Ukraine could have had a peace deal a month into the war. At this point the war only ends on Russia's terms. Ukraine will be demilitarized, it will not be joining NATO ever, and Russia will be taking some territory. It was always going to end this way. The US, NATO and Ukraine screwed Ukraine. Russia gave Ukraine every chance to avoid war. Your team put a lot of faith in sanctions that were doomed to fail.
So if I understand you correctly, Trump has not yet pulled military support, some of the most important of which is completely within the scope of his authority (that means Congress has no oversight of it), because he does not “understand” it … but as soon as he does he will pull it. Excellent. Well, we will certainly know if you are right sooner than we will see the results of these talks, so we have that to look forward to. I forgot to ask about all of our economic measures, some of which, again, are wholly within the scope of the President’s authority. May we, likewise, expect the President to grant unilateral relief on those as well … I mean, as soon as he “understands” them, of course. I was going to also ask why Russia did not make ending some of our military and economic support to Ukraine a precondition for these talks, since they care a lot more about that than any tweets the President might send out, but I’d say you answered it: Russia doesn’t have to ask for it; Trump is going to do it for free as soon as he “understands” it. Brilliant. Your response to my post was even more hilarious than mine was.
This is disappointing. I've respected your take and agreed with you on Ukraine from the beginning. Trump isn't playing some sort of 3D chess here. He's saying who he is and what he wants. This is a complete 180 from our previous policy. We've switched sides.
Zelensky is not legitimate. His term has expired. The people hate him. He and his generals have stolen many billions of dollars.
Maybe take a second to try and comprehend what you are being told in that post. Realize the difference is between what is being said at a conference versus what is actually happening on the battlefield that you are likely not aware of. Just because something is being said in public at a conference does not mean it is policy and immediately results in changes on the ground/battlefield. If that does actually happen, you are going to see posters like @uftaipan pointing it out. Personally, I would keep an eye out for any announcement about changes to the US providing long range fires munitions.
Yes, the military in the Trump regime stays in position until he tells them to move. Then, the result has been: The Taliban can take over as in Afghanistan Or, in Syria, the Russians. Trump will TRY to hand Ukraine over to Russia also. It is unimaginable that all of the defense and intelligence dollars we have spent leave us defenseless to our enemies because we were not smart enough to defend ourselves properly from Russian disinformation. The NSA should have reams of intelligence on how Trump is colluding with Russia, crimes other than the 34 felonies he has already been convicted of and could easily expose it, but no one is acting. One only hopes the Ukrainians will stand strong and Europe will at last start supporting them the way they should have been from the beginning.
So what additional aid does Ukraine need to do that, that they have not been receiving over the last 9 to 12 months?
It’s been a catastrophic failure to date. But maybe you in fatigues and with your kit can turn the tide. Or are you just larping?
I'm just going by what the President of the United States is saying and what he is saying is very clear. That carries more weight with me than what a couple of guys on a message board are saying.
What's the evidence that this would a) work and b) result in a "better" Russia? Like what's the track record of successful regime change via economic strangulation/attrition?
Well, when you get around to explaining how Trump maintaining (in certain cases increasing) military pressure on Russia fits into your theory about how we have switched sides, please give a less lazy, less blundering answer than “cuz Trump don’t understand it yet.” We may not agree on all things, but we both know the next time the President waits until he fully understands something before acting on it will be the first time.
Well if what a politician says in public that carries more weight with you than two people that served during the first Trump Admin, I will not waste my time trying to change your mind.
If you really believe where his loyalty lies, then he's actually starting the negotiations well. He's doing a very good job fleecing Ukraine for Russia thus far.
His term did expire in May 2024. According to the most recent survey Zelensky had a higher approval rating than does Trump in the US. I guess you believe the alternative facts from Trump and Putin regarding Zelensky's approval. Keith Darden, an American University professor who studies Ukraine, told CNN on Wednesday that a poll this month from “the best and most reliable survey organization in Ukraine,” the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, found that 57% of Ukrainians trusted Zelensky. (Darden said, “They do not ask ‘approval’ ratings, but about ‘trust’ in leadership. In Ukrainian, it’s very similar to approval,” referring to a “kind of trust that they are doing a good job in their role.”) https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/19/poli...s-a-4-approval-rating-its-above-50/index.html
And Putin has maintained an approval rating higher than both of them. So let’s be done with the disingenuous “I don’t hate Russians, just their ruler.”
