Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 127K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
I'm hoping by the limited response to this thread that I'm overreacting. I'm just absolutely beside myself that an American president would say something as reckless as that.
Click to expand...
There’s so much in his statement that is objectionable (and yet mundane for him), I’m not sure which part concerns you. The bellicose warning to Iran? I’m not too worried about that given his desperate need for a foreign policy accomplishment. It’s just his usual bluster, unfettered by a grasp of the gravity of the moment. The Israeli threshold for Iran’s nuclear ambition is far lower than ours and they are inherently more likely to launch an attack with the potential to destabilize the region.
 


So Trump welcomes a Russia sanctions bill?

From the editorial he linked:

“… The bill, which has a whopping 82 co-sponsors in the Senate, would impose “bone-crushing” sanctions on Russia. Right now, Russia is suffering double-digit inflation, skyrocketing interest ratesand catastrophic labor shortages. The only thing keeping the country’s economy from collapse is revenue from oil and gas exports. This legislation would shut off the most important source of cash for the Kremlin by barring energy transactionswith sanctioned Russian banks (which President Joe Biden allowed to continue), and imposing a 500 percent secondary tariff on any country that purchases Russian-origin uranium, oil, natural gas, petroleum, or petroleum products and petrochemical products. This would give Trump the power to effectively drive Russian energy sales from the global market, which would crush the Russian economy and deny Putin the funds to continue his aggression against Ukraine.

…
Signing the bill does not mean Trump has to implement the sanctions immediately. The proposed sanctions take effect only after the president issues a formal determination that Putin is engaging in sanctionable acts as described in the bill, such as “refusing to negotiate a peace agreement with Ukraine.”
If Trump is not comfortable making that determination, there is another option: He does not have to sign the bill immediately after Congress approves it. Once a bill is sent to the president, he has 10 days to sign or veto it. But nothing requires Congress to send the president a bill it has passed. Indeed, after it is approved in the House and the Senate, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) can hold the bill at the deskindefinitely rather than sending it to the White House — giving Trump as much time as he needs before signing it.

…
Congress could give Trump even more leverage by adding a provision to the sanctions legislation that would authorize the sale of U.S. weapons to Ukraine, using Foreign Military Financing (FMF) direct loans, like those we provide to our allies and partners around the world. Such loans would cost taxpayers nothing — indeed they would earn a profit, because the loans come with interest that must be paid to the U.S. government. Congress could also create a transfer authority that permits frozen Russian assets to be used by Ukraine to buy U.S. weapons.

The combination of sanctions and arms is precisely what Trump promised he would do if Putin did not agree to peace. In March, he declared: “If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault … I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia.” And in an interview with me last year at Mar-a-Lago, he said that if Putin refused his peace efforts, he would give Ukraine more weapons than it has ever gotten before….”
 
BlooVooDoo said:
There’s so much in his statement that is objectionable (and yet mundane for him), I’m not sure which part concerns you. The bellicose warning to Iran? I’m not too worried about that given his desperate need for a foreign policy accomplishment. It’s just his usual bluster, unfettered by a grasp of the gravity of the moment. The Israeli threshold for Iran’s nuclear ambition is far lower than ours and they are inherently more likely to launch an attack with the potential to destabilize the region.
Click to expand...
1. You're right.

2. Trump doesn't seem to have any appreciation for the gravity of this moment. Russia has nukes, and thus a Russian response to the brilliant Ukranian attack involves the possibility of nukes. Iran is close to, but does not yet have, nukes, but Israel does, and an escalation in that region (especially if advocated by Moscow) thus raises the risks significantly.

In short, I don't know what specific messages were communicated between DC and Moscow in 1962. But it's hard to imagine there were any messages more destabilizing than Trump's tweet earlier today.
 
nycfan said:


So Trump welcomes a Russia sanctions bill?

From the editorial he linked:

“… The bill, which has a whopping 82 co-sponsors in the Senate, would impose “bone-crushing” sanctions on Russia. Right now, Russia is suffering double-digit inflation, skyrocketing interest ratesand catastrophic labor shortages. The only thing keeping the country’s economy from collapse is revenue from oil and gas exports. This legislation would shut off the most important source of cash for the Kremlin by barring energy transactionswith sanctioned Russian banks (which President Joe Biden allowed to continue), and imposing a 500 percent secondary tariff on any country that purchases Russian-origin uranium, oil, natural gas, petroleum, or petroleum products and petrochemical products. This would give Trump the power to effectively drive Russian energy sales from the global market, which would crush the Russian economy and deny Putin the funds to continue his aggression against Ukraine.

…
Signing the bill does not mean Trump has to implement the sanctions immediately. The proposed sanctions take effect only after the president issues a formal determination that Putin is engaging in sanctionable acts as described in the bill, such as “refusing to negotiate a peace agreement with Ukraine.”
If Trump is not comfortable making that determination, there is another option: He does not have to sign the bill immediately after Congress approves it. Once a bill is sent to the president, he has 10 days to sign or veto it. But nothing requires Congress to send the president a bill it has passed. Indeed, after it is approved in the House and the Senate, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) can hold the bill at the deskindefinitely rather than sending it to the White House — giving Trump as much time as he needs before signing it.

…
Congress could give Trump even more leverage by adding a provision to the sanctions legislation that would authorize the sale of U.S. weapons to Ukraine, using Foreign Military Financing (FMF) direct loans, like those we provide to our allies and partners around the world. Such loans would cost taxpayers nothing — indeed they would earn a profit, because the loans come with interest that must be paid to the U.S. government. Congress could also create a transfer authority that permits frozen Russian assets to be used by Ukraine to buy U.S. weapons.

The combination of sanctions and arms is precisely what Trump promised he would do if Putin did not agree to peace. In March, he declared: “If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault … I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia.” And in an interview with me last year at Mar-a-Lago, he said that if Putin refused his peace efforts, he would give Ukraine more weapons than it has ever gotten before….”
Click to expand...

I mean, why wait? Trump could just declare a 1,000% tariff on Russian goods on his own recognizance, apparently …
 
lawtig02 said:
1. You're right.

2. Trump doesn't seem to have any appreciation for the gravity of this moment. Russia has nukes, and thus a Russian response to the brilliant Ukranian attack involves the possibility of nukes. Iran is close to, but does not yet have, nukes, but Israel does, and an escalation in that region (especially if advocated by Moscow) thus raises the risks significantly.

In short, I don't know what specific messages were communicated between DC and Moscow in 1962. But it's hard to imagine there were any messages more destabilizing than Trump's tweet earlier today.
Click to expand...
IMG_7200.jpeg
IMG_7201.jpeg
IMG_7202.jpeg
IMG_7206.jpeg
 
BlooVooDoo said:
There’s so much in his statement that is objectionable (and yet mundane for him), I’m not sure which part concerns you. The bellicose warning to Iran? I’m not too worried about that given his desperate need for a foreign policy accomplishment. It’s just his usual bluster, unfettered by a grasp of the gravity of the moment. The Israeli threshold for Iran’s nuclear ambition is far lower than ours and they are inherently more likely to launch an attack with the potential to destabilize the region.
Click to expand...
 
nycfan said:


This is an unsurprising report.
Click to expand...

“… Mr. Trump did not say in the statement if he sought to discourage Mr. Putin from attacking Ukraine. He rather expressed optimism over the prospect of working with Mr. Putin on another foreign policy priority: deterring Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The White House did not immediately respond to questions inquiring if Mr. Trump had pushed back against Mr. Putin in the phone call or why his Truth Social post had been temporarily deleted.

… Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin foreign policy aide who briefed reporters on the call, did not say whether Mr. Putin had discussed retaliation. But he described Ukraine’s government and its actions, including apparent attacks on railroads on Sunday, as “terrorist,” disregarding that Russia initiated the war with its 2022 invasion and that in recent weeks it had stepped up its regular bombardment of Ukrainian cities and civilians.

… Mr. Trump has told aides repeatedly that Mr. Zelensky is a “bad guy” who is edging the world to the precipice of nuclear war. But he has at other times told advisers that it is understandable that Mr. Zelensky is fighting back, given that he is in a war against an enemy who seems determined to keep bombing Ukrainian cities.

He tends to be more deferential to Mr. Putin, although he has at times expressed disappointment.

He previously seemed to think that what he described as his “very, very good relationship” with the Russian leader would bring a quick end to the war. Mr. Trump has learned the hard way what the limits of American leverage are when he is unwilling to send Ukraine more weapons and money. …”
 
lawtig02 said:
That's fantastic. I don't think I have seen those before, but that's great.
Click to expand...
I agree. A note at the bottom of the first page suggests this letter was declassified on August 29, 1974. While I have no exact recollection of what I was doing on that day, I think it is safe to say that revisiting the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been low on my list of priorities. Today however, it looms increasing large.
 
nycfan said:
“. . .. Mr. Trump has learned the hard way what the limits of American leverage are when he is unwilling to send Ukraine more weapons and money. . . ..”
Click to expand...
So, St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago, the master negotiator, is just now learning that it is a bad idea to make unilateral concessions to a homicidal maniac like Vlad "the Ras" Putin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top