Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 159K
  • Politics 
farce© said:
I think Ukraine gets to decide when they want a ceasefire, not Donald Trump. We need to continue to arm them as long as they are willing to fight, and we need to remove some of the constraints Biden put on Ukraine. Give them the missiles and allow them to attack in Russia let them take the war to Putin. Get Ukraine out of the WWI meat grinder we have kept them stuck in. Force Putin to defend Russia and put domestic pressure on him at home.
Click to expand...
And trump gets to decide if he keeps arming them. If he perceives it’s a lost cause as he apparently has he can and is using that as leverage to get to a ceasefire. Continuing the status quo is a losing play for us and Ukraine. From your comment I’m guessing you agree. I’m for ending it quickly before Ukraine loses any more territory. But, if we are going to arm them then it needs to be without restrictions which might result in some unwanted consequences.
 
Callatoroy said:
And trump gets to decide if he keeps arming them. If he perceives it’s a lost cause as he apparently has he can and is using that as leverage to get to a ceasefire. Continuing the status quo is a losing play for us and Ukraine. From your comment I’m guessing you agree. I’m for ending it quickly before Ukraine loses any more territory. But, if we are going to arm them then it needs to be without restrictions which might result in some unwanted consequences.
Click to expand...
It might, but Ukraine should make that decision and we should support them accordingly. Trump pulling the rug out from under them is a mistake. His unwillingness to point the blame entirely at Putin is unconscionable.
 
The thing about this particular conflict, IMO, is that it's not one where acquisition of natural resources is the invader's objective, nor really is even the subjugation of the invaded people. Russia doesn't believe Ukraine has a right to exist. So IMO they are not going to agree to a ceasefire, even if Ukraine cedes territory, because this isn't about territory. It's about political control of Ukraine. Russia wants to get rid of the current Ukrainian government and put in a puppet government. Russia won't agree to any terms that stabilizes the Ukrainian government, even if the territory is ceded. Russia thinks it's winning so they have no reason to go into ceasefire negotiations in good faith. Any appearance of good faith is just a smokescreen to reconstitute their war efforts for a stronger attack later. And it's not like Russia doesn't already have a sordid history of breaching peace agreements and treaties.

So how does the Ukraine war end? If you're the U.S and Europe, you either give Russia control of Ukraine, or you keep funding Ukraine's war effort to allow them to fight and wear Russia down eventually. The alternative is that instead of having to repel the Russian army from Ukraine- whether it's next year, or next decade- we'll be needing to repel it from the Baltics or from Poland. I'm just frustrated that our current administration and so many of its supporters can't see the forest for the trees. We quite literally have Russia on the ropes in the 8th round- it would be a mistake with potentially devastating future consequences to let them off.
 
Callatoroy said:
And trump gets to decide if he keeps arming them. If he perceives it’s a lost cause as he apparently has he can and is using that as leverage to get to a ceasefire. Continuing the status quo is a losing play for us and Ukraine. From your comment I’m guessing you agree. I’m for ending it quickly before Ukraine loses any more territory. But, if we are going to arm them then it needs to be without restrictions which might result in some unwanted consequences.
Click to expand...
Even if you give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume this reflects some sort of reasoned cost/benefit analysis on his part - as opposed to just the result of his natural affinity for Putin and Russia that he expresses almost constantly - then the way to achieve this objective would be to publicly support Ukraine while privately pushing Zelenskyy to sue for peace. He can push Ukraine towards the negotiating table with publicly throwing them under the bus and siding with an autocratic tyrant. But by doing his typical blustery fake tough guy act, he's going to make it harder to get peace on fair terms because he is publicly weakening Zelenskyy's hand while strengthening Putin's. There is simply no realistic scenario here where it is in the interests of our country (or Western democracies generally) to embolden Putin and strengthen his hand. That ridiculous Oval Office melodrama was just an incredibly stupid and dangerous stunt no matter what you think Trump's real motivations are.
 
farce© said:
we need to remove some of the constraints Biden put on Ukraine. Give them the missiles and allow them to attack in Russia let them take the war to Putin. Get Ukraine out of the WWI meat grinder we have kept them stuck in.
Click to expand...
The past is the past (re what we have not given them) Obviously orangeturd won't involve the USA at a higher-or even present level Hopefully other NATO allies will step it up
 
I don't think I'm a warhawk by any means but I do think that it's about time for NATO- and specifically the European NATO countries- to feel more comfortable calling Putin's bluff. I think that NATO should consider sending troops to Ukraine to man *defensive-only* positions that would free up more Ukrainians to mount possible offensive assaults on Russian forces in the east. Draw a line at Kyiv or just east. I'd phrase it as something like, "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has established a no-fly zone over the internationally recognized sovereign territories of Ukraine, at Ukraine's request, and is sending security assistance to investigate and prevent violations of Ukraine's border by foreign nationals." Phrase it as blandly as possible, don't even mention fighting Russians, and stress the invitation of the Ukrainian government.

I'm sure some folks would say, "well, Putin would consider that a direct act of war" but that's where I think it's time to call Putin's bluff. He isn't stupid enough to actually risk direct armed confrontation with NATO nations. The whole point would be to intervene militarily, but to do so in such a way that makes it clear that there will be no attacks across the Russian border, except in direct response to attacks on Ukraine. So if missiles are launched at Ukraine, then their launchers are targets. The whole point is it wouldn't be the NATO war machine in Ukraine- it'd be Ukraine with *NATO equipment*. That is an important distinction.
 
Data from the Russian Ministry of Finance indicates a loss of nearly 20% in federal budget revenues from oil and gas sales in February. This occurred amid the tightening of sanctions by the US during the tenure of former President Joe Biden, according to DW and The Moscow Times.
 


“… The latest strikes occurred after an announcement from the United States that the country was suspending both military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine in an effort to force Ukraine to the negotiating table with Russia. Officials in Kyiv have warned that without American assistance Ukraine’s air-defense capabilities would be among the first elements of its security to be compromised.

The Trump administration’s special envoy to Russia and Ukraine, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, said on Thursday that cutting off intelligence sharing with Kyiv was meant to get the attention of Mr. Zelensky, akin to “hitting a mule with a two-by-four across the nose.”

Mr. Kellogg was speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, and his remarks earned a frosty reception from the national security experts in the audience.

When Mr. Kellogg, discussing the pause in intelligence sharing, said the Ukrainians “brought it on themselves,” the audience hissed in response.

Earlier Thursday, rescue workers raced to pull wounded civilians from the ruined building in Mr. Zelensky’s hometown, Kryvyi Rih, in central Ukraine, and air-defense crews across the country scrambled to defend against bombardments that have become routine during the winter.

… The American-made Patriot system has proved to be Ukraine’s most reliable defense against Russia’s most sophisticated ballistic missiles. The pause in American military assistance could leave Ukrainians short of the interceptor missiles that have helped provide a blanket of protection over the capital, Kyiv, and other cities.

At the same time, Ukraine’s air-raid alerts are informed, to some degree, by the early warning data provided by American satellites, which can detect aircraft and missile launches deep in Russian territory. It is not clear if the pause on intelligence sharing included information related to those systems. …”
 
CFordUNC said:
I don't think I'm a warhawk by any means but I do think that it's about time for NATO- and specifically the European NATO countries- to feel more comfortable calling Putin's bluff. I think that NATO should consider sending troops to Ukraine to man *defensive-only* positions that would free up more Ukrainians to mount possible offensive assaults on Russian forces in the east. Draw a line at Kyiv or just east. I'd phrase it as something like, "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has established a no-fly zone over the internationally recognized sovereign territories of Ukraine, at Ukraine's request, and is sending security assistance to investigate and prevent violations of Ukraine's border by foreign nationals." Phrase it as blandly as possible, don't even mention fighting Russians, and stress the invitation of the Ukrainian government.

I'm sure some folks would say, "well, Putin would consider that a direct act of war" but that's where I think it's time to call Putin's bluff. He isn't stupid enough to actually risk direct armed confrontation with NATO nations. The whole point would be to intervene militarily, but to do so in such a way that makes it clear that there will be no attacks across the Russian border, except in direct response to attacks on Ukraine. So if missiles are launched at Ukraine, then their launchers are targets. The whole point is it wouldn't be the NATO war machine in Ukraine- it'd be Ukraine with *NATO equipment*. That is an important distinction.
Click to expand...
That makes very good sense.
If only "Little Marco" was offering solutions to aid Ukraine, instead of standing back and standing by like a Proud Boy while the Blusterer In Chief aligns us with Russia and North Korea. Zelensky only 'has no cards' to negotiate with to end the conflict when we weaken rather than strengthen his hand, which seems to be the plan now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top