Russia - Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 152K
  • Politics 

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.
 
superrific said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok then I misunderstood what you were saying.
 
What is the end game for Ukraine here? Russia started the war and is the aggressor. Agreed, but what does Ukraine think they can realistically achieve? They have had full support for the last three years. I can't see how continued support does anything new. They keep grinding. However, they keep losing lives and territory. Yes, Russia looks weak, but aren't they showing restraint in not leveling the full force of their arsenal against Ukraine. And god forbid, Putin actually gets backed into a corner and flips the birds to the world on the way out. IDK.
 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
Bring Putin to the Ovam

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?
Click to expand...
The war can't go on. The US can't afford to foot the bill. No one is supporting Russia. The logical approach is bringing Putin to the table. We haven't tried talking with Putin in 3 years. If there are no negotiations whats the alternative? How does this turn out? Whats the plan? We need Putin to stop. Biden couldn't do it, Europeans couldn't do it, we need him at the table. Zelensky undermined diplomacy at every moment at the white house. Why is being peacemaker a bad thing? Is it because Trump is leading the efforts. If Zelenskyy operates under the false hope of U.S. protection in a war with Russia, he is likely to adopt a harder stance in negotiations with Putin, making an end to the war less likely.
The media and the pro Ukraine crowd mistakenly believe that the U.S. is obligated to defend Ukraine. This belief stems from various misconceptions related to past agreements, international alliances, and the concept of global responsibility. First, there is a misunderstanding of NATO’s role. Some assume that, because Ukraine has sought support from Western countries, the U.S. is obligated to defend it under NATOs mutual defense clause. However, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and therefore the U.S. is not bound by NATO’s Article 5, which commits member states to defend a fellow member if attacked.
While there is a strong moral case for supporting Ukraine, moral obligations are not the same as legal or treaty-based obligations that would require military intervention. If there is a moral obligation to defend Ukraine, then that obligation should extend to Europe, Japan, and any other democracy.
Yet, they have all left the U.S. to pay the bulk of Ukraine’s defense. Rather than increasing their support for Ukraine, these nations are expressing anger at the U.S. for halting its defense aid, which is well within the U.S.’s right to do.
 
The UK is close to putting boots on the ground, and if they are attacked invoking Article 5.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We have a huge problem on our hands.<br><br>NATO countries are now saying they&#39;ll bypass the U.S. and send their troops into Ukraine.<br><br>And then, if Russia attacks, they might invoke Article 5, which would basically start World War 3 by dragging in all of NATO and the U.S.<br><br>Bad things…</p>&mdash; Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="">March 2, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top