Want to search for posts across your favourite author? Just click on their name to reach their '100 most recent posts' page, and then use the search box located beside their name.
- Manlobbi
Investment Strategies / Index Investing
No. of Recommendations: 1
There's no way the Ukrainians are going to accept this; they're giving them nothing but time here:
https://nypost.com/2025/04/23/world-news/heres-wha...What Russia gets
Formal US recognition of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula as Russian territory — a major departure from Washington’s longstanding Welles doctrine, which refuses to acknowledge annexed territory as belonging to the seizing power.
“De facto” recognition of Russia’s occupation of four regions in eastern Ukraine, meaning the US would acknowledge Moscow controls the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts while formally considering them Ukrainian land.
A pledge that the US would not support Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.
Lifting sanctions to boost Russia’s economy, which has struggled throughout its war on Ukraine.
Opportunities for more economic cooperation with the US, especially in the energy and industrial fields.What Ukraine gets
Assistance from European military forces as “a robust security guarantee” following a cease-fire. The US would not be involved in this measure.
Russia would return a small portion of Ukraine’s Kharkiv oblast currently occupied by Moscow.
Navigation rights in the Dnieper River, which runs along the front lines.
Assistance in post-war rebuilding, though it is unclear from where that funding would come.
The Ukrainian response is here
https://www.instagram.com/p/DI38q-gM7M_/?img_index...Notably missing from the US framework is the return of the hostages the Russkies are holding.
Realistically, the Russians aren't giving back the Crimea. Why the opening bid isn't a return to pre-war borders is not clear either.
No. of Recommendations: 16
Realistically, the Russians aren't giving back the Crimea. Why the opening bid isn't a return to pre-war borders is not clear either.
Is it really not clear?
Trump doesn't care about the outcome of this war. He doesn't care if it ends in a way that's just, or deters future aggression by Russia (or other states who might want to try to seize territory by military force), or helps Ukraine. He just wants it to end. And quickly, since he strongly suggested in the campaign he could end it quickly.
So he put forward a proposal that gives Russia nearly everything that Putin wants. He feels he has more leverage to force Ukraine to accept an unfair deal than to force Russia to accept a fair one. It would take a lot of effort - and time - to negotiate if the opening bid included a return to pre-war borders, so he's pre-emptively giving it up.
No. of Recommendations: 4
He doesn't care if it ends in a way that's just, or deters future aggression by Russia (or other states who might want to try to seize territory by military force), or helps Ukraine. He just wants it to end. And quickly, since he strongly suggested in the campaign he could end it quickly.
Welp, he's not going to get what he wants, as this isn't something the Ukrainians are ever going to agree to. Can't blame them.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Plus...he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He's said it (a few times, if I'm not mistaken). If he "ends" the war, he'll crow that the Nobel committee
must award it to him (and lash out when they refuse). Issa even nominated him:
https://issa.house.gov/media/press-releases/issa-n... (what a joke...the guy that failed to get HRC for Bengazi, as I recall)
In terms of negotiation, I would start with the biggest ask for Ukraine: give back all territories including Crimea. Russia will never agree to that, of course. But you don't start with the minimum you might accept. You ask for the most you could hope for, and haggle down from there. That's pretty basic.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Welp, he's not going to get what he wants, as this isn't something the Ukrainians are ever going to agree to. Can't blame them.
Yeah, but he'll get the next best thing that he wants.
He'll get to blame the Ukrainians, wash his hands of the whole thing, and if anyone points out that he failed to achieve the peace he claimed to be able to deliver he'll point the finger at Zelenskyy for being unreasonable for not taking his deal.
You might say that you can't blame them. But enough of Trump's base will blame them for not agreeing to this. Vance and Rubio and other Admin representatives will fan out and spread the word that the continuation of the war is due to Ukraine's intransigence in rejecting the perfect peace plan that Trump had fashioned. It won't get Trump consideration for any Peace Prizes, of course - but as long as his supporters can blame Ukraine instead of the things that Trump has done, it's a win for him.
A loss for nearly everyone else, but a win for him....
No. of Recommendations: 5
You ask for the most you could hope for, and haggle down from there. That's pretty basic.
He did.
He just was asking for the most Russia could hope for, not Ukraine. The war ends more quickly if Trump pushes Ukraine to give up as much as possible, not Russia....
No. of Recommendations: 2
he's pre-emptively giving it up.
In short, the quickest way to end the war is to convince Ukraine to unconditionally surrender.
Unfortunately for Trump, that’s never going to happen.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 3
worse, he's forcing a war on all of europe. The only trading bloc that could stand up.
No. of Recommendations: 7
In short, the quickest way to end the war is to convince Ukraine to unconditionally surrender.
Unfortunately for Trump, that’s never going to happen.
The most frail and arthritic Ukrainian babushka has more spine than the Tangerine Toddler.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I thought that was implicit in my missive. But, yes, he has asked for everything Putin wants. I was mildly surprised when it was reported that he was angry that Putin broke the temporary cease-fire.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-putin-russia-ukra...I also saw a headline (but didn't read it further as the source was wildly right-wing, and completely unreliable) that implied Putin did it to embarrass the Felon. As if everything in the universe revolves around the Felon.
I wonder if the bro-mance is over...
No. of Recommendations: 2
You might say that you can't blame them. But enough of Trump's base will blame them for not agreeing to this.
Welp, this is where having a credible media comes into play, not doesn’t it?
Say…a media that people trusted to call accurate BS on an administration instead of crying Wolf all the time. A media that doesn’t put its thumb on the scale always in service of one particular political party.
Sad.
No. of Recommendations: 4
worse, he's forcing a war on all of europe. The only trading bloc that could stand up.
The Europeans are useless. Seriously.
If you’re going to say that Putin is an existential threat to your security, then your first move is to ammo up. Your second move is to stop buying energy from him.
That’s not what Europe is doing. At all.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think Trump's aspirations are darker and more dangerous. I think he is trying to legitimize Putin's expansion of Russia by force to enable him to attempt the same thing with Canada and Greenland. He wants Putin and himself to control all access and mineral rights to the Arctic Ocean basin.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Welp, this is where having a credible media comes into play, not doesn’t it?
We'll see. There's a ton of conservative leaning media like Fox News or NewsMax, which make up a lot of the media diet of Trump's base and are considered credible by them. If they are accurate and forthcoming in reporting Trump's proposal as being one that the Ukrainians were right to reject, then we might indeed see his base react differently than what I wrote. They'll have the chance to do the right thing, and to call BS on this Administration, as you describe.
Somehow, I think that's unlikely. But again, we'll see.
No. of Recommendations: 4
There's a ton of conservative leaning media like Fox News or NewsMax, which make up a lot of the media diet of Trump's base and are considered credible by them.
Your brethren here don’t consider them to be credible and always say they distort the news.
Which brings me back to my point: Too bad the rest of the media has spent the last 30 years rooting for one side. Maybe the dems should think about the conditions they’ve helped to create and reflect on how they might approach things differently.
But likely not.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Maybe the dems should think about the conditions they’ve helped to create and reflect on how they might approach things differently.
But likely not.
I agree for once. We're not likely to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Your brethren here don’t consider them to be credible and always say they distort the news.
It's not whether "my brethren" consider right-wing media to be credible or not - after all, the folks here already accurately perceive that the Trump "peace plan" isn't something that Ukrainians are going to accept. They're not going to blame Ukraine or Zelenskyy for refusing it.
The question is whether Trump's base will blame Ukraine for not taking the deal. And that will depend on how the right-wing media cover the issue. If they falsely present the peace plan as something that Ukraine ought to have accepted, that it's Ukraine's fault that deal didn't come to pass, then Trump's base will continue to believe that as well. You and I both know that would be distorting the news, as my brethren claim the right-wing media does.
Will they do the right thing and not distort the issue? We shall see.
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not whether "my brethren" consider right-wing media to be credible or not - after all, the folks here already accurately perceive that the Trump "peace plan" isn't something that Ukrainians are going to accept. They're not going to blame Ukraine or Zelenskyy for refusing it.
Folks here blame Trump for every ant at every picnic.
The question is whether Trump's base will blame Ukraine for not taking the deal.
Yes, exactly. If this deal as being reported is accurate, then it has major flaws. But who's going to point that out that has actual credibility? Certainly not the American media, which has lit all of its journalistic integrity on fire over the last 30 years.
No. of Recommendations: 7
But who's going to point that out that has actual credibility? Certainly not the American media, which has lit all of its journalistic integrity on fire over the last 30 years.
Do you believe Fox News has journalistic integrity?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Do you believe Fox News has journalistic integrity?
They have as much or more as a mainstream outfit. Their news division is actually not bad. People on this board go off the rails when they conflate their opinion people with the Bret Baiers of the company.
Contrast that with the obvious partisan bias of CBS and all the others.
No. of Recommendations: 7
They have as much or more as a mainstream outfit.
NO, they don't.
Their news division is actually not bad. People on this board go off the rails when they conflate their opinion people with the Bret Baiers of the company.
And while FOX may sometimes report news, it is dominated by programs that are VERY biased. VERY VERY biased. IN a way that mainstream media is not.
The thing that MAGA/Trumpers do is see any criticism of Trump by mainstream media as biased, when it is JUST reporting the TRUTH.
No. of Recommendations: 14
Contrast that with the obvious partisan bias of CBS and all the others.
I think Dope has a point and that CBS and all the others showed obvious partisan bias when they each voluntarily paid Dominion Voting Systems $787,000,000 for telling outright lies over many months of reporting.
Praise the Lord and where would we be without that the always honest and completely unbiased Fox News to rely on?
Me? I’m just having a beer and watching the sun set in the East.
No. of Recommendations: 9
No. of Recommendations: 4
They have as much or more as a mainstream outfit.
So we'll see if they present this as a deal that the Ukrainians were right to reject, and one that Trump was not right to offer as an initial starting point for the negotiations on their behalf.
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you think that CBS and the others aren’t blatant partisans, then you probably think the sky is green, too.
No. of Recommendations: 2
what trump and the gop are unable to grok is the long historical trajectory of civilian casualties in russian military occupied zones.
why stop fighting or trust putin when a bullet to the head from the russian administrative state is a threat for all and a guarantee for many?
the most blaring example was during the halt of russian forces in suburbs outside of kyiv during putin's '1 week war'.
being unable to advance (due to ukrainians before there was any western help), and having nothing else to do, russian soldiers setup HQs to gather, judge, and execute (sometimes going straight to execute).
do a search on 'bucha', 'frontline', etc...
a recent exemption was during the turkey and russia conflicts by proxy forces.
this was mostly because russia got obliterated, but also because they realized turkey is an equally brutal foe.
