War in Ukraine

I agree with you. But, Mother Russia won’t like the idea of another 4 years of War, either. If Putin knows that’s what in store, and he can’t just wait out the change of W3stern leadership, he might rethink his longterm strategic goals.

 

Well, we gave Biden 3 years and can assess. How about we give Trump at least 90 days before we decide his approach is a failure too? Because as it has been pointed out a million times, Ukraine do not have the resources to fight this world endlessly, nor do they have the support among the American voter to endlessly receive arms from us. Hence Zelenskyy's willingness to negotiate. I know the TDS makes it very difficult to give President Trump more than 2 days when Biden had 3 years, but give him at least 90 days for some tangible results.

 

Well then you’re in a bind. More sanctions won’t work and Trump is already preparing the ground for capitulation. Witness how he’s already back-tracked from “I’ll end the war in 24 hours” to “the war will end in six months and be resolved on the battlefield” or words to that effect.

 

He promised an end to the War within 24 hours. Now he’s back-pedaling, because he knows if he capitulates, he’ll look weak and ineffective, or he’ll look like he’s a Putin puppet. He wants to “win”, and that’s a good thing, but he has a very tough road ahead, a road made even tougher by his own campaign promises that he’ll cut funding to Ukraine.

 

Yes, lack of strong support has been a loser argument from the start and continues to be to this day.

You and many in congress have been against it from the jump and now that Ukraine is stressed to the max - you claim some realpolitik rational for handing over to Putin his ill-gotten gains. A bit of a self-fullfiling profecy, wouldn't you say?

 

I’m not the one that claims I’d end the War in 24 hours, and I’m not the one who told the world he was going to cut off all funding to Ukraine. Trump did all that, and he substantially weakened any strength he might’ve had in negotiations.

But otherwise, yes, Trump will need to figure out an actual strategy—not mere platitudes—to deploy in order to help find a solution. I think he knows the World will be judging him on exactly what he is able to produce.

Should we withhold judgment for 90 days?!?! Of course!!! Under ordinary circumstances(and even 90 days would be extraordinary depending on results). But again, Trump’s the one that campaigned loudly and systematically that he needed but 1 day. Words matter.

Still, to be clear, my fingers are crossed that he’s able to pull off a miraculous resolution to end the War without capitulation—with a result that sends the unwavering message that borders are to be honored and protected.

 

Your post doesn't address reality. Perhaps someone else would like to engage you in fantasy, but it can't be me.

 

Define "capitulation." Both sides are going to have to give up things to reach a deal. You get that, right?

 

Another well reasoned argument by Okee.

 

The definition, according to Oxford Dictionary, is: “the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand.” Here, it would be rather difficult to tell you all the scenarios that would be a de facto capitulation. It’s like me asking you, what would be a good deal from Ukraine’s viewpoint.

You get that, right.

 

Polymarket has 95% chance of the Collective West capitulating sooner than later.

 

I mean, yes of course, as with all things. It's probably a position you should have taken more often before opining on the war over the past few years.

 

What happened to the daily Vox reports ?

 

You are the one who said it would take a miracle for Trump to end this without capitulation. By "miracle", you seem to be suggesting it has a small chance of happening. It does not. Both sides will have to make substantial capitulations in order to strike a deal. That's how these things go. What 3 year stalemate from world history can you point to where a ceasefire was obtained by giving one side 95% of their ask and the other 5% of their ask? It's a silly premise. You either want both sides to capitulate or you want war to continue on for years.

 

I continue to read that Russia will not compromise on its pre-SMO objectives. If the case, the West will have no choice but to capitulate.

What’s the harm ? You save the better part of Ukraine and the proxy war defeat can always be spun as plucky Ukrainians holding off a rapacious Russia bent on rolling through Europe.

 

I read this several times, and I just don’t understand the point. If you’re saying that both sides need to significantly compromise their position in order to reach a prompt peace, I think that is undeniable. As they say in litigation settlements, when each side leaves the room unhappy, a good deal has been reached.

 

Interesting... (from 2 months ago)

 

I suspect the sanctions may be targeted towards Russia's support system. Iran.. higher tariffs on China. How does China react, for example, if the U.S. increases tariffs to 100% on their goods because Russia won't go to the table? My guess is there would be some problems between Beijing and Moscow at that stage. I don't believe Putin wants to get to that stage.

 

I think it’s even simpler than that. What would hurt Russia most and scares Russia the most in terms of its economy, is falling oil prices. Trump wants oil prices to fall anyway, and he can effect that increasing domestic production (which Biden was unwilling to do) and by persuading the gulf states, Saudi Arabia in particular, to increase production (which Biden was unable to do). But we will see.