Russia - US | Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 35K
  • Politics 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
Do you know how long this has been going?
We are not in a mess, we're supporting democracy and someone fighting an enemy. Trump is taking this personal because Putin.

That agreement came with no guarantees...do you trust Putin?
Click to expand...
The US is losing money, lives are being lost, and starting ww3 with Russia isn't good. We need peace! Ceasefire!! How many more lives?
It can be both. I don't have to trust and can still make an agreement. Are you saying keep fighting? Til when?
 
Silence Dogood said:
The US is losing money, lives are being lost, and starting ww3 with Russia isn't good. We need peace! Ceasefire!! How many more lives?
It can be both. I don't have to trust and can still make an agreement. Are you saying keep fighting? Til when?
Click to expand...
Russia has started all of this and letting then take parts of a sovereign nation would give them momentum in starting WW3...unless of course you believe Putin.

Also, helping Ukraine fight our enemy there without losing lives is a great deal for democracy and the American ppl...we should give and help more.

Do you realize that Russia is hostile to the US? An enemy?
 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
Russia has started all of this and letting then take parts of a sovereign nation would give them momentum in starting WW3...unless of course you believe Putin.

Also, helping Ukraine fight our enemy there without losing lives is a great deal for democracy and the American ppl...we should give and help more.

Do you realize that Russia is hostile to the US? An enemy?
Click to expand...
Liberals are the party of war, who knew.
 
Silence Dogood said:
Liberals are the party of war, who knew.
Click to expand...
If your next door neighbor used force to try to take over your land and home, but you defended yourself to limit the neighbors to taking a third of your yard and let’s say your garage but not the rest of the home, are you saying your aggressive invader neighbor should get to keep what they took if they will just quit trying to take more and you will take it on faith that the same neighbor won’t use the break in fighting to re-arm and try to take more of your home and land again later? Or would you want some assurances of defense against future attacks before stopping your current self-defense efforts and giving your attacker part of your land and the chance to regroup? Note that your aggressive neighbor already took your adjacent waterfront property several years ago and has violated prior written ceasefire agreements brokered by other neighbors.
 
nycfan said:
If your next door neighbor used force to try to take over your land and home, but you defended yourself to limit the neighbors to taking a third of your yard and let’s say your garage but not the rest of the home, are you saying your aggressive invader neighbor should get to keep what they took if they will just quit trying to take more and you will take it on faith that the same neighbor won’t use the break in fighting to re-arm and try to take more of your home and land again later? Or would you want some assurances of defense against future attacks before stopping your current self-defense efforts and giving your attacker part of your land and the chance to regroup? Note that your aggressive neighbor already took your adjacent waterfront property several years ago and has violated prior written ceasefire agreements brokered by other neighbors.
Click to expand...
These might be the post that ends dogwood’s participation in this thread.
 


The White House is spending a lot of effort/media capital to combat the view that the meeting was a set-up. Everybody who is a source for anyone in the media seems to have been sent scurrying to make this point.

[Aside: That sounds like a disappointing menu for a modern White House visit, TBH. Substitute a jello-based dessert and it sounds like a menu from Ike’s administration…]

“… The East Room of the White House had been decorated in greenery and four pairs of American and Ukrainian flags, set up for the leaders to sign a minerals deal that national security adviser Michael Waltz called “critical” for the United States. Elsewhere, White House staff were preparing a celebratory lunch of rosemary roasted chicken and crème brûlée, with the menu laid out on stationery bearing closely intertwined American and Ukrainian flags.

White House officials were expecting a positive meeting and said they had little reason to anticipate animosity. Both sides were satisfied with the minerals deal, hoping it might recalibrate the relationship between the two nations, Ukrainian and U.S. officials said, speaking like others on condition of anonymity to discuss relations at a tense time. Trump himself was in an upbeat mood the night before the meeting, according to those who had spoken with him.

…
The first sign of problems to come appeared shortly thereafter: After Zelensky got out of his car in his traditional wartime fatigues, Trump looked at reporters and said, “He’s all dressed up today.”

It reflected a long-standing complaint that some conservatives have had about the Ukrainian leader, and was resurrected in the Oval Office when Brian Glenn, a correspondent at Real America’s Voice and the partner of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), asked Zelensky, “Why don’t you wear a suit? You’re at the highest level in this country’s office, and you refuse to wear a suit.” …”
 
Continued — WH is crediting/blaming Vance:

“… Vance had sat through two bilateral Oval Office press gaggles earlier in the week with little interjection, speaking up only when Trump called on him to answer a reporter’s question Thursday during British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit.

… But fresh in Vance’s mind was a meeting only two weeks earlier in Munich, where he, Rubio and Zelensky — before aides and cameras joined them — had a serious conversation about signing the minerals deal, according to administration officials. The day after the meeting, however, Zelensky said he couldn’t sign a deal that wasn’t connected to security guarantees.

Rubio later said in an interview that Zelensky had assured Vance and himself that he wanted “to do this deal” and only needed legislative approval to get it done, and that Zelensky’s later public comments left the Americans “upset” — a sentiment that loomed over Friday’s Oval Office talks, even as the Trump administration was preparing to make the deal happen.

Vance’s in-the-moment decision to criticize Zelensky for not being “respectful” and questioning Trump’s diplomatic strategy changed the tone of the meeting and primed Trump to also let loose on the Ukrainian president.

… Trump and Vance later spoke about the interaction, and Vance’s decision to chime in, and Trump indicated that he approved of the vice president’s comments, according to a White House official.

“They both felt exactly the same way about the circumstances, that Zelensky was being inappropriate,” the official said, and that “it was not right for him to be litigating” the U.S. strategy with Russia “in front of the press.” …”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top