Russia - US | Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 35K
  • Politics 
CFordUNC said:
Stop it, chief. I’m telling you one more time to not involve yourself. It had nothing to do with you, it has nothing to do with you, it has nothing to do with any other poster on this board except for the one single person who has been following me around talking shit to me. That poster has a choice every single time he types out a post in my direction, to stop his shit. I repeatedly told him I don’t care about him, I don’t care to engage him, but I’m going to respond every single time he insults me. If you don’t like that, or if anyone else doesn’t like it, feel free to put me on ignore or boot me from the community. Doesn’t matter to me either way. But I’m telling you for the last time, mind your damn own business. I’m not responding to you any further, just like I’m not responding to the other poster any further until or unless he decides he wants more.

To everyone else, I sincerely apologize for my part in derailing this thread and will make this my last non-Ukraine war related post. I sincerely apologize to every single poster, except for one, for the lewdness in my posts. I grew up with 62 first cousins, 41 of which are male, and I’ve spent a whole lot of time in my life on sports teams and in locker rooms where the shit talk flows freely. I am certain that because I’m pretty immune to course language, I’ve gotten carried away with crassness here on this thread, and for that I apologize and will aim to be better.
Click to expand...
You're telling me one more time? Or what? lol

You have been a well respected poster on this site. I was trying to let you know you look like a fool tonight. Do with that what you will.
 
Callatoroy said:
Criticism and condemnation means nothing. Russia invaded. The US through its actions appeased russia and russia holds that territory today. We did nothing to deter russia from invading the 2nd time. That is fact. I don't know for sure what trump is proposing but my guess is russia keeps territorial gains and no nato membership for ukraine. However, ukraine would keep 4/5ths of its territory. What if putin refuses to withdraw from ukraine and give up the territory it gained? What is the response given ukraine is running out of manpower?

Trump already knows putin wants to strike a deal. Its Zel who isn't ready for an immediate ceasefire to carry out negotiations so trump is strongarming him as you put it. Its the only way to get Zel to the table immediately.
Click to expand...
I think Ukraine gets to decide when they want a ceasefire, not Donald Trump. We need to continue to arm them as long as they are willing to fight, and we need to remove some of the constraints Biden put on Ukraine. Give them the missiles and allow them to attack inside Russia to let them take the war to Putin. Get Ukraine out of the WWI meat grinder we have kept them stuck in. Force Putin to defend Russia and put domestic pressure on him at home.
 
Last edited:
finesse said:
That's not for us to decide. It's bad for us to stab them in the back while aiding Russia. If Russia ends up with more ,let them give blood for every inch of it the Ukraine is willing to fight for.
Click to expand...
Well you are correct in that they can decide if they want to continue on their own, but it’s our decision if we continue to throw money at a losing situation. Just no way to win this now.
 
farce© said:
I think Ukraine gets to decide when they want a ceasefire, not Donald Trump. We need to continue to arm them as long as they are willing to fight, and we need to remove some of the constraints Biden put on Ukraine. Give them the missiles and allow them to attack in Russia let them take the war to Putin. Get Ukraine out of the WWI meat grinder we have kept them stuck in. Force Putin to defend Russia and put domestic pressure on him at home.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. The best solution, and the one which almost every single other presidential administration in U.S. history, Republican or Democrat- would have chosen- is to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to purge the invading Russians from its land. The current problem, and one that predates this current administration to be fair, is that the U.S. and Europe have trickled in enough support to maintain a standstill- enough to keep the Ukrainians from being overrun but not enough to make any meaningful gains or expel the invaders. Our best solution- and by 'our' I mean the U.S. AND Europe's- would be to turn on the spigot full blast for the next 6, 9, 12 months or whatever it would take, with essentially a blank check of weaponry, equipment, and intelligence support.

Ukraine's biggest needs are artillery, air defense, and minesweeping equipment. Providing that, alone, in droves would essentially ensure a stalemate at worst, IMO, and would keep Russia bogged down in a war that it can't outright win. Putin can't live forever, and in fact the longer that this 3-day-turned-3-year-and-counting special operation continues, and the more that Russia loses equipment, manpower, and treasure, the more likely that Putin is forced to sue for peace on terms that are much more amenable to Ukraine.
 
CFordUNC said:
Stop it, chief. I’m telling you one more time to not involve yourself. It had nothing to do with you, it has nothing to do with you, it has nothing to do with any other poster on this board except for the one single person who has been following me around talking shit to me. That poster has a choice every single time he types out a post in my direction, to stop his shit. I repeatedly told him I don’t care about him, I don’t care to engage him, but I’m going to respond every single time he insults me. If you don’t like that, or if anyone else doesn’t like it, feel free to put me on ignore or boot me from the community. Doesn’t matter to me either way. But I’m telling you for the last time, mind your own damn business. I’m not responding to you any further, just like I’m not responding to the other poster any further until or unless he decides he wants more.

To everyone else, I sincerely apologize for my part in derailing this thread and will make this my last non-Ukraine war related post. I sincerely apologize to every single poster, except for one, for the lewdness in my posts. I grew up with 62 first cousins, 41 of whom (thanks super!) are male, and I’ve spent a whole lot of time in my life on sports teams and in locker rooms where the shit talk flows freely. I am certain that because I’m pretty immune to course language, I’ve gotten carried away with crassness here on this thread, and for that I apologize and will aim to be better. I will try to remember that not everyone has the same tolerance or threshold for trash talking as I do. It’s what makes every single one of y’all, again except for one, better human beings than me in every single way.
Click to expand...
62 first cousins…dang. I have 27 and I thought that was a lot. Most live in or around Rockingham and Darlington SC.
 
CFordUNC said:
I agree with this. The best solution, and the one which almost every single other presidential administration in U.S. history, Republican or Democrat- would have chosen- is to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to purge the invading Russians from its land. The current problem, and one that predates this current administration to be fair, is that the U.S. and Europe have trickled in enough support to maintain a standstill- enough to keep the Ukrainians from being overrun but not enough to make any meaningful gains or expel the invaders. Our best solution- and by 'our' I mean the U.S. AND Europe's- would be to turn on the spigot full blast for the next 6, 9, 12 months or whatever it would take, with essentially a blank check of weaponry, equipment, and intelligence support.

Ukraine's biggest needs are artillery, air defense, and minesweeping equipment. Providing that, alone, in droves would essentially ensure a stalemate at worst, IMO, and would keep Russia bogged down in a war that it can't outright win. Putin can't live forever, and in fact the longer that this 3-day-turned-3-year-and-counting special operation continues, and the more that Russia loses equipment, manpower, and treasure, the more likely that Putin is forced to sue for peace on terms that are much more amenable to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I will, say, though, that having said the above, I do recognize that it is important for both the United States and Europe to have a clear-cut attainable objective when it comes to supporting Ukraine, and not just indiscriminately provide weapons, equipment, and money indefinitely. To me, that clear-cut objective should be to ensure that the vast majority of Ukraine remains free, and that Russia is militarily kneecapped. As much as in a perfect world I'd like to see us and the rest of the world provide limitless aid and weaponry to Ukraine that would enable them to forcibly expel Russia from every square inch of Ukraine, I also know that it's not realistic. I think what *is* more realistic is that Ukraine can continue to be plied with Western weapons, munitions, and supplies for a long enough period of time such that continuing the war effort in which they aren't making any gains becomes untenable for Putin. It hasn't happened yet, but it's inevitable that at some point it will. I think it would be a mistake for the U.S. and the West to be the first to blink. Because Ukraine does not expect any agreement to be honored by Russia, and because they simply expect to be attacked *later* if they strike a deal now, the only way to end the threat, IMO, is to let Russia exhaust its resources.
 
farce© said:
I think Ukraine gets to decide when they want a ceasefire, not Donald Trump. We need to continue to arm them as long as they are willing to fight, and we need to remove some of the constraints Biden put on Ukraine. Give them the missiles and allow them to attack in Russia let them take the war to Putin. Get Ukraine out of the WWI meat grinder we have kept them stuck in. Force Putin to defend Russia and put domestic pressure on him at home.
Click to expand...
And trump gets to decide if he keeps arming them. If he perceives it’s a lost cause as he apparently has he can and is using that as leverage to get to a ceasefire. Continuing the status quo is a losing play for us and Ukraine. From your comment I’m guessing you agree. I’m for ending it quickly before Ukraine loses any more territory. But, if we are going to arm them then it needs to be without restrictions which might result in some unwanted consequences.
 
Callatoroy said:
And trump gets to decide if he keeps arming them. If he perceives it’s a lost cause as he apparently has he can and is using that as leverage to get to a ceasefire. Continuing the status quo is a losing play for us and Ukraine. From your comment I’m guessing you agree. I’m for ending it quickly before Ukraine loses any more territory. But, if we are going to arm them then it needs to be without restrictions which might result in some unwanted consequences.
Click to expand...
It might, but Ukraine should make that decision and we should support them accordingly. Trump pulling the rug out from under them is a mistake. His unwillingness to point the blame entirely at Putin is unconscionable.
 
The thing about this particular conflict, IMO, is that it's not one where acquisition of natural resources is the invader's objective, nor really is even the subjugation of the invaded people. Russia doesn't believe Ukraine has a right to exist. So IMO they are not going to agree to a ceasefire, even if Ukraine cedes territory, because this isn't about territory. It's about political control of Ukraine. Russia wants to get rid of the current Ukrainian government and put in a puppet government. Russia won't agree to any terms that stabilizes the Ukrainian government, even if the territory is ceded. Russia thinks it's winning so they have no reason to go into ceasefire negotiations in good faith. Any appearance of good faith is just a smokescreen to reconstitute their war efforts for a stronger attack later. And it's not like Russia doesn't already have a sordid history of breaching peace agreements and treaties.

So how does the Ukraine war end? If you're the U.S and Europe, you either give Russia control of Ukraine, or you keep funding Ukraine's war effort to allow them to fight and wear Russia down eventually. The alternative is that instead of having to repel the Russian army from Ukraine- whether it's next year, or next decade- we'll be needing to repel it from the Baltics or from Poland. I'm just frustrated that our current administration and so many of its supporters can't see the forest for the trees. We quite literally have Russia on the ropes in the 8th round- it would be a mistake with potentially devastating future consequences to let them off.
 
Callatoroy said:
And trump gets to decide if he keeps arming them. If he perceives it’s a lost cause as he apparently has he can and is using that as leverage to get to a ceasefire. Continuing the status quo is a losing play for us and Ukraine. From your comment I’m guessing you agree. I’m for ending it quickly before Ukraine loses any more territory. But, if we are going to arm them then it needs to be without restrictions which might result in some unwanted consequences.
Click to expand...
Even if you give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume this reflects some sort of reasoned cost/benefit analysis on his part - as opposed to just the result of his natural affinity for Putin and Russia that he expresses almost constantly - then the way to achieve this objective would be to publicly support Ukraine while privately pushing Zelenskyy to sue for peace. He can push Ukraine towards the negotiating table with publicly throwing them under the bus and siding with an autocratic tyrant. But by doing his typical blustery fake tough guy act, he's going to make it harder to get peace on fair terms because he is publicly weakening Zelenskyy's hand while strengthening Putin's. There is simply no realistic scenario here where it is in the interests of our country (or Western democracies generally) to embolden Putin and strengthen his hand. That ridiculous Oval Office melodrama was just an incredibly stupid and dangerous stunt no matter what you think Trump's real motivations are.
 
farce© said:
we need to remove some of the constraints Biden put on Ukraine. Give them the missiles and allow them to attack in Russia let them take the war to Putin. Get Ukraine out of the WWI meat grinder we have kept them stuck in.
Click to expand...
The past is the past (re what we have not given them) Obviously orangeturd won't involve the USA at a higher-or even present level Hopefully other NATO allies will step it up
 
I don't think I'm a warhawk by any means but I do think that it's about time for NATO- and specifically the European NATO countries- to feel more comfortable calling Putin's bluff. I think that NATO should consider sending troops to Ukraine to man *defensive-only* positions that would free up more Ukrainians to mount possible offensive assaults on Russian forces in the east. Draw a line at Kyiv or just east. I'd phrase it as something like, "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has established a no-fly zone over the internationally recognized sovereign territories of Ukraine, at Ukraine's request, and is sending security assistance to investigate and prevent violations of Ukraine's border by foreign nationals." Phrase it as blandly as possible, don't even mention fighting Russians, and stress the invitation of the Ukrainian government.

I'm sure some folks would say, "well, Putin would consider that a direct act of war" but that's where I think it's time to call Putin's bluff. He isn't stupid enough to actually risk direct armed confrontation with NATO nations. The whole point would be to intervene militarily, but to do so in such a way that makes it clear that there will be no attacks across the Russian border, except in direct response to attacks on Ukraine. So if missiles are launched at Ukraine, then their launchers are targets. The whole point is it wouldn't be the NATO war machine in Ukraine- it'd be Ukraine with *NATO equipment*. That is an important distinction.
 
Data from the Russian Ministry of Finance indicates a loss of nearly 20% in federal budget revenues from oil and gas sales in February. This occurred amid the tightening of sanctions by the US during the tenure of former President Joe Biden, according to DW and The Moscow Times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top