Russia - US | Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 35K
  • Politics 
What am I missing here...

I've heard multiple news updates or reports that mention European countries and whether or not they could defend themselves against an attack from Russia.

Given that Russia can't even defeat Ukraine, why is there any concern about Russia defeating multiple European countries?
Because if the countries in Europe have us as a strong ally, Putin is not nearly as likely to attack them. Also, his next target when (or if) he settles his business in Ukraine will be the Baltic States. They are part of NATO. If we will not honor our commitments under Article 5, then that makes that situation more volatile. The European powers cannot standby and do nothing while Putin covers those three small countries in darkness.
NATO has been the main reason there has been no general war in Europe for 80 years. If we are not going to honor our pledge to NATO, then Europe becomes more vulnerable. Thanks a lot Trump you stupid bastard.
 
“Since the invasion the Kremlin has made close to a trillion dollars from oil and gas sales – much of it from European customers.”

The article literally states that much of that trillion comes from Europe. But that isn't the point at all is it? The real issues are these:

1. The US and europe put in place sanctions to isolate putin knowing that the sale of oil and gas is what was going to fund his war. Europe undermined those sanctions by giving putin the funding to prosecute the war.

2. Biden's leadership and effectiveness in maintaining that coalition apparently was non existent. Nor could he effectively manage getting europe to seize the 400 billion in russian assets.

3. Trump inherits the war and knows, despite support from the US and europe, it isn't enough to kick putin back into russia. Why? Because europe is giving putin the financial resources he needs to keep the war going and they have more manpower.

4. Trump knows its over and is trying to negotiate a REALISTIC agreement because russia has all the leverage due to europe's financial assistance. putin can wait everyone out.

5. It now is illogical to keep sending ukraine money because its just money down the drain.

6. Given that europe was literally paying the country they were fighting through proxy, it is also illogical to bail europe out of the disaster they helped create. Europe can't negotiate a peace without the US. So the US will once again bail europe out

7. Trump is right and all who want to keep funding the war are wrong.

Initially I was in disagreement with trump when he stated he wanted to discontinue support at the biden levels. But I realized, and am on record as saying that as long as the oil is flowing russia can continue to financially wage war. That is when I accepted trump was right to end it if he could get putin to agree to no nato for ukraine and to agree no more territory acquisition beyond what it already occupied. The mineral rights deal is a win for the US and ukraine and it provides some security for ukraine.

It is beyond dumb to continue to give ukraine any more money than is absolutely necessary to hold the existing lines until a peace agreement can be achieved. Europe has pulled the rug out from under ukraine and wasted billions of dollars. They aren't all of a sudden going to stop buying the oil so there is no point in continuing for the US. It's also beyond hypocritical for europe to criticize the US in any way. They should be begging trump to get a peace deal finalized as soon as he can.
You are absolutely wrong with your analysis. In fact according to your own analysis you are wrong. You are looking at the past three years data and not current. The gas pipelines to the three EU countries that were buying it has been shut off at the end of last year. And Turkey, in the last two months has stopped buying the oil from Russia. Russia, in the last two months no longer has a market in Europe.

So if you look at current data, then your conclusion is wrong.
 
You are absolutely wrong with your analysis. In fact according to your own analysis you are wrong. You are looking at the past three years data and not current. The gas pipelines to the three EU countries that were buying it has been shut off at the end of last year. And Turkey, in the last two months has stopped buying the oil from Russia. Russia, in the last two months no longer has a market in Europe.

So if you look at current data, then your conclusion is wrong.
You mean you can't change the whole oil and gas distribution of a country or countries overnight? Are you sure?
 
And Putin isn’t going to attack us companies that the US G’ment will protect.
Oopsies.


A ballistic missile struck an ordinary hotel. Just before the attack, volunteers from a humanitarian organization—citizens of Ukraine, the United States, and the United Kingdom—had checked into the hotel.
 
“Since the invasion the Kremlin has made close to a trillion dollars from oil and gas sales – much of it from European customers.”

The article literally states that much of that trillion comes from Europe. But that isn't the point at all is it? The real issues are these:

1. The US and europe put in place sanctions to isolate putin knowing that the sale of oil and gas is what was going to fund his war. Europe undermined those sanctions by giving putin the funding to prosecute the war.

2. Biden's leadership and effectiveness in maintaining that coalition apparently was non existent. Nor could he effectively manage getting europe to seize the 400 billion in russian assets.

3. Trump inherits the war and knows, despite support from the US and europe, it isn't enough to kick putin back into russia. Why? Because europe is giving putin the financial resources he needs to keep the war going and they have more manpower.

4. Trump knows its over and is trying to negotiate a REALISTIC agreement because russia has all the leverage due to europe's financial assistance. putin can wait everyone out.

5. It now is illogical to keep sending ukraine money because its just money down the drain.

6. Given that europe was literally paying the country they were fighting through proxy, it is also illogical to bail europe out of the disaster they helped create. Europe can't negotiate a peace without the US. So the US will once again bail europe out

7. Trump is right and all who want to keep funding the war are wrong.

Initially I was in disagreement with trump when he stated he wanted to discontinue support at the biden levels. But I realized, and am on record as saying that as long as the oil is flowing russia can continue to financially wage war. That is when I accepted trump was right to end it if he could get putin to agree to no nato for ukraine and to agree no more territory acquisition beyond what it already occupied. The mineral rights deal is a win for the US and ukraine and it provides some security for ukraine.

It is beyond dumb to continue to give ukraine any more money than is absolutely necessary to hold the existing lines until a peace agreement can be achieved. Europe has pulled the rug out from under ukraine and wasted billions of dollars. They aren't all of a sudden going to stop buying the oil so there is no point in continuing for the US. It's also beyond hypocritical for europe to criticize the US in any way. They should be begging trump to get a peace deal finalized as soon as he can.
The European oil/gas sales are a tiny fraction of $1 trillion. They were around $20 billion in 2024 and that was an increase from the prior year. Maybe $60 billion, total, since the beginning of the war (probably less). That's my whole point - the very article you cite makes perfectly clear that European spending Russian oil and gas is nowhere near $1 trillion (as do plenty of other sources of information) yet you continue to repeat the false information uncritically because you think it helps your point to do so.

I tend to share your frustration that the European countries can't just quit the Russian oil and gas cold turkey, and that revenue has surely been beneficial to Russia, but the idea that they're keeping Russia in the war is silly. (Including because that Russian oil and gas likely would have been bought by someone else, if not the European countries.) The major things that are going to make it hard for Russia to continue this war are manpower and heavy weaponry. The BBC just estimated that Russian military deaths since February 2022 are between 146k and 211k. Not including wounded, prisoners, or MIA. That's something like 2.5x-3.5x total US deaths in Vietnam, but the Russian deaths have occurred over a much shorter time period. Russia's military is depleted and demoralized. They had to bring in North Korean troops to help replace personnel losses, and those troops have been shredded. They've also had their heavy equipment (tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc) decimated - I've seen estimates over 50% - and in many cases are now relying on Soviet-era equipment. They can't easily replace that equipment, even with extra money from oil and gas sales.

Again, not once have you even attempted to grapple with the central issue with Trump's plan of appeasing Putin: appeasement of dictators with territorial ambitions does not work as a long term strategy. By definition it does not lead to a lasting peace. Putin isn't going to just stop. He's isn't going to be satisfied with a sliver of Ukraine, any more than he was satisfied with controlling Crimea or the Donbas before. He does not think Ukraine should exist as a country. He likely does not think the Baltics should exist as countries. As leader of Russia he has repeatedly invaded sovereign nations around Russia. He will continue to do so if he is rewarded for doing it. The only way to get a lasting peace with Russia is to defeat it and to reinforce the message we, along with NATO and the UN, have consistently delivered for the last 50+ years: we will not allow wars of territorial conquest anywhere in the world, and anyone who launches such a war will face the opposition of the united international community. If Russia and China perceive that we are no longer sending that message, they will feel emboldened to pursue (or continuing pursuing) the territorial wars they want to pursue.

The problem is we now have a President who doesn't understand, and has no interest in, the lessons of history. He waves away the importance of a stable world order where no one seeks to expand their own borders, through conquest or otherwise, because he in fact has the naked ambition of expanding America's borders. He sympathizes with Putin's ambition of expanding a new, modern Russian empire because he wants America to be imperialist too. You see it in his constant talking about expanding US territory to include Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, whatever.

The peace trump wants to pursue--Russian appeasement--not only will not help avert WWII, it's going to help cause it. Trump's foreign policy is lessening the US's great power role as a deterrent to imperialist ambitions, and in fact Trump's own imperialist ambitions are going to accelerate the process. To ignore this is to ignore history.
 
You are absolutely wrong with your analysis. In fact according to your own analysis you are wrong. You are looking at the past three years data and not current. The gas pipelines to the three EU countries that were buying it has been shut off at the end of last year. And Turkey, in the last two months has stopped buying the oil from Russia. Russia, in the last two months no longer has a market in Europe.

So if you look at current data, then your conclusion is wrong.
But it does in China and India and other parts of the world. Europe’s purchases would be replaced to the point Russia can wait out Ukraine. The only way any of it works is to stop ALL sales of Russian oil and gas.
 
What am I missing here...

I've heard multiple news updates or reports that mention European countries and whether or not they could defend themselves against an attack from Russia.

Given that Russia can't even defeat Ukraine, why is there any concern about Russia defeating multiple European countries?
Because the presence of the US as a close ally to both Europe and Ukraine is part of what has held Russia back. European leaders are rightly concerned that not only are we pulling back from our alliance, we are moving to align ourselves with Russia. it is a significant altering of the precarious balance of geopolitical power. if the US is no longer working in opposition to Russian ambitions - and especially if the US may in fact support those ambitions, whether actively or passively - Europe is in a much different place than before.
 
Because if the countries in Europe have us as a strong ally, Putin is not nearly as likely to attack them. Also, his next target when (or if) he settles his business in Ukraine will be the Baltic States. They are part of NATO. If we will not honor our commitments under Article 5, then that makes that situation more volatile. The European powers cannot standby and do nothing while Putin covers those three small countries in darkness.
NATO has been the main reason there has been no general war in Europe for 80 years. If we are not going to honor our pledge to NATO, then Europe becomes more vulnerable. Thanks a lot Trump you stupid bastard.

Not only this but... WE are the reason Russia has not rolled Ukraine. Without our help, there is no way this war would have lasted this long.
 
^ This is exactly what I’m seeing across the Republicans I know. When your views on an important issue change 180 degrees the moment a president of your party takes office, you might take a moment to consider the sincerity of your beliefs. This is why the modern GOP is a cult.
My views changed as news changed. I've never been afraid to criticize trump.
 
My concern is that never, ever in the history of warfare has appeasement of an authoritarian tyrant or dictator with designs on empire-building ever worked. The Biden administration's policies and actions in regard to the war in Ukraine wasn't perfect but it was the exact kind of response that has served the United States well in the post-World War II global order: taking advantage of the fact that no one on the planet- quite literally no one- has the ability to outspend America. Hell, the Soviet Union itself tried to do just that and ended up collapsing as a result.

We should continue to arm and supply Ukraine- as should the rest of Europe, of course- with what amounts to essentially a blank check, knowing that we are (or we were, at least) crippling Russia economically and militarily for pennies on the dollar without shedding a single drop of American blood. Something like 75% of the money that we were spending on armaments to Ukraine were spent right here in the United States, with United States manufacturers, providing American jobs. Not only that, much of the equipment that we were providing Ukraine wasn't even our best stuff- it was 30-year-old equipment and it was STILL enabling Ukraine to make mockery of the supposedly-vaunted Russian army.

The United States has enjoyed an absolute golden era economically, culturally, militarily, and otherwise over the last 30-35 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's not an accident or a coincidence. Keeping Russia at heel has always been and will always be in the best interest of the United States and our western European partners.
 
The European oil/gas sales are a tiny fraction of $1 trillion. They were around $20 billion in 2024 and that was an increase from the prior year. Maybe $60 billion, total, since the beginning of the war (probably less). That's my whole point - the very article you cite makes perfectly clear that European spending Russian oil and gas is nowhere near $1 trillion (as do plenty of other sources of information) yet you continue to repeat the false information uncritically because you think it helps your point to do so.

I tend to share your frustration that the European countries can't just quit the Russian oil and gas cold turkey, and that revenue has surely been beneficial to Russia, but the idea that they're keeping Russia in the war is silly. (Including because that Russian oil and gas likely would have been bought by someone else, if not the European countries.) The major things that are going to make it hard for Russia to continue this war are manpower and heavy weaponry. The BBC just estimated that Russian military deaths since February 2022 are between 146k and 211k. Not including wounded, prisoners, or MIA. That's something like 2.5x-3.5x total US deaths in Vietnam, but the Russian deaths have occurred over a much shorter time period. Russia's military is depleted and demoralized. They had to bring in North Korean troops to help replace personnel losses, and those troops have been shredded. They've also had their heavy equipment (tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc) decimated - I've seen estimates over 50% - and in many cases are now relying on Soviet-era equipment. They can't easily replace that equipment, even with extra money from oil and gas sales.

Again, not once have you even attempted to grapple with the central issue with Trump's plan of appeasing Putin: appeasement of dictators with territorial ambitions does not work as a long term strategy. By definition it does not lead to a lasting peace. Putin isn't going to just stop. He's isn't going to be satisfied with a sliver of Ukraine, any more than he was satisfied with controlling Crimea or the Donbas before. He does not think Ukraine should exist as a country. He likely does not think the Baltics should exist as countries. As leader of Russia he has repeatedly invaded sovereign nations around Russia. He will continue to do so if he is rewarded for doing it. The only way to get a lasting peace with Russia is to defeat it and to reinforce the message we, along with NATO and the UN, have consistently delivered for the last 50+ years: we will not allow wars of territorial conquest anywhere in the world, and anyone who launches such a war will face the opposition of the united international community. If Russia and China perceive that we are no longer sending that message, they will feel emboldened to pursue (or continuing pursuing) the territorial wars they want to pursue.

The problem is we now have a President who doesn't understand, and has no interest in, the lessons of history. He waves away the importance of a stable world order where no one seeks to expand their own borders, through conquest or otherwise, because he in fact has the naked ambition of expanding America's borders. He sympathizes with Putin's ambition of expanding a new, modern Russian empire because he wants America to be imperialist too. You see it in his constant talking about expanding US territory to include Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, whatever.

The peace trump wants to pursue--Russian appeasement--not only will not help avert WWII, it's going to help cause it. Trump's foreign policy is lessening the US's great power role as a deterrent to imperialist ambitions, and in fact Trump's own imperialist ambitions are going to accelerate the process. To ignore this is to ignore history.
Your argument and the rest of the zzl's is based on pure assumption. You assume trump is appeasing putin because you want to think the worst. In reality you have no clue what trump is negotiating. You can't say anything is good or bad until you have details, though i have zero doubt that unless trump gets putin to pull back to the original border, leave crimea, repay for the building of ukraine, agree to nato membership for ukraine, and for putin to resign you will say its appeasement. In other words there is little doubt that any objective thought will be applied to what is agreed upon vs what continuing the war would achieve. Just "if trump is for it, it has to be bad."

You seemingly are ignoring history as well. What was the US's response to invading Crimea? What was done prior to the most recent invasion to dissuade putin from invading? There was zero fear of any US or european response. Why don't you factor that into your analysis?

How do you plan on defeating Russia short of war? Russia has more troops than ukraine has, russia has china and NK to help it with equipment. You planning on expecting ukraine to put its women and children on the front lines? If you have no troops you can't wage war. How do you expect to overcome that?
 
My views changed as news changed. I've never been afraid to criticize trump.
Season 4 Whatever GIF by The Office

The only “news” that has materially changed in Ukraine from last year to this year is Trump shifting the US’s support from Ukraine to Russia. Had that not happened, Ukraine would be in the same position today it was in when you thought we should continue doing what we were doing.
 
Your argument and the rest of the zzl's is based on pure assumption. You assume trump is appeasing putin because you want to think the worst. In reality you have no clue what trump is negotiating. You can't say anything is good or bad until you have details, though i have zero doubt that unless trump gets putin to pull back to the original border, leave crimea, repay for the building of ukraine, agree to nato membership for ukraine, and for putin to resign you will say its appeasement. In other words there is little doubt that any objective thought will be applied to what is agreed upon vs what continuing the war would achieve. Just "if trump is for it, it has to be bad."

You seemingly are ignoring history as well. What was the US's response to invading Crimea? What was done prior to the most recent invasion to dissuade putin from invading? There was zero fear of any US or european response. Why don't you factor that into your analysis?

How do you plan on defeating Russia short of war? Russia has more troops than ukraine has, russia has china and NK to help it with equipment. You planning on expecting ukraine to put its women and children on the front lines? If you have no troops you can't wage war. How do you expect to overcome that?
You keep acting like it's some great mystery what Trump wants as part of a peace deal. Trump speaks in public, all the time, about what should and shouldn't be a part of peace with Russia. He has made clear that Russia should be allowed to keep territorial gains and that he opposes security guarantees for Ukraine (and certainly NATO membership for Ukraine). He has said nothing about even a possibility of Russia paying reparations or anything else to offset the damage caused by its unprovoked invasion. Allowing Russia to keep any territorial gains is appeasement. Full stop. Not to mention that Trump is now openly pining to do business deals in Russia. if you're so concerned about Europeans buying Russian oil and gas, why are you not oppose to Trump helping to rebuild Russia's economy for its next invasion? Any future business deals in Russia should be off the table unless and until Russia has new leadership and has convincingly disclaimed future territorial ambitions.

In terms of defeating Russia in war, Ukraine may be short of manpower but if the US and Europe continue to supply it, it can continue to better Russia in terms of technology and heavy weaponry. Whatever Putin wants you to think, Russia does not have an endless supply of experienced soldiers (not to mention tanks and armored personnel carriers) to feed into the wood chipper.

And again, your obsession with re-litigating the foreign policy decisions of past US admins on this issue is nothing more than an attempt to dodge the discussion on what we should do now. I don't agree with all the past decisions the US has made on Ukraine, across a variety of administrations. I would have preferred a harder line on Russia at times in the past.
 
You keep acting like it's some great mystery what Trump wants as part of a peace deal. Trump speaks in public, all the time, about what should and shouldn't be a part of peace with Russia. He has made clear that Russia should be allowed to keep territorial gains and that he opposes security guarantees for Ukraine (and certainly NATO membership for Ukraine). He has said nothing about even a possibility of Russia paying reparations or anything else to offset the damage caused by its unprovoked invasion. Allowing Russia to keep any territorial gains is appeasement. Full stop. Not to mention that Trump is now openly pining to do business deals in Russia. if you're so concerned about Europeans buying Russian oil and gas, why are you not oppose to Trump helping to rebuild Russia's economy for its next invasion? Any future business deals in Russia should be off the table unless and until Russia has new leadership and has convincingly disclaimed future territorial ambitions.

In terms of defeating Russia in war, Ukraine may be short of manpower but if the US and Europe continue to supply it, it can continue to better Russia in terms of technology and heavy weaponry. Whatever Putin wants you to think, Russia does not have an endless supply of experienced soldiers (not to mention tanks and armored personnel carriers) to feed into the wood chipper.

And again, your obsession with re-litigating the foreign policy decisions of past US admins on this issue is nothing more than an attempt to dodge the discussion on what we should do now. I don't agree with all the past decisions the US has made on Ukraine, across a variety of administrations. I would have preferred a harder line on Russia at times in the past.
I wouldn't categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. I'd characterize it as pragmatic reality.

If you don't want Russia keeping their territorial gains, you really have to describe how you would stop it. Are you going to keep funneling Ukraine armaments? It hasn't worked yet. Neither have economic sanctions.

It might work in the future if Russia collapses but there are also signs that Ukraine is close to collapse. Or the war could drag on for more years where Russia and Ukraine both lose a generation of young men and everyone else loses a bunch of resources that could be used for something more productive.

So if what we are doing hasn't worked so far, do you think it's going to work in the future or are you proposing A New path? Do you want to put American boots on the ground? Do you want Europeans to put soldiers into the fight? Do you want the tooth fairy to just make it all go away?

War's end. Thank goodness. They don't always end the way you want them to which can be pretty disappointing but ending a war with a less than desirable peace is often better than letting a war drag on and getting a similar or worse peace years later. We should have learned that lesson with Afghanistan.
 
I wouldn't categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. I'd characterize it as pragmatic reality.
You’ve posted some dumb shit before, but this might take the cake.

Letting an aggressor nation keep territory it has already taken by force with the promise they won’t take any more is literally the definition of appeasement as it applies to international war.

If you look the word up, you’ll probably see a picture of Neville Chamberlain shaking Hitler’s hand while Hitler is crossing his fingers behind his back.
 
You’ve posted some dumb shit before, but this might take the cake.

Letting an aggressor nation keep territory it has already taken by force with the promise they won’t take any more is literally the definition of appeasement as it applies to international war.

If you look the word up, you’ll probably see a picture of Neville Chamberlain shaking Hitler’s hand while Hitler is crossing his fingers behind his back.
So you aren't going to let Russia keep their gains? How?
 
I wouldn't categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. I'd characterize it as pragmatic reality.

If you don't want Russia keeping their territorial gains, you really have to describe how you would stop it. Are you going to keep funneling Ukraine armaments? It hasn't worked yet. Neither have economic sanctions.

It might work in the future if Russia collapses but there are also signs that Ukraine is close to collapse. Or the war could drag on for more years where Russia and Ukraine both lose a generation of young men and everyone else loses a bunch of resources that could be used for something more productive.

So if what we are doing hasn't worked so far, do you think it's going to work in the future or are you proposing A New path? Do you want to put American boots on the ground? Do you want Europeans to put soldiers into the fight? Do you want the tooth fairy to just make it all go away?

War's end. Thank goodness. They don't always end the way you want them to which can be pretty disappointing but ending a war with a less than desirable peace is often better than letting a war drag on and getting a similar or worse peace years later. We should have learned that lesson with Afghanistan.
I do categorize letting Russia keep territorial gains as appeasement. Every argument you're making in favor of allowing Russia to keep territory in the name of "pragmatic reality" is an argument that could have been made (and essentially was made) in favor of the 1938 Munich Agreement. You know, the one that Britain and France thought was going to achieve peace in Europe. Because Hitler said he didn't want any more territory beyond the Sudetenland. Scout's honor.

I would rather continue a fairly small war now than move us closer to a big war later. The fact has always been, and remains, that there is only one party - the aggressor - who has the power to unilaterally stop this war and refuses to. The only way to stop the aggression, and to deter future aggression, is to avoid an outcome where aggression is rewarded. Absolutely we should keep sending American weapons into Ukraine if Russia - the party who can stop this at any time - refuses to withdraw. If we want to maintain a world order that makes clear that attempting to increase your country's territory though force is unacceptable, you have to enforce that with more than words. The question of boots on the ground is obviously much tricker because of a justified fear of direct conflict between nuclear powers. But if you take that option off the table entirely you lose part of your deterrence factor.
 
Back
Top