Russia - US | Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 35K
  • Politics 
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>
 
Silence Dogood said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is utter bullshit that we can't afford to continue to support Ukraine. We could amp support up by multiples of 3 or 4 times the current levels if we wanted. We are sending 30-40 Billion to Ukraine annually. Our annual defense budget alone is 20 to 30 times that size. It is quite arguable that money spent for Ukraine to continue to degrade Russia is the best spent money of our entire national defense.
 
Purple Nurple said:
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.
Click to expand...
The end game is:

1. Accept current territory
2. Obtain security guarantees
3. Use frozen Russian assets to rebulid.

Trump's end game is:

1. Loot Ukraine
2. Unfreeze Russian assets
3. Provide no security guarantees or anything of actual value.
 
genevabuck said:
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>
Click to expand...

Perfectly rational for the EU to ask themselves “if not now, when? If not us, who?” with respect to ceasing the advancement of a genocidal despot. They’ve seen this first hand. The EU can confidently predict Putin’s incursions into the Baltics and Poland, at which point article 5 gets invoked after Russians are thoroughly entrenched, literally and figuratively, throughout Eastern Europe.
 
The word of the day is “squandered.”

Eighty years of American global leadership? Squandered.

The countless American lives lost in wars against totalitarian regimes? Squandered.

The chance of 100 more years of Pax Americana for my children and grandchildren? Squandered.
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
The end game is:

1. Accept current territory
2. Obtain security guarantees
3. Use frozen Russian assets to rebulid.

Trump's end game is:

1. Loot Ukraine
2. Unfreeze Russian assets
3. Provide no security guarantees or anything of actual value.
Click to expand...
Good summary. Except number 1 needs to Be "Thank orangeturd for his world excellence"
 
Healing said:
Perfectly rational for the EU to ask themselves “if not now, when? If not us, who?” with respect to ceasing the advancement of a genocidal despot. They’ve seen this first hand. The EU can confidently predict Putin’s incursions into the Baltics and Poland, at which point article 5 gets invoked after Russians are thoroughly entrenched, literally and figuratively, throughout Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...
The Russians have a centuries old history of attacking and annexing other countries. And it is not just ancient history. Stalin attacked Finland right before the start of WWII and took about 50% of its territory. The Fins hate the Russians. Also, with Hitler’s acquiescence, he annexed the Baltic States. Russia lost vast amounts of territory after the Soviet Union split up. Putin has, with his invasion of Ukraine, started a process of regaining much (if not all) of that territory. Ukraine is just the start. Anyone who doesn’t see that is ignorant about European history. He will not stop until he is stopped by force. This isn’t just about Ukraine, this is about the fate of all Europe. So, you trumpers who are applauding your POS , heed my warning; if Putin is not stopped now, the price to stop him will just get higher and higher. It’s like Clemenza’s line in The Godfather. “You got to stop them in the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich. They should have never let him get away with that. They were just asking for big trouble.”
 
wmheel1287 said:
It is utter bullshit that we can't afford to continue to support Ukraine. We could amp support up by multiples of 3 or 4 times the current levels if we wanted. We are sending 30-40 Billion to Ukraine annually. Our annual defense budget alone is 20 to 30 times that size. It is quite arguable that money spent for Ukraine to continue to degrade Russia is the best spent money of our entire national defense.
Click to expand...
So more war? More lives lost? You think Russia would just stand by and be slowly weakened?
 
lawtig02 said:
The word of the day is “squandered.”

Eighty years of American global leadership? Squandered.

The countless American lives lost in wars against totalitarian regimes? Squandered.

The chance of 100 more years of Pax Americana for my children and grandchildren? Squandered.

Fuck Trump. And all who voted for him.
Click to expand...
It really is so unfathomable that so many Americans simply…..got bored….of being the strongest, most powerful, most economically prosperous, most influential nation in the world, and decided to elect the only person in the history of the nation who ran for president on an explicit platform of dismantling and destroying it all. Every other empire that I can think of in the history of the world declined because they were usurped by outside forces. Ours did it voluntarily.
 
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...
Trump was described as an isolationist in The Art of the Deal.
 
www.bbc.com

Starmer: Coalition of willing to guarantee Ukraine peace

The UK prime minister says Europe would take the lead but would need US backing for a peace plan.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

"The UK, France and other countries will step up their efforts in a "coalition of the willing" and seek to involve the US in their support for Ukraine, he [Starmer] said."

Ah, Dubya and the good ole' days. I really, really like Starmer. Good man. Taking a proper piss out of the Yanks.
 
Last edited:
Healing said:
Perfectly rational for the EU to ask themselves “if not now, when? If not us, who?” with respect to ceasing the advancement of a genocidal despot. They’ve seen this first hand. The EU can confidently predict Putin’s incursions into the Baltics and Poland, at which point article 5 gets invoked after Russians are thoroughly entrenched, literally and figuratively, throughout Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...


Also forces the US's hand. Mouth breathers won't be applauding Trump when Putin is killing British and French soldiers. We would be obligated....and Putin would have to know that. It's a way to drag the U.S. into defending Ukraine against Trumps will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top