job.

I very much admire Zelensky for many reasons, not the least of which is his transparency, authenticity and honesty.

That said, in this particular instance IMO he needed to apply more of a "slippery statesman" skillset similar to what Macron and UK PM Starmer used in the days prior.

Evidently Zelensky and Starmer are meeting today so hopefully there will be some coaching in that regard. Unfortunately, a little sucking up and ego-flattery may be required to get this over the finish line.

I agree with this but also acknowledge we haven’t lived in this guys shoes watching his countrymen die and living like they have the last three years. Once JD started inserting himself and making some unnecessary comments, that is when Zelensky lost a bit of his polish.

JD addressed a reporter question, to the reporter, and nothing in his response said anything about Zelensky or Ukraine. Zelensky then initiated contact. That's not losing polish, that's royally ****ing up.

Here's the transcript from where it started getting testy:

Trump’s explosive clash with Zelenskyy: read the full transcript

Meeting between US and Ukraine presidents descends into chaos at White House – here’s what they said, word for word

www.theguardian.com

He asked Vance to clarify what he meant by diplomacy.

His aim was clearly to get security guarantees. Without them, based on past history, he knows he doesn't have a country. So he's pointing out to Vance that his country has been failed by diplomacy multiple times.

Then Vance asked if he had thanked them in the meeting (narrator: he had). Then Vance accused him of campaigning for Harris (narrator: he didn't).

There is history between those two. Which also led to that confrontation. I believe Zelensky called Vance too radical at one point.

Keep in mind a lot happened before this. This was at least minute 35 of a conversation where Trump boasted about a lot of things. A reporter chastised him for not wearing a suit. Etc.

 

[Insomniac]

Trump is asking for Zelensky to sign away rights to valuable resources and get nothing in return all while allowing Russia to keep the land, minerals, and port, they've already gotten through the invasion. Ukraine gives up minerals, freedom and land, Russia gets what it wants and Trump makes money.

Nothing in return? One could say we've offered quite a bit of aid and money and got nothing in return.
I mean, the situation sucks, but let's say Ukraine does lose land and mineral resources. They also get to stay a country, which is probably important.
Also, Trump makes money? Like, Trump personally......or the US

so "Peace in our time"?⁷
I expect that would work the same way Munich 1938 did.

Let's continue that analogy a bit. It's not entirely wrong but the alternate solution then wasn't an easy choice and it's even harder today.

The alternative in 1938 was not to have Czechoslovakia fight Germany; the Germans had approximately 50% more manpower, twice the airpower, etc. Military experts estimated Czechoslovakia could resist a German invasion for 10-14 days before being overwhelmed.
In support of the analogy to Ukraine is the idea that it could inflict heavy losses and delay the German advance long enough for outside intervention.

That outside intervention would have been the UK and France to declaring war on Germany instead of sacrificing Czechoslovakia. It MAY have called Hitler's bluff and caused him to back down. Had he not, it was about a 50/50 chance they could defeat Germany in war. Regardless, it wasn't going to happen as neither country had the stomach for a war at that time.

So if we apply the analogy to today, we have similar choices. Do we continue to pay Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians? Or do we (like, as in NATO) go to war with Russia to stop Putin's advance so that we don't repeat the mistakes if the past?

Neither option seems very palatable. And the latter is simply implausible.

I believed that Russia taking over Ukraine was inevitable after the election. That's not a good result either. So when will Putin stop?

I'd guess the next victims will be the Baltic countries. The same rational will apply there.

No, that's different entirely because those countries actually are NATO members.

I don't believe we will fight for them either.

 

[djmich]

This guy is on my block list lol, but after watching the 50 min video this pretty much encapsulates what happened imo.

What happened over the 50 minutes

 

[Atomic Punk]

Just watched and we seem to be interpreting what we are seeing differently. If JD doesn’t bring partisanship into the conversation and ragging on the former President, then Zelensky doesn’t take the bait … it spiraled from there even worse with the whole lack of appreciation ridiculousness.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

How well did the "keep pushing" strategy work in Vietnam and Afghanistan?

We were, effectively, the Russians of today in those wars IMO. Opposing the native population and trying to impose a foreign government to maintain a colonial outpost.

 

[Redwes25]

Do we continue to support Ukraine in fighting a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

The inability/unwillingness to put forth an alternative end game is glaringly missing from all those denouncing the current (admittedly imperfect) peace initiative.

Maybe I am a simpleton, but the "end game" here seems rather obvious to me. Russia keeps what they've stolen and Ukraine becomes part of NATO.

I think Ukraine would accept that deal. I don’t believe Russia would.

 

[Atomic Punk]

I should also add, Zelensky doesn’t help the situation with his response, but I cut him more slack due to what he has endured the last three years. Having to listen to partisan BS and other poorly worded statements just enflamed the entire discussion unnecessarily.

 

[Zeppelin]

At this stage of the game - if Russia were to invade a NATO country - I honestly have no idea who's side we would be on.

At this stage of the game, smart *ss comments like this serve no purpose in a productive discussion

That's not my comment but there are reasons to be concerned.

 

[AAABatteries]

Do we continue to pay Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

This is a deeply misleading and false framing.

We aren't paying the Ukrainians to do anything. We're supporting them in a fight against a known tyrant who invaded their country.

Okay fine. That was flair I didn't need to add.

Do we continue to support Ukraine in fighting a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

I think we should - it’s in our best interest to do so. Anybody thinking Russia is our friend is deluding themselves. If Putin could press a button tomorrow and take over the world he’d do it.

I don't really think anyone thinks Russia is a friend (and that includes Trump, but let's leave that discussion for elsewhere). The world would be better off if Russian culture was a little softer and Putin wasn't...well wasn't around at all.

How do we define "winning/won" if we continue to support fighting? Is the endgame getting Russia out of eastern Ukraine - everything goes back to where it was before the invasion? Is that even a possibility? And do we do it "at any cost" both dollars and lives lost?

That last part is the sticky wicket. Is it more in our self interest to win at any cost or to draw a line in the sand from this point forward?

There is no real winning either way but what I think we have to balance is our self-interest with providing support to a country that was invaded. Never easy to determine.

 

[djmich]

Just watched and we seem to be interpreting what we are seeing differently. If JD doesn’t bring partisanship into the conversation and ragging on the former President, then Zelensky doesn’t take the bait … it spiraled from there even worse with the whole lack of appreciation ridiculousness.

If Zelensky's country is on the line and he feels the need to get confrontational in front of the American media to protect Joe Biden (and we know this is already a sore spot between this admin and zelensky), when Trump is president...then he's a bigger fool than I ever imagined.

 

[Redwes25]

Do we continue to support Ukraine in fighting a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

The inability/unwillingness to put forth an alternative end game is glaringly missing from all those denouncing the current (admittedly imperfect) peace initiative.

Maybe I am a simpleton, but the "end game" here seems rather obvious to me. Russia keeps what they've stolen and Ukraine becomes part of NATO.

This absolutely will not happen. It would practically be, in Putin's eyes, as a tacit declaration of war.

A huge part of the reason we're here is his feeling threatened by all the former Soviet countries already in NATO. Ukraine joining would make things immensely more difficult for everyone.

I don’t believe he feels threatened at all. NATO is a defensive alliance and is not going to invade and conquer Russia. He does repeat the line but I think those are lies.

His real desire is to recreate the Soviet Empire and zone of influence. He has articulated collapse of Soviet Union was one of the “worlds” great tragedies. He doesn’t want NATO expansion as it stands in the way of his ability to expand. Look at his track record throughout Eastern Europe and you see exactly what he wants.

 

[Stoneworker]

How well did the "keep pushing" strategy work in Vietnam and Afghanistan?

We were, effectively, the Russians of today in those wars IMO. Opposing the native population and trying to impose a foreign government to maintain a colonial outpost.

Nearly 20% of Ukraine's population is ethnic Russian. Ukraine was part of USSR far longer than it's been independent. Apples and oranges.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think it might be better if we all went outside for some fresh air.

This is a good thread and there will be more/other things to discuss next week. If we can.

 

[Redwes25]

How well did the "keep pushing" strategy work in Vietnam and Afghanistan?

We were, effectively, the Russians of today in those wars IMO. Opposing the native population and trying to impose a foreign government to maintain a colonial outpost.

Nearly 20% of Ukraine's population is ethnic Russian. Ukraine was part of USSR far longer than it's been independent. Apples and oranges.

Ukraine overwhelmingly voted to leave Russia (92%). Every region of the country that was majority outcome. It is actually very similar.

1991 Ukrainian independence referendum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Zeppelin]

I think it might be better if we all went outside for some fresh air.

This is a good thread and there will be more/other things to discuss next week. If we can.

 

[BassNBrew]

Do we continue to pay Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

This is a deeply misleading and false framing.

We aren't paying the Ukrainians to do anything. We're supporting them in a fight against a known tyrant who invaded their country.

It's disheartening how many people are adopting the Putin framing of what's happening all of the sudden. If you don't want to be involved in overseas conflicts that don't directly involve the U.S., I can at least understand the perspective, but at least be honest about it.

I think you're rushing to judgement a bit. Other than financial support (which isn't nothing, admittedly), all I'm saying is that the idea is unrealistic that Russia will both give up and give BACK what they've taken if we can just support Ukraine long enough - without getting ourselves bloodied - to outlast Putin.

This thing is a real Gordian knot.

It's a false dichotomy to say that if you want the fighting to stop that you're "for Putin". Sometimes the right solution came before the problem was created - and when you don't make it all you're left with afterwards is a whole bunch of bad solutions.

When you say things like "before we run out of Ukrainians" you are literally adopting Russian propaganda. This isn't us arming the enemies of our enemies (a la Afghanistan in the 80s or something), this is a democratic ally who is fighting for their sovereignty. We're not fighting until the last Ukrainian, the Ukrainians are. It's offensive terminology.

If you want to otherwise have a conversation about what the endgame looks like, great. I don't think anyone realistically thinks Russia will be evicted from occupied Ukrainian territory at this point. To the extent Ukraine is still saying as much, that sounds like an initial negotiating position to me. The bigger problem is that there's no indication Russia is willing to permanently accept the existing lines of conflict as the permanent borders. The new administration is not only not putting publicly putting any pressure on Russia to accept that type of peace deal, after yesterday, the U.S. is openly feuding with Ukraine's president. To the extent Putin was ever considering abandoning his maximalist war aims, he has to be all in on total conquest again after this week.

It's not intended to be, quite the opposite. But you seem intent on believing that I'm a Russian apologist in spite if all the other stuff I'm writing around this so...

Well, if you want to have an even-handed conversation, eschewing the Russian propaganda is a good place to start.

Okay.

Can you answer my questions?

Andy, props for not taking the bait and dragging this thread to lock city

 

[the moops]

There was a very important question asked by someone that we are all ignoring. Why won’t Zelensky wear a suit?

 

[Stoneworker]

How well did the "keep pushing" strategy work in Vietnam and Afghanistan?

We were, effectively, the Russians of today in those wars IMO. Opposing the native population and trying to impose a foreign government to maintain a colonial outpost.

Nearly 20% of Ukraine's population is ethnic Russian. Ukraine was part of USSR far longer than it's been independent. Apples and oranges.

Ukraine overwhelmingly voted to leave Russia (92%). Every region of the country that was majority outcome. It is actually very similar.

1991 Ukrainian independence referendum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The fact that Ukraine wants to remain independent has no bearing on the "keep pushing" strategy when they are completely reliant on others to do the pushing. And that support has evaporated (among those that most matter, anyway).

 

[HellToupee]

His aim was clearly to get security guarantees. Without them, based on past history, he knows he doesn't have a country. So he's pointing out to Vance that his country has been failed by diplomacy multiple times.

Imo this is on Zelensky. This was a conversation saved for the lunch meeting that was scheduled after the Oval Office meeting. It could’ve happened by ignorance or it could’ve been his plan on the fly to do it in front of the media. Either way he lit an exploding cigar

 

[higgins]

Question to no one in particular: would Putin accept a non-NATO Ukraine….but one that was totally economically connected to the West (ala Finland for decades)? & politically neutral (at least in words)? My instinct would be “no” because his folks (eastern UKR / western Russia) would see the economic disparity which could destabilize his regime.

If he can tolerate the above, this may be the only alternative to a frozen conflict/armistice/DMZ.

 

[the moops]

His aim was clearly to get security guarantees. Without them, based on past history, he knows he doesn't have a country. So he's pointing out to Vance that his country has been failed by diplomacy multiple times.

Imo this is on Zelensky. This was a conversation saved for the lunch meeting that was scheduled after the Oval Office meeting. It could’ve happened by ignorance or it could’ve been his plan on the fly to do it in front of the media. Either way he lit an exploding cigar

It's on all of them. You don't have these petty yelling matches in front of the world to see. It was ridiculous and embarrassing.

 

[Dickies]

I can't believe people are celebrating this as a victory.

Pure BS. Just exactly who is "celebrating this as a victory?"

So far, Russian media, members of the President's party, Fox News, and Viktor Orban.
Just answering your question.

I'm quite sure the poster was referring to people in this thread

I actually wasn’t.

 

[djmich]

Question to no one in particular: would Putin accept a non-NATO Ukraine….but one that was totally economically connected to the West (ala Finland for decades)? & politically neutral (at least in words)? My instinct would be “no” because his folks (eastern UKR / western Russia) would see the economic disparity which could destabilize his regime.

If he can tolerate the above, this may be the only alternative to a frozen conflict/armistice/DMZ.

Right, this is the question and we won't know until/unless we get there. Its part about can he tolerate it, and part about at that point can he do anything about it (invading a non nato country that has meaningful US and global investment and people there)

 

[djmich]

His aim was clearly to get security guarantees. Without them, based on past history, he knows he doesn't have a country. So he's pointing out to Vance that his country has been failed by diplomacy multiple times.

Imo this is on Zelensky. This was a conversation saved for the lunch meeting that was scheduled after the Oval Office meeting. It could’ve happened by ignorance or it could’ve been his plan on the fly to do it in front of the media. Either way he lit an exploding cigar

It's on all of them. You don't have these petty yelling matches in front of the world to see. It was ridiculous and embarrassing.

This I agree with. I wish Trump ended it about 10 min in when Zelensky started going a bit sideways. He's the only one who could have ended it, but if you get there and are banking on that you might as well be playing Russian roulette.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Gotta hand it to Putin. His propaganda machine is strong based on this thread.

 

[Psychopav]

Thing the goal was to goad Zelenskyy into blowing up the deal. Trumps comment at the end about making good tv shows what the goal was and why this was played out in front of the cameras. Things were going ok until JD threw out the “not thankful” comment knowing it would get under his skin. Yes he has some facial reactions that should have been controlled better, I’m not sure how easy that is when someone is belittling your efforts if the last 3 years after seeing/living in all the devastation of the war, all in all not a good look for either country.

The other weird things before everything went completely off the rails was when Zelinsky pulled out the pictures to show to Trump on camera. What was that about?

 

[HellToupee]

His aim was clearly to get security guarantees. Without them, based on past history, he knows he doesn't have a country. So he's pointing out to Vance that his country has been failed by diplomacy multiple times.

Imo this is on Zelensky. This was a conversation saved for the lunch meeting that was scheduled after the Oval Office meeting. It could’ve happened by ignorance or it could’ve been his plan on the fly to do it in front of the media. Either way he lit an exploding cigar

It's on all of them. You don't have these petty yelling matches in front of the world to see. It was ridiculous and embarrassing.

Well it does take 2 to tango. JD or Donald should have shutdown the conversation and said let’s talk about this later. Although this happened in the open it’s not the first time a president was angry with Zelensky

 

[Psychopav]

The fundamental thing I don't understand is the extreme reticence to even nod to the notion of a future security arrangement.

It would seem that would be axiomatic to the durability of any peace deal and something the vast majority of Americans would be not only accepting of but deem essential.

ETA: This is not meant to come across as a political stmt and I will happily retract if it goes in that direction

Isn't this likely for the same reason Zelensky was talking about in the interview? No one thinks Russia will actually honor any agreement, as they haven't in the past. So from Ukraine's perspective, what's the point in giving (large) concessions for an agreement that you know will ultimately just be ignored anyway?

If lien Trump pointed out we have Americans over there doing the mining, would that deter Russia from breaking the ceasefire? I thought that was the point he was making before the entire thing devolved into a **** show

 

[uwillbsoon]

Thing the goal was to goad Zelenskyy into blowing up the deal. Trumps comment at the end about making good tv shows what the goal was and why this was played out in front of the cameras. Things were going ok until JD threw out the “not thankful” international law. comment knowing it would get under his skin. Yes he has some facial reactions that should have been controlled better, I’m not sure how easy that is when someone is belittling your efforts if the last 3 years after seeing/living in all the devastation of the war, all in all not a good look for either country.

The other weird things before everything went completely off the rails was when Zelinsky pulled out the pictures to show to Trump on camera. What was that about?

To show how Russians treat prisoners in violation of international law.

 

[Mister CIA]

Question to no one in particular: would Putin accept a non-NATO Ukraine….but one that was totally economically connected to the West (ala Finland for decades)? & politically neutral (at least in words)? My instinct would be “no” because his folks (eastern UKR / western Russia) would see the economic disparity which could destabilize his regime.

If he can tolerate the above, this may be the only alternative to a frozen conflict/armistice/DMZ.

It's always been my simple opinion that this is one of the root causes of the conflict, to protect the oligarchs.

 

[Redwes25]

I am a strong supporter of Ukraine but Zelenskyy messed up this meeting. You need to feed Trump’s ego and let him bash Biden, etc. the relationship is to important for Ukraine to not play by those rules and get in an argument.

 

[Mister CIA]

Maybe I've missed it in the commentary, but if support for Ukraine from the US wanes - and if I'm a desperate Ukranian filled with hate and rage, Moscow could become a soft enticing target - and then what happens? What happens when half-measures are depleted?

 

[BassNBrew]

Gotta hand it to Putin. His propaganda machine is strong based on this thread.

Please don’t.

 

[tymarsas]

Question to no one in particular: would Putin accept a non-NATO Ukraine….but one that was totally economically connected to the West (ala Finland for decades)? & politically neutral (at least in words)? My instinct would be “no” because his folks (eastern UKR / western Russia) would see the economic disparity which could destabilize his regime.

If he can tolerate the above, this may be the only alternative to a frozen conflict/armistice/DMZ.

Right, this is the question and we won't know until/unless we get there. Its part about can he tolerate it, and part about at that point can he do anything about it (invading a non nato country that has meaningful US and global investment and people there)

It's not too hard to imagine Putin's stance on Ukraine forming economic connections with the West. Euromaidan started because Yanukovych switched his stance on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement at the last minute. This directly led to this war. Basically the Ukrainian people revolted because the wanted closer economic ties with the west, and Putin went to war.

 

[tri-man 47]

There was a very important question asked by someone that we are all ignoring. Why won’t Zelensky wear a suit?

Because it doesn't ..suit him?

 

[Psychopav]

Do we continue to support Ukraine in fighting a proxy war with Russia in hopes that Russia gives up before we run out of Ukrainians?

The inability/unwillingness to put forth an alternative end game is glaringly missing from all those denouncing the current (admittedly imperfect) peace initiative.

I think the endgame for Zelensky is complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Russia rebuilds Ukraine, or the destruction of Ukraine. He said as much during the press conference.

Has everyone watched all 50 minutes of the fireside chat? The last 7 minutes was a disaster, but Zelensky very much brought it to that point during the prior 40 minutes. Whatever objective he had going in, he did a terrible job.

 

[Stoneworker]

Question to no one in particular: would Putin accept a non-NATO Ukraine….but one that was totally economically connected to the West (ala Finland for decades)? & politically neutral (at least in words)? My instinct would be “no” because his folks (eastern UKR / western Russia) would see the economic disparity which could destabilize his regime.

If he can tolerate the above, this may be the only alternative to a frozen conflict/armistice/DMZ.

IMO, yes to a degree.

It appears that the U.S. leader has an achievable deal in his mind, for which I would speculate Russia's broad parameters have been agreed upon through the bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia

And that is the deal the U.S. leader is now trying to guide (railroad? coerce?) the Ukrainian leader into accepting.

A deal which accepts a sovereign, non-NATO Ukraine that may have economic ties to the West (hence the mining deal), and limited security guarantees (e.g. possibly an EU peacekeeping force, but without U.S. backstop or otherwise direct military presence). The sticking point is obviously the security agreement and its durability/effectiveness and whether EU would agree to a future with potentially no guaranteed US backing.

I just can't see the U.S. leader risking colossal egg-on-his-face if he does all this public negotiating and the Russians turn around and reject it. IMO there's been some type of bro-pact already made

 

[Harry Manback]

Question to no one in particular: would Putin accept a non-NATO Ukraine….but one that was totally economically connected to the West (ala Finland for decades)? & politically neutral (at least in words)? My instinct would be “no” because his folks (eastern UKR / western Russia) would see the economic disparity which could destabilize his regime.

If he can tolerate the above, this may be the only alternative to a frozen conflict/armistice/DMZ.

IMO, yes to a degree.

It appears that the U.S. leader has an achievable deal in his mind, for which I would speculate Russia's broad parameters have been agreed upon through the bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia

And that is the deal the U.S. leader is now trying to guide (railroad? coerce?) the Ukrainian leader into accepting.

A deal which accepts a sovereign, non-NATO Ukraine that may have economic ties to the West (hence the mining deal), and limited security guarantees (e.g. possibly an EU peacekeeping force, but without U.S. backstop or otherwise direct military presence). The sticking point is obviously the security agreement and its durability/effectiveness and whether EU would agree to a future with potentially no guaranteed US backing.

I just can't see the U.S. leader risking colossal egg-on-his-face if he does all this public negotiating and the Russians turn around and reject it. IMO there's been some type of bro-pact already made

Yes, there has likely been a pact made. One that heavily favors a murderous dictator who invaded a sovereign nation.

 

[Stoneworker]

Question to no one in particular: would Putin accept a non-NATO Ukraine….but one that was totally economically connected to the West (ala Finland for decades)? & politically neutral (at least in words)? My instinct would be “no” because his folks (eastern UKR / western Russia) would see the economic disparity which could destabilize his regime.

If he can tolerate the above, this may be the only alternative to a frozen conflict/armistice/DMZ.

IMO, yes to a degree.

It appears that the U.S. leader has an achievable deal in his mind, for which I would speculate Russia's broad parameters have been agreed upon through the bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia

And that is the deal the U.S. leader is now trying to guide (railroad? coerce?) the Ukrainian leader into accepting.

A deal which accepts a sovereign, non-NATO Ukraine that may have economic ties to the West (hence the mining deal), and limited security guarantees (e.g. possibly an EU peacekeeping force, but without U.S. backstop or otherwise direct military presence). The sticking point is obviously the security agreement and its durability/effectiveness and whether EU would agree to a future with potentially no guaranteed US backing.

I just can't see the U.S. leader risking colossal egg-on-his-face if he does all this public negotiating and the Russians turn around and reject it. IMO there's been some type of bro-pact already made

Yes, there has likely been a pact made. One that heavily favors a murderous dictator who invaded a sovereign nation.

Beyond your inflammatory comments you forgot one minor detail...

Peace

 

[Ridgeback]

I am a strong supporter of Ukraine but Zelenskyy messed up this meeting. You need to feed Trump’s ego and let him bash Biden, etc. the relationship is to important for Ukraine to not play by those rules and get in an argument.

Agreed. He should have understood he needed to brown-nose, and keep thanking. Clearly, he did not read the room. Hopefully everyone sees the gravity of the situation at hand and comes back to the negotiating table.

 

[TennesseeJed]

Question to no one in particular: would Putin accept a non-NATO Ukraine….but one that was totally economically connected to the West (ala Finland for decades)? & politically neutral (at least in words)? My instinct would be “no” because his folks (eastern UKR / western Russia) would see the economic disparity which could destabilize his regime.

If he can tolerate the above, this may be the only alternative to a frozen conflict/armistice/DMZ.

IMO, yes to a degree.

It appears that the U.S. leader has an achievable deal in his mind, for which I would speculate Russia's broad parameters have been agreed upon through the bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia

And that is the deal the U.S. leader is now trying to guide (railroad? coerce?) the Ukrainian leader into accepting.

A deal which accepts a sovereign, non-NATO Ukraine that may have economic ties to the West (hence the mining deal), and limited security guarantees (e.g. possibly an EU peacekeeping force, but without U.S. backstop or otherwise direct military presence). The sticking point is obviously the security agreement and its durability/effectiveness and whether EU would agree to a future with potentially no guaranteed US backing.

I just can't see the U.S. leader risking colossal egg-on-his-face if he does all this public negotiating and the Russians turn around and reject it. IMO there's been some type of bro-pact already made

Yes, there has likely been a pact made. One that heavily favors a murderous dictator who invaded a sovereign nation.

Beyond your inflammatory comments you forgot one minor detail...

Peace

Of course - there was peace - before Russia invaded...

Lets not forget that minor detail.

 

[General Malaise]

Educate yourselves.

This is such an arrogant, ******* comment. You can be better than this, and you should.

You're right, I'm sorry.

 

[djmich]

I am a strong supporter of Ukraine but Zelenskyy messed up this meeting. You need to feed Trump’s ego and let him bash Biden, etc. the relationship is to important for Ukraine to not play by those rules and get in an argument.

Agreed. He should have understood he needed to brown-nose, and keep thanking. Clearly, he did not read the room. Hopefully everyone sees the gravity of the situation at hand and comes back to the negotiating table.

Brown nosing doesn't hurt. But if you watch the whole video (all 50 minutes) it's pretty clear that Zelensky is saying things that Trump believes is destructive to the negotiation. Hold aside whether you think Zelensky should say those things, or has a right to...this was about a lot more than brown nosing.

 

[General Malaise]

Educate yourselves.

This is such an arrogant, ******* comment. You can be better than this, and you should.

As a fairly neutral dude I do feel compelled to disagree here. While gM’s bedside manor wasn’t perfect, literally everything he said was true (in the OP not your pruned version)

I think it would be beneficial if we had a rudimentary understanding of what minerals we are asking for if we are going to use the term as frequently as we do. Does that sound better?