Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 144K
  • Politics 
dcphx said:
Trump has always been an isolationist. He is going to advance an isolationist foreign policy and economic policy (IMO).
Click to expand...
I agree with the majority of your post, so I didn't bother to quote it here.

I don't think Trump is an isolationist as much as he is a transactionalist. He only offers to support others insofar as they offer him something that he values, either before they seek his help or as payment for receiving his help.

He is very much willing to help Russia because Russia assisted him, both in his private financial dealings and in his efforts to be elected as POTUS. Zelensky refused to help him when he requested Zelensky's assistance against Biden in 2019/2020 and so he will refuse to assist Ukraine now unless Zelensky provides a large payoff to Trump/the US (mineral rights).

Trump assists Israel because they have assisted him in the past and because he expects to gain from the transaction in the future (Trump Gaza).

Trump is very interested in international engagements in Greenland and in Panama, even though those nations have sought nothing from him, but solely because he wants something from them.

I don't think you can correctly label Trump an isolationist because he is more than willing to take on international causes/issues, but you can label him a transactionalist because he only wants involvement with causes/issues where he stands to gain from the engagement.
 
nycfan said:

Peace is not Zelenskyy’s priority, Tulsi Gabbard says​

“President Zelenskyy has different aims in mind,” she said.


“… “President Trump is committed to peace and to freedom,” Gabbard told host Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday.” “We’re seeing this big divergence here between his position, his commitment to these values and the interests of the American people and the interests of President Zelenskyy and these European leaders.”

… President Zelenskyy has different aims in mind,” she said. “He has said that he wants to end this war, but he will only accept an end apparently that leads to what he views as Ukraine’s victory even if it comes at an incredibly high cost of potentially World War III or even a nuclear war.”

… Gabbatd put the onus on Zelenskyy to repair the damaged Ukraine-U.S. relationship.

“When President Zelenskyy directly challenged President Trump and Vice President Vance in front of the media and the American people, he really showed his lack of interest in any real, good faith negotiations,” Gabbard told Bream. “This has created a huge rift in the relationship.”

And now?

“There’s going to have to be a rebuilding of any kind of interest in good faith negotiations I think before President Trump is going to be willing to reengage on this,” Gabbard said.

Gabbard also assailed Zelenskyy’s leadership over his country, telling Bream that Kyiv had canceled elections and silenced its political opposition. Trump in February called Zelenskyy, who was elected in 2019, a “dictator without elections” and American negotiators have discussed the prospect of new elections in Ukraine in peace talks with Russian counterparts.

But elections now could be perilous for Ukraine, and even Zelenskyy’s top critics are opposed to the idea of holding votes during wartime, due in large part to the risk of Russians influencing campaigns.

“We could go down a whole laundry list of issues that are against the values of democracy and freedom,” Gabbard said,

“So it really begs the question as Vice President Vance said again in Munich, it’s clear that they’re standing against Putin, obviously that’s clear. But what are they actually really fighting for? And are they aligned with the values that they claim to hold in agreement with us?” …”
Click to expand...
I read ,but can't vouch for the truth of it, that their constitution forbade elections during war time.
 
SnoopRob said:
I agree with the majority of your post, so I didn't bother to quote it here.

I don't think Trump is an isolationist as much as he is a transactionalist. He only offers to support others insofar as they offer him something that he values, either before they seek his help or as payment for receiving his help.

He is very much willing to help Russia because Russia assisted him, both in his private financial dealings and in his efforts to be elected as POTUS. Zelensky refused to help him when he requested Zelensky's assistance against Biden in 2019/2020 and so he will refuse to assist Ukraine now unless Zelensky provides a large payoff to Trump/the US (mineral rights).

Trump assists Israel because they have assisted him in the past and because he expects to gain from the transaction in the future (Trump Gaza).

Trump is very interested in international engagements in Greenland and in Panama, even though those nations have sought nothing from him, but solely because he wants something from them.

I don't think you can correctly label Trump an isolationist because he is more than willing to take on international causes/issues, but you can label him a transactionalist because he only wants involvement with causes/issues where he stands to gain from the engagement.
Click to expand...
Well said. And he’s also much more comfortable with authoritarian strongmen than he is with democratic leaders.
 

Peace is not Zelenskyy’s priority, Tulsi Gabbard says​

“President Zelenskyy has different aims in mind,” she said. FROM LINK

True. But I'm pretty sure Zelensky knows the difference between Peace and Surrender. No one should be blaming Zelensky for that.
 
Silence Dogood said:
Whats the plan of action?
Click to expand...
Bring Putin to the Ovam
Silence Dogood said:
Liberals are the party of war, who knew.
Click to expand...
You don't answer questions...just try to change the subject. Why?

Also Putin started this war, why are you supporting his goals to expand Russia? Do you think forcing Ukraine's hand to make a bad deal will make this Russian administration want to invade another country?


Do you not see how helping Ukraine to fight them over there is good for us here?
 
superrific said:
Not really. It was an incursion, not invasion. Russia didn't send in troops. Russia merely activated and supplied various pro-Russian militias or separatists, as well as sending a cadre of non-uniformed military. But there was no real fighting, and nothing for the Americans or Europeans to do, really.

Also, that incursion occurred basically the moment after the pro-Russian president was deposed and a new government created. That was Feb. 2014. Ukraine was in no position to fight, and they didn't -- because there were no formal enemies and because they didn't have the cohesion to do so.

It was not remotely the same situation, at all.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are right. Russia did send troops into Crimea. IIRC they were wearing unmarked uniforms and Putin declared that they were not Russian but nobody believed that.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
I don’t think you are right. Russia did send troops into Crimea. IIRC they were wearing unmarked uniforms and Putin declared that they were not Russian but nobody believed that.
Click to expand...
That's what I said -- a cadre of unmarked military. I don't think it could have been too many, and they obviously didn't have air support, tanks, artillery or anything like an actual army. An incursion, not an invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top