*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (3 Viewers)

[[icon]]

I’ll go ahead and be that guy and say that thing….

Ive butted heads with @Joe Bryant here and there while also having what I would consider a friedship. We’ve cooked BBQ in Memphis with @tipsymcstagger and @sbonomo (wow those are no longer active tags?!)

Anyway.. I do feel like we are in somewhat unprecedented territory and I think most of us would appreciate a place to talk about what is happening.

I think it’s unreasonable to put the moderation task on Joe…. For multiple reasons.

But perhaps a small team of proven neutral sensible mods in a single thread where bad actors get one warning then 86 time?

I think cadid discussion at a time like this might sorta line up

 

[[icon]]

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)

 

[Todem]

Zelenskyy interview with Brett Baier up on YouTube. He did very well.

Hopefully this thing will survive all the ego-bruising and divisive partisan rhetoric and get back on track towards peace.

I truly think we will work out a peace agreement.

Despite this circus event.

Long term…..I don’t have a lot of faith about anything going on over there. But short term they will work out something to stop all the death and destruction of the last 3 plus years.

 

[Zeppelin]

I’ll go ahead and be that guy and say that thing….

Ive butted heads with @Joe Bryant here and there while also having what I would consider a friedship. We’ve cooked BBQ in Memphis with @tipsymcstagger and @sbonomo (wow those are no longer active tags?!)

Anyway.. I do feel like we are in somewhat unprecedented territory and I think most of us would appreciate a place to talk about what is happening.

I think it’s unreasonable to put the moderation task on Joe…. For multiple reasons.

But perhaps a small team of proven neutral sensible mods in a single thread where bad actors get one warning then 86 time?

I think cadid discussion at a time like this might sorta line up

@Joe Bryant made it clear many times that this is never going to happen. But there is a way. This thread got out of line for a bit but people commenting about keeping politics out of it got the thread back on track and that's probably the best we can do. We can self-police it through our comments and if that doesn't work then maybe the person or people who keep doing it should be reported.

 

[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.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Looking for a source but my buddy just read that Zelensky asked for US ground troops and said he may not sign the mineral deal otherwise.

Did you find a source for this? Thanks.

Unfortunately no. I should have waited to post that until I did.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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.

 

[thecatch]

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.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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.

 

[Stoneworker]

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.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Russia goes home and the war today because history has shown it's in the interest of free and democratic nations to oppose illegitimate land grabs and the spread of tyrrany wherever we can.

That's my alternate plan.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Russia goes home and the war today because history has shown it's in the interest of free and democratic nations to oppose illegitimate land grabs and the spread of tyrrany wherever we can.

That's my alternate plan.

I would love for that to happen. We all would.

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

 

[Stoneworker]

Russia goes home and the war today because history has shown it's in the interest of free and democratic nations to oppose illegitimate land grabs and the spread of tyrrany wherever we can.

That's my alternate plan.

Now try again while incorporating reality

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[thecatch]

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.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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...

As to the second paragraph, we're agreeing at least that Russia isn't going to give back their gains. Good.

I'll ask again, what type of pressure people are expecting to put on Putin? Economic sanctions didn't prevent or end the current situation. Are we advocating for military pressure? Of the direct kind?

 

[thecatch]

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.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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?

 

[djmich]

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.

Such a weird phraseolgy to get hung up on.

The Ukrainins are running out of Ukrainins. Thats ok

We're running out of Ukrainians. Thats propaganda

 

[Redwes25]

Russia goes home and the war today because history has shown it's in the interest of free and democratic nations to oppose illegitimate land grabs and the spread of tyrrany wherever we can.

That's my alternate plan.

The alternate path is where Ukraine gives territorial concessions and gets some guarantees about its future - be that NATO membership or European peacekeeping force. Both France and England have stated they would provide troops.

Russian demands include more territory then they have actually taken and “denazifaction” of Ukraine, which means a Russian puppet govt. where Ukraine is a vassal of Russia. Ukraine won’t ever agree to that.

 

[Stoneworker]

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.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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.

 

[Atomic Punk]

Anyone who says they know what was being discussed behind closed doors is full of it. We are all just speculating … what is each sides initial stance, what is their red line … none of us know. Thinking our buddy may know something (unless that buddy was in the room) seems naive.

Based on Zelensky’s prior statements, I would guess he would be willing to rework borders based on current lines IF it came with some type of guarantees of future security. Based on their lived experience, just taking Putin’s promise to Trump isn’t cutting it for him as a guarantee. What that looks like … who knows, but it is much more than “trust me” from Putin/Trump.

 

[djmich]

Anyone who says they know what was being discussed behind closed doors is full of it. We are all just speculating … what is each sides initial stance, what is their red line … none of us know. Thinking our buddy may know something (unless that buddy was in the room) seems naive.

Based on Zelensky’s prior statements, I would guess he would be willing to rework borders based on current lines IF it came with some type of guarantees of future security. Based on their lived experience, just taking Putin’s promise to Trump isn’t cutting it for him as a guarantee. What that looks like … who knows, but it is much more than “trust me” from Putin/Trump.

Thats fair. And the US isn't probably willing to send US troops to die to guarantee that, which is also fair. So Trump is offering the next best option in his mind...make us your partner, give us a vested interested. Implied security, without the commitment to enter WW3

 

[Atomic Punk]

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.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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.

 

[HellToupee]

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.

Trust your instincts

 

[Atomic Punk]

Anyone who says they know what was being discussed behind closed doors is full of it. We are all just speculating … what is each sides initial stance, what is their red line … none of us know. Thinking our buddy may know something (unless that buddy was in the room) seems naive.

Based on Zelensky’s prior statements, I would guess he would be willing to rework borders based on current lines IF it came with some type of guarantees of future security. Based on their lived experience, just taking Putin’s promise to Trump isn’t cutting it for him as a guarantee. What that looks like … who knows, but it is much more than “trust me” from Putin/Trump.

Thats fair. And the US isn't probably willing to send US troops to die to guarantee that, which is also fair. So Trump is offering the next best option in his mind...make us your partner, give us a vested interested. Implied security, without the commitment to enter WW3

My guess is those details weren’t in the framework. And the comments “security is easy” to a man watching his countrymen die is … well, let’s just say not helpful.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

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.

 

[TennesseeJed]

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.

But, when the US pulls out of NATO - or simply stops supporting them - is it really any different?

 

[djmich]

Anyone who says they know what was being discussed behind closed doors is full of it. We are all just speculating … what is each sides initial stance, what is their red line … none of us know. Thinking our buddy may know something (unless that buddy was in the room) seems naive.

Based on Zelensky’s prior statements, I would guess he would be willing to rework borders based on current lines IF it came with some type of guarantees of future security. Based on their lived experience, just taking Putin’s promise to Trump isn’t cutting it for him as a guarantee. What that looks like … who knows, but it is much more than “trust me” from Putin/Trump.

Thats fair. And the US isn't probably willing to send US troops to die to guarantee that, which is also fair. So Trump is offering the next best option in his mind...make us your partner, give us a vested interested. Implied security, without the commitment to enter WW3

My guess is those details weren’t in the framework. And the comments “security is easy” to a man watching his countrymen die is … well, let’s just say not helpful.

Which detail wasn't in. The only one I was referring to is the rare earths partnership, which is pretty publicly known?

Agree that Zelensky is in an incredibly difficult position, I feel for him. Separately (but of course related) he's not handling this well at all.

 

[Stoneworker]

Based on Zelensky’s prior statements, I would guess he would be willing to rework borders based on current lines IF it came with some type of guarantees of future security. Based on their lived experience, just taking Putin’s promise to Trump isn’t cutting it for him as a guarantee. What that looks like … who knows, but it is much more than “trust me” from Putin/Trump.

There has been no apparent blowback from the UK/France's well-publicized proposal of 30K peacekeeping troops.

Obviously it's not outright U.S. backing, but that's a heckuva lot more than just "trust me."

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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.

 

[Dezbelief]

What to know about Ukraine's mineral wealth

A primer on the critical resources and billions of dollars at stake in a potential deal between Ukraine and the U.S.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Atomic Punk]

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’ll have to rewatch it to comment more but I come at it from the perspective of his presence (JD) was more for show than participation, so he really should not have been answering any questions. I liken it to my experience at cabinet meetings to confirm budgets … you are there as suppport, but you let the two cabinet ministers arm wrestle the details. You only speak when spoken to or directed to by the minister. My recollection was JD inserted himself unnecessarily …. But as I said, I need to rewatch to confirm.

The other thing we need to remember is English is not Zelensky’s first language, so when things like “playing cards” is brought up, it may be hard for him to wrap his head around what this means in relation to his experiences back home.

 

[TennesseeJed]

I don't know why we'd stop the count at this point given Ukraine can still fight and still wants to fight.

Its rather simple - alliances are shifting.

Its not in this administration's interests to arm Ukraine, while they are fighting an Ally.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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.

 

[[icon]]

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?

 

[[icon]]

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.

Is it though? Will we still even be in NATO at that point?

 

[TennesseeJed]

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

Not intended to be "smart ***"

Honest assessment on where our loyalties lie at the moment. For better or worse, Trump wants a productive relationship with Russia, and he is trying to give Russia the support it needs to make that happen.

I don't have to agree or disagree with the policy - its pretty obvious.

 

[Dezbelief]

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.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Its not in this administration's interests to arm Ukraine, while they are fighting an Ally.

Power of the purse, line-item veto is unconstitutional, etc etc etc... but probably best to keep politics out of this since we've managed to keep the thread alive for so long.

 

[HellToupee]

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.

Trenchant analysis

 

[Atomic Punk]

Based on Zelensky’s prior statements, I would guess he would be willing to rework borders based on current lines IF it came with some type of guarantees of future security. Based on their lived experience, just taking Putin’s promise to Trump isn’t cutting it for him as a guarantee. What that looks like … who knows, but it is much more than “trust me” from Putin/Trump.

There has been no apparent blowback from the UK/France's well-publicized proposal of 30K peacekeeping troops.

Obviously it's not outright U.S. backing, but that's a heckuva lot more than just "trust me."

So far, this is all just talk. Zelensky is looking for a full plan … I’ll give up these minerals, Putin withdraws troops, US invests in business and infrastructure, EU provides security. If that type of deal was baked, then I believe things would have gone smoother. It seems there was pressure to sign part of the deal, with “trust me” for the rest.