To reference images from other websites within your posts, simply right-click (desktop), or hold your finger over (mobile devices), the image and select to copy the link. You can then copy-paste this link within your post. When viewing the post, it will be automatically hyperlinked directly to the image.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 12
From the transcript of the Zelensky/Trump/Vance meeting. Please note the last line spoken by Trump.
Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt ... All I can say is this. He might have broken deals with Obama and Bush, and he might have broken them with Biden. He did, maybe. Maybe he did. I don’t know what happened, but he didn’t break them with me. He wants to make a deal. I don’t know if you can make a deal.”
“The problem is I’ve empowered you (turning toward Zelenskyy) to be a tough guy, and I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States. And your people are very brave. But you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position, but you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest. That’s not a nice thing.
“All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television. I will say that.”
So Trump sees himself and Putin as VICTIMS. Holy shit. But not from a 'phony witch hunt'. No. It is quite plain that Putin has been working to help Trump for years if not decades. He is our Manchurian candidate.
And Trump set this up to have 'great television'. He was never serious about helping Zelensky.
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 3
And Trump set this up to have 'great television'. He was never serious about helping Zelensky. - ges
-----------------
Who is being a mind reader now?
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 1
Who is being a mind reader now?
Not me.
No. of Recommendations: 6
And Trump set this up to have 'great television'. He was never serious about helping Zelensky. - ges
-----------------
Mike: Who is being a mind reader now?
That's what it looks like Mike, so it's Occam's Razor.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Who is being a mind reader now?
Don't have to be a mind reader, Mike. He campaigned on ending support for Ukraine. He's spoken out about it many times. He accused Ukraine of starting the war. Etc.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The plot thickens:
https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/189550810059520...Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.That’s from democrat Senator Chris Murphy.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The plot thickens:
https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/189550810059520...
Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.Not too much thickening here.
This was released by Chris Murphy about the time the meeting in the Oval Office between Trump/Vance and Zelensky was getting underway.
It only reaffirms exactly what Zelensky said in that meeting.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This was released by Chris Murphy about the time the meeting in the Oval Office between Trump/Vance and Zelensky was getting underway.
So the little d’s are giving Zelensky advice and he’s taking it.
<Tony Stark>
Not a good plan.
</Tony Stark>
No. of Recommendations: 2
Here’s another awesome point Secretary Rubio raised this morning:
He democrats pushed and pushed HARD for the Israelis to stop going after Hamas, demanding a cease fire.
None of that with the Ukraine.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.
Your point, Dope?
Why SHOULD he accept the ridiculous offer from Trump. Why the hell? Do you have even the tiniest bit of the ability to understand the Ukraine view?
No. of Recommendations: 7
So the little d’s are giving Zelensky advice and he’s taking it.
That's not what Chris Murphy's note claimed at all.
It might well be what you wish he said, so you could make your claim that Democrats coached him.
But that's not what the note said.
Zekensky had already been talking about security guarantees. He didn't need stateside kibbutzers to tell him what to ask for; he'd already said he would ask for it.
But he might have needed stateside witnesses to his negotiating position.
The only thing provided by Murphy was a clear statement of the prime demand of Zelensky's negotiating position.
Given the number of times Trump attempted to actively derail US negotiations while he was in exile down there in Mara Lago, surely you cannot object to Murphy presenting the Ukrainian position with clarity.
After all, Ukraine is an ally.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine,
That’s what Murphy said. It’s a virtual certainty the democrats pushed that position in the room.
No. of Recommendations: 18
Here’s another awesome point Secretary Rubio raised this morning:
He democrats pushed and pushed HARD for the Israelis to stop going after Hamas, demanding a cease fire.
None of that with the Ukraine.
Your assumption that Israel and Gaza are somehow comparable to Ukraine and Russia, is mind-boggling.
And it's "Ukraine", not the Russian preferred "the Ukraine".
Tell me something........
You said that the Democrats pushed hard for Israel to stop going after Hamas. Aside from the fact that Rubio has now entered the fact free zone of TrumpWorld and can no longer be trusted to report facts as facts....... but aside from that, Did Trump push Russia to stop going after civilians in Ukraine?
Of course not. Your "point" is no point at all
No. of Recommendations: 3
Of course not. Your "point" is no point at all
You mean…besides talking about it all the time, including trying to set up a cease fire?
The lefts support of the Ukraine is performative, nothing more.
No. of Recommendations: 2
That’s what Murphy said. It’s a virtual certainty the democrats pushed that position in the room.
Since there’s no daylight between what Zelensky had already been saying for days prior to coming to Washington and Chris Murphy’s words released on Friday, unfortunately you are left with a handful of nothing for your attempted point.
Do you understand that? Apparently not, because I pretty much said the same in my prior post.
No. of Recommendations: 3
After all, Ukraine is an ally.
Not in Trump's mind. Russia is the ally.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Not in Trump's bank account. Russia is the ally.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your point, Dope?
Why SHOULD he accept the ridiculous offer from Trump. Why the hell? Do you have even the tiniest bit of the ability to understand the Ukraine view? - ges
--------------------
Trump can understand it without agreeing to it. You seem to suggest the only way you can show understanding, is if you agree with it. Every country should put its own countries interests first. Who would want a president who doesn't.
No. of Recommendations: 1
After all, Ukraine is an ally. - Bill
---------------
How can you call then an ally when all they appear to want from the US is to remain a dependent?
No. of Recommendations: 14
How can you call then an ally when all they appear to want from the US is to remain a dependent?
You could argue the same viewpoint from the perspective of “America firsters” in 1940, urging Roosevelt to drop aid to Britain.
And yes, it’s the same argument
No. of Recommendations: 4
Trump can understand it without agreeing to it. You seem to suggest the only way you can show understanding, is if you agree with it. Every country should put its own countries interests first. Who would want a president who doesn't.
****
Please name one time here or on TMF - that Liberals have said that America can put it's OWN interest and people - over that of Europe and the 'international community'.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Trump can understand it without agreeing to it. You seem to suggest the only way you can show understanding, is if you agree with it. Every country should put its own countries interests first. Who would want a president who doesn't.
Not sure what that poster's problem is, other than what it writes is in the Dumber. By. The. Day. category.
Let's repeat this again, as it seems not to be sinking in:
Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to throw the Russkies out of the Ukraine.
That means they need time to rebuild their armed forces, time to rebuild their infrastructure and time to rebuild their economy. Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Please name one time here or on TMF - that Liberals have said that America can put it's OWN interest and people - over that of Europe and the 'international community'.
Pretty much never.
BTW, here's some more bad news for the left:
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/statement-fr...Statement from Minister of Defence Tore O. Sandvik on reports concerning naval support
News story | Date: 02/03/2025
Les på norsk
- We have seen reports raising concerns about support for US Navy vessels in Norway. This is not in line with the Norwegian government’s policy. I can confirm that all requested support has been provided. The U.S. and Norway maintain a close and strong defense cooperation. American forces will continue to receive the supply and support they require from Norway.Sorry, libs.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That means they need time to rebuild their armed forces, time to rebuild their infrastructure and time to rebuild their economy. Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me.
Without security guarantees, to which Trump was unwilling to commit, Zelensky rightly realized that trusting Putin to uphold his end of the deal was a fantasy, and that Ukraine would never have the time to rebuild and recover.
Why is this so? Because Putin has never kept to the terms of his agreements with Ukraine and it would be dangerous folly to trust him on this one.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Please name one time here or on TMF - that Liberals have said that America can put it's OWN interest and people - over that of Europe and the 'international community'.
Since 1945, America has viewed European security as integral to American security. That understanding is now being challenged as both Europe and America are beginning to look to their own interests exclusively.
In the case of America, this now includes unilaterally abrogating treaties to which we are signatories- mostly in the area of trade/tariffs. I fear Europe will be following the lead of America in doing likewise.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Without security guarantees,
The deal is the guarantee. Not sure why this is so tough. Having US economic deals signed and a cease fire allows time to rebuild the place.
But enough. You want a security guarantee. Not a one of you people has put forth a single idea of your own; you're just endlessly throwing temper tantrums.
So a question:
How many NATO troops do you want in the Ukraine? How many US troops? What are their rules of engagement?
No. of Recommendations: 3
How many NATO troops do you want in the Ukraine? How many US troops? What are their rules of engagement?
No. of Recommendations: 10
The deal is the guarantee.
Not even close. Putin would roll right over that economic agreement and Trump would write off whatever investment in infrastructure was made as a loss.
So at this point, a US involvement in a peace deal is off the table; Trump blew it up ow the center of gravity in this matter has shifted from Washington to Europe.
As for NATO troops stationed, several NATO countries have already volunteered to send troops as guarantors of whatever agreement is signed.
And they, rather than you or I, would be better positioned to write their own rules of engagement.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That doesn't fly Dope. It's no secret that Putin doesn't keep any agreements. He will negotiate, sign an agreement, take the concession you made to get the agreement and pay no attention to keeping his agreement on his concession, and this was going on before 2014 and this dust up. Negotiations with Russia haven't worked so far. Remember, Russia agreed not to invade Ukraine and Ukraine would give up its nukes. That looks like a bad move now.
When Zelnskyy said he needs security guarantees, he really does.
This is a summary from the ISW:
Key Takeaways:
*Russian President Vladimir Putin and senior Russian officials continue to reject US negotiating terms and demand that Ukraine surrender territory that Russia does not occupy.
*Kremlin guidelines to Russian state media about coverage of recent US–Russian meetings indicate Russian President Vladimir Putin's determination to manipulate US President Donald Trump and divide the West.
*US and Russian delegations met in Istanbul, Turkey on February 27 to continue to discuss US–Russian bilateral diplomatic relations. *The Kremlin is reportedly continuing to push the United States to accept economic benefits that are unrelated to the war in Ukraine in return for Ukrainian and Western concessions that are related to the war. *North Korea reportedly recently deployed additional troops to Kursk Oblast as North Korea continues to expand its military capabilities through cooperation with Russia.
*Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Toretsk and Pokrovsk, and Russian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk, Kurakhove, and Velyka Novosilka.https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russ...
No. of Recommendations: 3
Putin would roll right over that economic ag
LOL. How?
Talk about reading minds.
As for NATO troops stationed, several NATO countries have already volunteered to send troops as guarantors of whatever agreement is signed.
Oh? Who, besides the UK?
And they, rather than you or I, would be better positioned to write their own rules of engagement.
Cop out. What are their rules of engagement? We both know why you won't answer the question.
No. of Recommendations: 2
That doesn't fly Dope. It's no secret that Putin doesn't keep any agreements. He will negotiate, sign an agreement, take the concession you made to get the agreem
Another mind reader.
How many NATO troops do you want in the Ukraine? How many US troops? What are their rules of engagement?
No. of Recommendations: 9
Zelensky lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to throw the Russkies out of the Ukraine.
Thank you Dr. Obvious.
As I’ve previously said, of course Ukraine doesn’t have the guns and money to repel the illegal invasion by Russia (which they guaranteed they wouldn’t do).
It’s not just Ukraine. Lots of European countries don’t. That’s why NATO was created. Duh.
That’s why countries like Norway and Sweden recently joined NATO. You attack one, you attack us all. It’s a great mechanism for smaller countries to defend themselves against illegal invasions by a larger country. And it’s worked quite well for over 60 years.
Then, Neville Trump came along and he thinks giving in to an illegal invasion is a smart thing to do. In reality, it just encourages the larger national to keep invading more and more countries.
Use your Google machine to read up on World War II.
Russia just wants peace.
A piece of this, a piece of that.
That’s why it’s a smart idea to stop Russia in Ukraine, which makes it a smart move on the part of the United States to give aid to Ukraine.
Unfortunately, Neville Trump is incredibly ignorant. He actually thinks cutting IRS employees will save money. Dumb as a doorknob. He is aligning America with Russia and North Korea (and indirectly with Iran, too). These countries are not our friends. They would love to see us weaker, and that’s exactly what Trump is doing.
NATO helps keep America safer. Giving into a brutal dictator makes America less safe. That’s why learning history is so important. Maybe we can get a comic book version for Neville.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Thank you Dr. Obvious.
It's the fact of the matter. Zelensky doesn't have the dudes, the guns or the money to throw the Russians out of the Ukraine.
So why does the left insist they keep piling people into the meat grinder without at least pursuing a cease fire?
You guys hate Trump. That's obvious. It's also boring and irrelevant.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe we can get a comic book version for Neville.
He's too lazy to read even a comic book. To squirrel-brained to sit still while somebody reads it to him.
Besides, as he has told us repeatedly, he knows more about everything than anybody else.
You Trumpers are fools.
No. of Recommendations: 8
The deal is the guarantee. Not sure why this is so tough
So you just can't face the fact that the mineral deal is absolutely no guarantee, you just insist it is. Why are neo-conservatives writing as if Putin is calling all the shots? Why is Trump forcing you to defend the mineral deal as if its a guarantee, when it isn't? Trump wants to pretend the mineral deal is a security guarantee, but Zelenskyy is quite aware of Putin's negotiations in the past. Nobody is fooled, Putin is completely untrustworthy.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Unfortunately, Neville Trump is incredibly ignorant. He actually thinks cutting IRS employees will save money.
Even Trump isn't dumb enough to think that. What he does know is that cutting IRS employees, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, purging "disloyal" employees (i.e. those who might, say, not respond to a highly questionable email from DOGE asking them to report what they did last week), etc, etc--we all know what's going on--will lead to fewer watchdogs, whistleblowers and enforcement mechanisms to make it easier for corruption to occur. And guess who gets their pockets lined by that, and who gets fleeced?
Eliminating fraud is a smokescreen. What Trump and his cronies are actually doing is making it easier for fraud to occur. Those who would monitor and what goes on are being eliminated, leaving only those--and they are obviously many--who will believe anything Trump says and think he is actually looking out for them.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Eliminating fraud is a smokescreen. What Trump and his cronies are actually doing is making it easier for fraud to occur.
This is so painfully obvious that even a blind man can see it.
The fact that many don’t see it is either a testimony to the power of propaganda, or evidence that the corruption hasn’t directly affected them yet.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I wonder who is hurt most if the CPFB does away.
Who is raised with basic personal finance knowledge? Spending priorities?
Who is raised with totally the opposite?
CULTURE -- is gonna pay pay pay! Even more than usual now.
I'm tired of winning. I admit.
No. of Recommendations: 3
So you just can't face the fact that the m
Okay. You get the same question that everyone else is dodging:
How many US troops and planes are you willing to commit to the Ukraine, and what are their rules of engagement?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Okay. You get the same question that everyone else is dodging:
How many US troops and planes are you willing to commit to the Ukraine, and what are their rules of engagement?
Your question was, is, and continues to be irrelevant.
Ain’t gonna happen. Undoubtedly at Putin’s urging.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your question was, is, and continues to be irrelevant.
Goodness gracious.
Tell me you haven't thought through your position without telling me you've not thought through your position.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Okay. You get the same question that everyone else is dodging:
How many US troops and planes are you willing to commit to the Ukraine, and what are their rules of engagement?
Who is dodging it?
Unless Ukraine joins NATO, none.
Any other inane questions you need answers to?
No. of Recommendations: 7
Unless Ukraine joins NATO, none.
Worked for Taiwan since the late 1970's. No troops, but a firm and resolute defense commitment. Can be very effective.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Unless Ukraine joins NATO, none.
Any other inane questions you need answers to?
Inane? Sorry, but if "the security guarantee" is the sticking point, then somebody should be able to describe what all the "security guarantee" entails.
So you're saying no US troops unless the Ukraine is a member of NATO.
Do you support NATO membership for them?
No. of Recommendations: 15
Do you support NATO membership for them?
Yes, I support NATO membership for Ukraine. Unfortunately, it’s probably not realistic at this time given the number of NATO members.
That’s why I currently support sending them military supplies to combat Russia’s illegal invasion.
Russia is one of America’s enemies.
No. of Recommendations: 2
How many US troops and planes are you willing to commit to the Ukraine, and what are their rules of engagement?
We make Ukraine part of NATO. NATO fields the troops, armaments, and Euros. We help with Dollars and armaments. We do training missions though, so we will have some troops in country for that purpose.
No. of Recommendations: 3
How many US troops and planes are you willing to commit to the Ukraine, and what are their rules of engagement?
The beauty of the situation under Biden is that we didn't have to commit any US personnel. The Ukrainians were doing all the fighting, and just asking for materiel.
If they were part of NATO, then we'd have to commit whatever the pact dictates. Because that's how promises work. You make one (e.g. a treaty), and then you follow through.
No. of Recommendations: 17
"Please name one time here or on TMF - that Liberals have said that America can put it's OWN interest and people - over that of Europe and the 'international community'."
How hard is it to understand that having a stable Europe is in the best interest of the U.S.A.?
Of course the U.S. should put its interest first, but it isn't a zero sum game. Helping other countries does not mean we are not helping ourselves. The U.S.A. is in a much better place when it doesn't have to fight a world war every 25 years.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, I support NATO membership for Ukraine. Unfortunately, it’s probably not realistic at this time given the number of NATO members.
The number of NATO members is irrelevant; members are allowed in if they represent a significant economic or strategic influence to the alliance.
Okay, so you *do* support the US backing the Ukraine all the way, up to and including US troops placed there (because that's what NATO membership means).
No. of Recommendations: 1
We make Ukraine part of NATO.Okay.
NATO fields the troops, armaments, and Euros. We help with Dollars and armaments. "NATO troops" means US troops and planes. The Europeans don't have standing expeditionary forces anymore.
We do training missions though, so we will have some troops in country for that purpose.We do this already; the California Air Guard, for instance, has been training them for >30 years:
https://theaviationist.com/2022/05/24/california-a...NATO membership means you're willing to send US troops to defend the Ukraine.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Inane? Sorry, but if "the security guarantee" is the sticking point, then somebody should be able to describe what all the "security guarantee" entails.
So, let me ask you a question, Dope.
In the 76 years that NATO has existed, how many NATO countries have been invaded by another country?
No. of Recommendations: 4
In the 76 years that NATO has existed, how many NATO countries have been invaded by another country?
I’m not a dope, but I’ll answer anyway.
None.
Perhaps that’s the real reason Putin opposes NATO membership for Ukraine.
It would just get in the way of his “plans”.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Of course the U.S. should put its interest first, but it isn't a zero sum game. Helping other countries does not mean we are not helping ourselves. The U.S.A. is in a much better place when it doesn't have to fight a world war every 25 years.
I wish I could find it, but I recently read a piece suggesting that Trump's foreign and economic policy is shaped by a rejection of the idea that a deal could ever not be a zero sum game. IOW, in every deal, in every arrangement, there's a winner and a loser. If the other side is happy with the deal, it has to mean that your side is getting screwed somehow.
Not sure if I 100% agree with that, but it would explain some of his more puzzling policies - like starting a trade war with Canada. Canada obviously benefits by having a stable and peaceful, barrier-free relationship with the U.S. - but so too does the U.S. benefit by having one of the longest national borders on earth be with a close and tight ally that's deeply interconnected with our economy, rather than a more contentious boundary. But if you believe that if Canada's benefiting, the U.S. must be being treated "unfairly" (one word Trump uses to describe how they treat us)...well, it makes more sense.
As for Ukraine, the U.S. benefits not just from a stable and peaceful Europe specifically, but from a world governed by principles of collective security where the other major powers (and all the nuclear powers) face powerful disincentives to invade their neighbors. We benefit from the general rule ("There's a major price to pay if you invade a tiny neighbor"), even if we might pay a cost in any specific instance of defending that rule ("It costs the U.S. a lot to provide arms to Ukraine to defend itself"). I think Trump doesn't believe that the benefits of the general rule outweigh the costs of supporting it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
In the 76 years that NATO has existed, how many NATO countries have been invaded by another country?
Zero.
Your point is of course, "The answer is zero. So that means we should be piling assets into the Ukraine because if we're there in force there's no way Putin does anything!"
Right?
That's a fine position to hold. The question is...do you trust the Ukrainians to not pick a fight with Russia, thinking they have the US and NATO at their backs?
No. of Recommendations: 14
That's a fine position to hold. The question is...do you trust the Ukrainians to not pick a fight with Russia, thinking they have the US and NATO at their backs?
NATO is a defensive treaty. If any NATO country attacks another country, they’re on their own.
Next inane question?
No. of Recommendations: 1
NATO is a defensive treaty. If any NATO country attacks another country, they’re on their own.
Are they? If you say so.
Next inan
You people are spouting off left and right, and up until today you've taken no concrete position other than the standard ORANGE MAN. BAD! one. This is progress!
Good job!
No. of Recommendations: 14
That's a fine position to hold. The question is...do you trust the Ukrainians to not pick a fight with Russia, thinking they have the US and NATO at their backs?An odd concern to have. Every other NATO country has the US and the rest of NATO and their backs, and none have chosen to attack another nation - even though they adjoin countries that are much less powerful than Russia.
But if that's your concern, again Taiwan might be a constructive example. Our posture towards Taiwan is one of "strategic ambiguity" - a strong enough commitment towards defending them that it has dissuaded China from attacking, but one that's subject to enough US discretion to dissuade Taiwan from declaring independence (much less declaring war).
It's not hard for even modestly skilled diplomats to craft a policy that would signal to Russia that aggression against Ukraine will be met with an overwhelming flow of resources and materiel for them to defend themselves, and
also signal to Ukraine that if they get into a conflict that
they started that they'll be on their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act...
No. of Recommendations: 2
If the other side is happy with the deal, it has to mean that your side is getting screwed somehow.
That fits. It also seems to describe some here. If Europe is happy with an arrangement, it must be bad for us. Which is completely ludicrous, but that's the implication of some statements I read here. And this demographic on this board would skew more affluent and highly educated. Imagine what the common JoeSixPack likely thinks.
As for Ukraine, the U.S. benefits not just from a stable and peaceful Europe specifically, but from a world governed by principles of collective security where the other major powers (and all the nuclear powers) face powerful disincentives to invade their neighbors. We benefit from the general rule ("There's a major price to pay if you invade a tiny neighbor"), even if we might pay a cost in any specific instance of defending that rule ("It costs the U.S. a lot to provide arms to Ukraine to defend itself"). I think Trump doesn't believe that the benefits of the general rule outweigh the costs of supporting it.
Yes. This.
While we do not have a perfect record (ref: Allende/Pinochet, among others), it is good to have cooperation and/or alliances with nations that also want to oppose autocracy. It's been that way for 80 years. However, it seems this administration actually wants autocracy. Which is blowing up the whole concept of freedom, and support thereof.
No. of Recommendations: 2
...also signal to Ukraine that if they get into a conflict that they started that they'll be on their own.
That's really a non-concern. I think the OP was just making that up to flood the zone with excrement. However, I'm pretty sure that NATO is not required to intervene if a NATO member is the aggressor. They are a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. So if Ukraine was in NATO, and Russia invaded, we'd be obligated to commit our forces. If Ukraine invaded Russia, pretty sure we would be telling them "good luck". Article 5 specifies "attacked nation" (i.e. NATO member), not "attacking nation".
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's not hard for even modestly skilled diplomats to craft a policy that would signal to Russia that aggression against Ukraine will be met with an overwhelming flow of resources and materiel for them to defend themselves, - albaby
-----------------
OK in response to Russian aggression, we give Ukraine all the guns and money they ask for. But after guns and money, there remains the issue of "dudes" as laid out so well in Dopes recipe for defense.
Your statement implies the dudes will come from Ukraine, that they have the capacity to do that. I think that is questionable assumption given the casualties already suffered by Ukraine. It will take one or two generations to restore Ukraine's supply of military age soldiers, especially while simultaneously providing labor to work on reconstruction for the next twenty years.
So just where will the dudes come from if not the United States?
No. of Recommendations: 18
OK in response to Russian aggression, we give Ukraine all the guns and money they ask for. But after guns and money, there remains the issue of "dudes" as laid out so well in Dopes recipe for defense.Don't know - any more than I know where the Russians will get their "dudes" either. Or where they'll get their money.
The Russians are
also facing questions about their manpower shortages, only heightened by the reveal that they resorted to using North Korean soldiers last last year. They also are running out of "dudes":
https://cepa.org/article/russias-year-of-truth-1-t...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_penal_milita...Russia's financial position is more acute, because unlike a Ukraine supported by the funding and armaments of the Free World, Russia is running into very acute resource constraints:
For the Kremlin, it thus looks like this year is set to be difficult on the fiscal front. In January, the country’s monthly budget deficit was about 45 percent higher than the full-year target for 2025.
Seen from Moscow, this data probably looks alarming: If fiscal expenses remain at their January levels throughout the remainder of the year, the NWF reserves could vanish in just three months. And even if they don’t — as is more likely — 2025 is probably the last year Moscow will be able to fully cover its fiscal deficit by tapping into those savings.https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-rus...Which is why the correct strategy for opponents of Russia -
if they want to maximize Ukraine's negotiating position - is to signal that Ukraine will be given all the financial and military resources they need on an ongoing basis. Russia then would have some hard choices to make, because they face the very real possibility of creating a financial crisis and/or completely depleting their defensive manpower in the intermediate term.
That type of posture might lead to genuine concessions at the negotiating table - in territory, in prisoner release, in security protections, and other matters. You would
not signal that Ukraine's access to resources is coming to a near-term end or adopt Russia's framing of the Ukrainian government as illegitimate
under any circumstances. Ukraine's strength in negotiations comes from Russia facing down more time at war when they are ill-equipped to continue - take away that risk for Russia, and there's nothing to bargain for.
Trump, IMHO, does
not care about maximizing Ukraine's negotiating position. He wants the war to end as quickly as possible, for a variety of reasons. The easiest way to do that is to sell Ukraine's interests down the river and give Russia everything it wants. It's a bad look to be giving the bad guys the win, especially since they attacked a smaller innocent country without provocation. The only refuge is to try to pretend that this is just accepting hard realities, rather than slinking away from supporting the good guys in a fight that has horrible ramifications for the entire international security system. Which is why Trump
initially tried to reposition Russia as not being the bad guys (they weren't the aggressors, Zelenskyy's a dictator) - and when that was a lead balloon on launch, the Administration's moved on to arguing that Ukraine's toast anyway so there's no point in prolonging Russia's eventually getting every one of their war aims.
Both countries have gone through the meat grinder
because of Russia, and it's critically important that Russia gain
as little as possible at the negotiating table. The only way to do that is to put Ukraine in a position where they can keep fighting as long as they want to, so that Russia has a downside to not negotiating. But Trump doesn't want that outcome (for a variety of reasons), so he's trying to create a context where us abandoning Ukraine can be painted as a "smart" decision rather than slinking away from a brave ally that is fighting to defend themselves from a brutal invader.
No. of Recommendations: 4
ME: NATO fields the troops, armaments, and Euros. We help with Dollars and armaments.
Dope: "NATO troops" means US troops and planes. The Europeans don't have standing expeditionary forces anymore.
-------------------------------
ME: We already have troops and planes there. We help them train - 10 weeks to 6 months later they have troops.
-----------------
Dope: We do this already; the California Air Guard, for instance, has been training them for >30 years:
https://theaviationist.com/2022/05/24/california-a...
-----------------
ME: Exactly.
-------------
D: NATO membership means you're willing to send US troops to defend the Ukraine.
---------------
ME: If it goes that far - it shouldn't. Putin's position inside Russia is not the best. He needs to come out of the Ukraine with a win.
Don't let him have it. If Putin pays a price, future aggressors will be deterred.
-----------------------------------
This is just a sample:
SNIP
The stage is set for the confrontation with Russia to intensify, despite the incoming Trump administration’s apparent interest in normalizing relations with Moscow. The war is not going well for Ukraine, in part because the limited assistance the West has sent to Kyiv does not match the deep stake it claims to have in the conflict. As a result,
Russia is likely to walk away from the war emboldened and, once it has reconstituted its military capacity, spoiling for another fight to revise the security order in Europe. What’s more, the Kremlin will look to pocket any concessions from the Trump administration for ending the current war, such as sanctions relief, to strengthen its hand for the next one. Russia is already preparing the ground through the sabotage and other special operations it has unleashed across Europe and through its alignment with other rogue actors, including Iran and North Korea. European countries are only slightly more prepared to handle the Russian challenge on their own than they were three years ago. And depending on how the war in Ukraine ends, the possibility of another war with Russia looms.
The question is not whether Russia will pose a threat to the United States and its allies but how to assess the magnitude of the danger and the effort required to contain it. China will remain the United States’ primary competitor. But even with much of its attention called to Asia, Washington cannot ignore a recalcitrant and revanchist adversary in Europe, especially not one that will pose a direct military threat to NATO members.
The Russian problem is also a global one. Putin’s willingness to invade a neighbor, assault democratic societies, and generally violate accepted norms—and his seeming ability to get away with it—paves the way for others to do the same.The Kremlin’s provision of military equipment and know-how to current and aspiring U.S. adversaries will amplify these threats, multiplying the challenges that Washington will face from China, Iran, North Korea, and any other country that Russia backs. SNIP
https://archive.is/5Fdjr#selection-1695.0-1707.487
No. of Recommendations: 17
So just where will the dudes come from if not the United States?
So far, the dudes from Ukraine are more than holding their own.
Why not give them the tools they need and then let them figure it out.
Instead, the President of the United States is acting like the coward he is as he kneels to kiss Putin’s ass. Trump has brought shame and weakness to our country. And you continue to defend him. Have you no shame?
No. of Recommendations: 2
An odd concern to have.
Have you spoke to any Ukrainians, and are you aware of the some of the crimes Russia has committed? They've literally spirited off thousands of children and re-homed them inside Russia. The level of hatred the average Ukrainian has for the average Russian is almost at the Holy War level.
Not an odd concern at all.
Our posture towards Taiwan is one of "strategic ambiguity" - a strong enough commitment towards defending them that it has dissuaded China from attacking, but one that's subject to enough US discretion to dissuade Taiwan from declaring independence (much less declaring war).
So...the "strategic ambiguity" argument goes against allowing the Ukraine into NATO. After all, if a "will they or won't they approach" is good enough for China - who views Taiwan as a runaway province and doesn't even recognize Taiwan as a country - then why wouldn't than be good enough for the Ukraine?
It's not hard for even modestly skilled diplomats to craft a policy that would signal to Russia that aggression against Ukraine will be met with an overwhelming flow of resources and materiel for them to defend themselves, and also signal to Ukraine that if they get into a conflict that they started that they'll be on their own.
Indeed. Which is why NATO membership is not necessary in this case. A mere statement that "A whole, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine in the long term interests of the United States" would suffice.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Don't know - any more than I know where the Russians will get their "dudes" either. Or where they'll get their money.
Putin has more dudes, guns and money than the Ukrainians do.
He has more people than Zelensky, and he's getting more from the Norks. He's getting money from Europe and the Chinese and guns from the Norks also.
Which is why the correct strategy for opponents of Russia - if they want to maximize Ukraine's negotiating position - is to signal that Ukraine will be given all the financial and military resources they need on an ongoing basis.
There's a problem with your statement: the dudes part is completely missing. This strategy doesn't work at all if there's an active war going on.
Both countries have gone through the meat grinder because of Russia, and it's critically important that Russia gain as little as possible at the negotiating table.
Indeed. And Putin has more meat to throw into the grinder. Which is why it's vitally important to get the Russians to the bargaining table to get some kind of settlement going.
After a cease-fire has been established, the business of re-arming and re-building the Ukraine can begin. The status quo just means that Zelensky runs out of dudes much faster than Putin does, and when that happens the Ukrainians lose the war.
No. of Recommendations: 3
So far, the dudes from Ukraine are more than holding their own.
There is a stalemate at the front. They're not winning.
In the very pyrrhic environment in which they're operating, that's not a long term plan for success.
Instead, the President of the United States is acting like the coward he is as he kneels to kiss Putin’s ass. Trump has brought shame and weakness to our country. And you continue to defend him. Have you no shame?
I'm sure you puffed out your little chest and this made you feel good to type. But it shows that you don't have the first freaking idea of what you're saying.
Every day the war goes on, the Ukraine as a country dies a little more.
You think they're planting crops?
You think they're making things?
You think they have a functioning economy?
It's very brave of you to volunteer them to keep feeding more of their dudes into the meat grinder so you can feel Big and Tough and give Trump the middle finger.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Which is why the correct strategy for opponents of Russia - if they want to maximize Ukraine's negotiating position - albaby
----------------
We were talking about how Ukraine could respond to Russian aggression that might occur at some point in yje future after the peace deal had already been reached.
With your statement above you have shifted the time frame to Ukraine's enhancing negotiating position prior to finalizing a peace deal. As someone pointed out (it probably was you since it made sense) Trumps economic partnership over minerals would provide insufficient deterrence to the Ruskies. I agree with that assessment and so does Zelensky who rightly rejected the "minerals only deal now, security later" plan offered by Trump. What I can't figure out is why would Zelensky use the Oval Office event to raise that objection in public.
No. of Recommendations: 3
With your statement above you have shifted the time frame to Ukraine's enhancing negotiating position prior to finalizing a peace deal. As someone pointed out (it probably was you since it made sense) Trumps economic partnership over minerals would provide insufficient deterrence to the Ruskies. I agree with that assessment and so does Zelensky who rightly rejected the "minerals only deal now, security later" plan offered by Trump. What I can't figure out is why would Zelensky use the Oval Office event to raise that objection in public.al - and all of the liberals - are making a singular mistake: they're all talking as if there's a cease-fire already, which is the point you alluded to above. The problem is,
there is no such deal.
Of paramount importance now is generating some kind of framework to get both sides to the bargaining table.
Here, this has gone uncommented on:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-s...EU spends more on Russian oil and gas than financial aid to Ukraine – report
Europe estimated to have bought €22bn of fossil fuels from Russia in 2024 but gave €19bn to support KyivGet that?
The idiot Europeans are still paying Russia for oil and gas.
Trump's next move after Zelensky signs the minerals deal is very simple:
Go tell the Europeans they need to be prepared to cut Putin off. He'll offer them favorable terms on an oil and gas deal with US and certain other partners who would be happy to sell the euros oil and gas in exchange for the Europeans telling Putin they're willing to go cold turkey
unless he goes to the negotiating table.
With an economic framework in place for the US to support the Ukraine (and the implicit security guarantee that comes with it) and incentives for Putin (perhaps the Europeans buy a little more oil and gas from him) to agree to a reasonable cease-fire...then some progress can be made.
But at current course and speed? Not happening.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So far, the dudes from Ukraine are more than holding their own. - AW
------------------
How long can that be sustained, granting for the moment it is being sustained right now? Do some googling on Ukraine troop morale or desertions.
Then there is this,
As of 2024, Ukraine's population is estimated to be around 37.9 million, while Russia's population is approximately 146.2 million. The ongoing conflict and refugee crisis have significantly impacted Ukraine's population numbers.
No. of Recommendations: 9
So...the "strategic ambiguity" argument goes against allowing the Ukraine into NATO. After all, if a "will they or won't they approach" is good enough for China - who views Taiwan as a runaway province and doesn't even recognize Taiwan as a country - then why wouldn't than be good enough for the Ukraine?
It could be - I don't think anyone has said that NATO membership is the only way to guarantee Ukraine's security. There are many reasons why it's both a good and bad idea, but it's not the only solution.
But that's part of why Trump's come under so much criticism from Ukraine's defenders. The essential element of a Taiwan-like solution (apart from memorializing it in a treaty) is unwavering public commitment to the security policy. You have to make sure that the other side holds no misconceptions about the willingness and capability to defend the smaller country.
That doesn't jibe well with Trump's conception, in practice, of "America First" - if Trump is willing to let Russia get all of its war aims in Ukraine despite being the unprovoked aggressor, Russia's certainly not going to regard the U.S. as a likely defender of Ukraine if they decide to eat the rest of it down the road. And that ratchets up the danger for Taiwan as well; if the U.S. is willing to live with just token consequences for Russia attacking and seizing sovereign territory in their sphere of influence, China may conclude that the same is on offer in Taiwan.
No. of Recommendations: 5
So just where will the dudes come from if not the United States?
uhh...no.
If US troops were to show up, that would be a major escalation. Not gonna happen, unless it is a NATO ally (which Ukraine is not). Poland, and a few other close neighbors, would be more likely to send troops than we would be. And I don't see that happening, either.
Just give them the tools. They're fighting for their homes. They are highly motivated.
Meanwhile, Russia is running out of "dudes". They've practically emptied their prisons (most of whom have subsequently died), and are now offering huge signing bonuses to try to replenish their ranks. And the soldiers they are turning out now are green, and trained to the minimum. A large percentage of their experienced corps is dead or unable to continue (wounded and discharged). They're importing fodder...errr...soldiers from DPRK. They're hurting. If we can see Ukraine through the end of 2026, Russia will be spent. And their economy will be a shambles (it isn't that great already).
No. of Recommendations: 2
It could be - I don't think anyone has said that NATO membership is the only way to guarantee Ukraine's security. There are many reasons why it's both a good and bad idea, but it's not the only solution.
Indeed. Hence the economic framework as a starting point.
But that's part of why Trump's come under so much criticism from Ukraine's defenders. The essential element of a Taiwan-like solution (apart from memorializing it in a treaty) is unwavering public commitment to the security policy. You have to make sure that the other side holds no misconceptions about the willingness and capability to defend the smaller country.
And what needs to be first and foremost in anyone's mind is that if you're willing to do what this board wants (The US guarantees their security) then you need to be prepared to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine.
That's what a "security guarantee" means. So far, not a single board member has been willing to station large numbers of troops there. Fine, maybe we don't need to do that. But is the Ukraine going to be the thing you would start World War III over?
I'd argue that no, it shouldn't be. All you folks pushing for this should think carefully about what you would commit the US to. If your answer is "Europe should do it", then the counter to that is, "With what?"
if Trump is willing to let Russia get all of its war aims in Ukraine despite being the unprovoked aggressor, Russia's certainly not going to regard the U.S. as a likely defender of Ukraine if they decide to eat the rest of it down the road. And that ratchets up the danger for Taiwan as well; if the U.S. is willing to live with just token consequences for Russia attacking and seizing sovereign territory in their sphere of influence, China may conclude that the same is on offer in Taiwan.
First off, I've noticed that most of (read: 99.9999999999%) of the hostility towards Trump is driven by hypotheticals, such as this one above.
Secondly, Taiwan is of vastly more strategic importance to the US (and the rest of the world) than the Ukraine is. They're not remotely the same situation.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Indeed. And Putin has more meat to throw into the grinder. Which is why it's vitally important to get the Russians to the bargaining table to get some kind of settlement going.
After a cease-fire has been established, the business of re-arming and re-building the Ukraine can begin. The status quo just means that Zelensky runs out of dudes much faster than Putin does, and when that happens the Ukrainians lose the war.
Neither side can continue this type of fighting forever - eventually one side or the other runs into the practical limit of guns, manpower, or money and has to agree to wind it down. You're wrong in assuming that it would be Ukraine who runs into that first. Fighting a war is expensive, and Russia isn't getting enough money from other sources to keep this going much longer. Nor do they have a reserve of manpower - they've raided the prisons and now have to get troops from North Korea, which is not costless in terms of political commitments from Russia and China.
Getting the Russians to the bargaining table only helps if there's something Ukraine can get. Otherwise, they're just losing the war - even unconditional surrender ends with the parties at the table where the victor dictates the terms to the loser. The "bargaining" only comes about if both parties have something to offer the other and the ability to walk away and resume fighting. Which means that Ukraine has to be both able and willing to walk away from the bargaining table and continue the war if Russia doesn't agree to something acceptable. Which means not having the U.S. cut them off at the knees publicly before they get to the bargaining table.
Doing that was a bad choice if the U.S. had any desire to see an outcome of the war short of Russia achieving everything they want. Trump doesn't seem to care about that, for a number of reasons - he's interested only in the war ending, not what the outcome of the war is. Ukraine obviously cares a great deal about the outcome of the war, and if the only proposal on offer is Russia getting everything they want, they'd prefer to keep fighting until Russia is willing to come to the table with something they can accept.
No. of Recommendations: 12
And what needs to be first and foremost in anyone's mind is that if you're willing to do what this board wants (The US guarantees their security) then you need to be prepared to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine.
No, you don't. You can have a guarantee that the U.S. will supply them with whatever materiel and resources they need to defend themselves. Smaller countries are frequently able to drive out occupiers and invaders that are much larger than they are as long as they are adequately resourced. We've seen it time and again all around the globe. A force defending their homeland can repel a vastly larger armed force. Heck, that's what we've seen with Ukraine for the last three years - they were perfectly capable of keeping the Russians deadlocked and defending their nation, provided we gave them the resources to do it. These types of proxy wars were more common during the Cold War, when neither the USSR or US wanted to directly engage each other, but still found ways to respond.
That's all you need - you don't need your troops directly engaging the enemy to make it painful for them to invade.
First off, I've noticed that most of (read: 99.9999999999%) of the hostility towards Trump is driven by hypotheticals, such as this one above.
Secondly, Taiwan is of vastly more strategic importance to the US (and the rest of the world) than the Ukraine is. They're not remotely the same situation.
Well, Trump apparently just cut Ukraine off - so clearly he's not all that concerned with making sure Russia pays a price for their invasion.
And Ukraine's strategic importance lies in the global collective security principles that underlie the entire Westphalian system. If you let Russia take a piece out of Ukraine for no reason other than they want it, and they get away with it, then that makes it far more likely that such acquisitions will take place all over the world. Which is the sort of military adventuring that blew up into two full on World Wars, and is vastly more dangerous now that nuclear weapons are in the mix. That was the benefit of the Pax Americana - we ran a massive military and made sure that the world wasn't constantly wracked by military conquest.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Neither side can continue this type of fighting forever - eventually one side or the other runs into the practical limit of guns, manpower, or money and has to agree to wind it down. You're wrong in assuming that it would be Ukraine who runs into that first. Fighting a war is expensive, and Russia isn't getting enough money from other sources to keep this going much longer. Nor do they have a reserve of manpower - they've raided the prisons and now have to get troops from North Korea, which is not costless in terms of political commitments from Russia and China.
Russia is a lot bigger of a country than the Ukraine is and their economy hasn't been blown to bits like the Ukraine's has.
Big difference.
Getting the Russians to the bargaining table only helps if there's something Ukraine can get.
Um. A cease-fire.
Time.
A breather.
A chance to re-arm.
A chance to de-mine their farmlands.
A chance to reconstruct their water plants and energy grid.
A chance to heal up the limited number of soldiers they have.
Trump doesn't seem to care about that, for a number of reasons - he's interested only in the war ending, not what the outcome of the war is. Ukraine obviously cares a great deal about the outcome of the war, and if the only proposal on offer is Russia getting everything they want, they'd prefer to keep fighting until Russia is willing to come to the table with something they can accept.
Again with the hypotheticals.
One more time: The Ukraine lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to throw Ivan off their land.
So Zelensky's notion of "victory" is already a non-starter unless he gets NATO troops - and by "NATO" I mean American troops - to do it for him.
Are you ready to jump in the war tomorrow? Ready to commit US troops, tanks and planes?
No. of Recommendations: 9
Um. A cease-fire.
Time.
Which benefits Russia as well. It doesn't put them in any better of a position. Nor is Trump talking about what he wants to happen as a temporary ceasefire, but "peace" - an end to hostilities on whatever terms the parties can negotiate. Which could have happened any time during the last three years if both parties had a set of terms they could agree to - but didn't, because they don't.
They still don't, but now Trump is actively weakening Ukraine's bargaining position with his public statements, and now an actual cut off of military aid. This isn't just being a conduit for a cease fire - it's working to force Ukraine to agree to what Russia wants, rather than vice versa. Which is why he's being criticized. Not just "orange man bad," not just "peace bad, war good" - but that it's a terrible idea to undercut Ukraine in their position vis-a-vis Russia and make them go to the bargaining table in the worst possible position.
One more time: The Ukraine lacks the dudes, the guns and the money to throw Ivan off their land.
Which has been true in every asymmetric conflict that was successfully won by the smaller party. The Viet Cong repelling the U.S., the mujahedin driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the Taliban getting us to leave Afghanistan....the smaller party doesn't need to militarily repel the invaders. They just have to make it too costly for it to be worthwhile for the invaders to remain.
So Zelenskyy's notion of victory is to keep fighting not until they actually "throw Ivan off their land," but until Putin decides that it's worth taking only a partial achievement of his war aims rather than keep this up for another year.
No U.S. troops needed.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No, you don't.
Uh, huh. How well did Obama's "That's a red line - don't you go crossing it!" work? Not very well. Because that's the thing in poker: if you're bluffing, there's a nonzero chance that the other players end up calling your bluff and at that point you throw your cards down.
Obama folded. Didn't do anything when other parties crossed his red lines. What are you willing to do for the Ukrainians?
Smaller countries are frequently able to drive out occupiers and invaders that are much larger than they are as long as they are adequately resourced.
You guys keep coming back to this. You're drawing on what you think are clever arguments from the American Revolution, Iraq and Afghanistan. But you're wrong historically. Rather...badly.
In the American Revolution, the British were interested in keeping their colonies as they saw them as a significant economic engine for the Empire.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Americans fought insurgents while simultaneously building infrastructure and trying to do economic development.
Now. Are the Russians doing economic development inside the Ukraine right now?
Quite the opposite. No sooner do the Ukrainians fix their power grid than does a drone from Putin fly over and take it right back down again. What's the quality of life of your average Ukrainian not on the front lines right now?
A force defending their homeland can repel a vastly larger armed force. Heck, that's what we've seen with Ukraine for the last three years - they were perfectly capable of keeping the Russians deadlocked and defending their nation, provided we gave them the resources to do it.
This is the European argument: let's keep having Zelensky blood Putin until Putin gets tired and quits. It's such a flawed way of looking at it I don't know where to begin.
1. It assumes an infinite well of dudes for Zelensky to call on <--- he doesn't have this
2. It assumes Putin is a rational actor <--- he's not
Well, Trump apparently just cut Ukraine off - so clearly he's not all that concerned with making sure Russia pays a price for their invasion.
He just gave Zelensky a great incentive to dust off his suit, fly the F back to D.C., sign the minerals agreement, have lunch, and then go home.
And Ukraine's strategic importance lies in the global collective security principles that underlie the entire Westphalian system.
Does it, now. Where were these Wesphalian principles when Putin seized the Crimea? Or invaded Georgia?
Which is the sort of military adventuring that blew up into two full on World Wars, and is vastly more dangerous now that nuclear weapons are in the mix. That was the benefit of the Pax Americana - we ran a massive military and made sure that the world wasn't constantly wracked by military conquest.
Uh, huh.
The West failed to stop Hitler because of simple aversion to fighting and the assumption they were dealing with a rational actor in Hitler. They weren't. The Allied armies particularly the French were in fact numerically superior to the Wehrmacht in 1938 and could have easily marched into the Ruhr and put a stop to Hitler's early advances. They didn't.
In this case there's already a shooting war going on that's resulted in a battlefield stalemate. The historical analogy is not in fact World War II, but World War I where the Imperial German Army had advanced deep into France and the front had stabilized only 100 miles from Paris.
The British? Were running out of dudes to send.
The French? Half the French army was in a state of mutiny.
Does this sound familiar? That's the situation the Ukrainians are in right here, right now.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Which benefits Russia as well.
Sure, but not nearly as much as Zelensky. The west can replenish the Ukrainians with modern equipment a hell of a lot faster than Russia can rebuilt its stocks and ESPECIALLY if the Europeans stop or slow down buying Russian oil and gas.
They still don't, but now Trump is actively weakening Ukraine's bargaining position with his public statements, and now an actual cut off of military aid. This isn't just being a conduit for a cease fire - it's working to force Ukraine to agree to what Russia wants, rather than vice versa.
No it isn't. Trump is telling Zelensky to get to the bargaining table.
Which has been true in every asymmetric conflict that was successfully won by the smaller party. The Viet Cong repelling the U.S., the mujahedin driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the Taliban getting us to leave Afghanistan....the smaller party doesn't need to militarily repel the invaders. They just have to make it too costly for it to be worthwhile for the invaders to remain.
Huh?
The Viet Cong were backed by the North Vietnamese, China and the Soviet Union. They had PLENTY of dudes, guns and money.
See my other post about Afghanistan and the US. As far as the Soviet experience goes, the mujahedeen had PLENTY of US materiel support. In other words, dudes guns and money.
These historical analogies you guys keep raising...are just wrong, I'm sorry.
So Zelenskyy's notion of victory is to keep fighting not until they actually "throw Ivan off their land," but until Putin decides that it's worth taking only a partial achievement of his war aims rather than keep this up for another year.
Is it, now.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Seems like there are a number of troops in Europe. No standing armies? How about reclining armies?
Or sitting armies?
Chart: The EU's Biggest Standing Armies | Statista
As of July 2024, the top European armies by size were:
Poland: 216,000 active personnel
France: 204,000 active personnel
Germany: 185,000 active personnel
Italy: 171,000 active personnel
United Kingdom: 138,000 active personnel
Spain: 117,000 active personnel
Greece: 110,000 active personnel
Romania: 66,000 active personnel
Netherlands: 41,000 active personnel
In 2024, Europe had 1.47 million active-duty military personnel
Seems to contradict Dope, whoda thunk?
No. of Recommendations: 2
A historical refresher on WWI:
https://www.nps.gov/wwim/wwioverview.htmIn 1916 President Woodrow Wilson won re-election on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” But in April 1917, Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, along with its offer to help Mexico recover territories lost to the United States in 1848, led Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany. American entry came none too soon. The British were running out of men, almost half of the French army had mutinied, and the Russian Revolution in 1917 would lead to Russia’s withdrawal from the war, allowing Germany to shift troops to the Western Front.
Although the first American soldiers landed in France in June 1917, it would take a year to create, train and equip an army and ship it across the Atlantic. The outcome of the war would turn on whether Germany could defeat Britain and France before the Americans arrived in force.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Seems to contradict Dope, whoda thunk?
Sigh. How many of those are they willing to deploy and what equipment would they have?
No. of Recommendations: 1
SNIP
There have been several historical battles where a much smaller force defeated a much bigger one, including:
1. Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) - 300 Spartans and their allies held off a much larger Persian army.
2. Battle of Cannae (216 BC) - Carthaginian forces under Hannibal defeated a Roman army twice their size.
3. Battle of Agincourt (1415) - English forces led by King Henry V defeated a much larger French army during the Hundred Years' War.
4. Battle of Saragarhi (1897) - A small group of 21 Sikh soldiers held off 10,000 Afghan tribesmen in present-day Pakistan.
5. Battle of the Alamo (1836) - A small group of Texan defenders held off a much larger Mexican force for 13 days.
In the 20th-century there have also been quite a few.
1. Siege of Tsingtao (1914) - A small force of Japanese and British troops captured the German-held Tsingtao fortress, despite being outnumbered by the defenders.
2. Battle of Le Hamel on July 4, 1918, where Australian and American forces, led by General John Monash, defeated German forces outnumbering them by approximately 5 to 1. The battle lasted only 93 minutes and was a significant victory for the Allies.
3. Battle of Cambrai in 1918 ; During this battle, Allied forces consisting of two British army corps and one Canadian army corps, totalling about 65,000 troops, defeated a much larger German force of roughly 140,000 troops, thus slowing the enemy's advance into the Netherlands and Germany. The battle was remarkable for its combination of armour and infantry tactics, and it showcased the benefits of innovative tactics and strategies.
4. The Battle of Kohima, when 1,500 British and Indian troops defeated, 20,000 Japanese troops, which ultimately led to the defeat of the Japanese in the Burma campaign, this also, pioneered a new way of Jungle ‘hilltop fighting’ where a small group, that were resupplied by air drops, could beat off a much larger force. Battles such as these showed the difference in leadership of General Bill Slim to General Percival, who surrendered 85,000 Allied troops to 30,000 Japanese in Singapore.
5. Battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954) - Vietnamese Communist forces defeated a much larger French army in a remote valley of Northern Vietnam, leading to the French withdrawal from Indochina.
6. The Six Day War (1967) ; The exact number of Israeli forces compared to their enemies in this conflict is not straightforward answer since it varied from front to front. However, the Israeli forces were significantly outnumbered in terms of personnel, tanks, and aircraft compared to the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Despite this, Israel achieved a decisive victory in the war.
7. Battle of Longewala (1971) - During the Indo-Pakistan War, a company of Indian soldiers defended the remote outpost of Longewala against overwhelming Pakistani forces, inflicting heavy losses on the enemy and preventing an invasion of India's Rajasthan state.
8. Falklands War (1982) - A British Task Force of around 26,000 troops recaptured the Falkland Islands from Argentine occupation, despite facing a numerically superior enemy. A typical example is the Battle of Goose Green, when 450 British soldiers of 2 Para, took a garrison of 1400 Argentines, the battle lasted 14 hours and the Paras where down to an average of ten rounds each when the Argentines surrendered, most Paras had not slept or eaten for 2/3 days.
These are just a few examples, but there have been many other instances. too many to list here.SNIP
No. of Recommendations: 4
First off, I've noticed that most of (read: 99.9999999999%) of the hostility towards Trump is driven by hypotheticals, such as this one above.
What? Hypotheticals?
Are you mad?
Every day that goes by it is evident that Trump is a self-dealing crook. Deeply corrupt. This 'administration' he has put together is full of incompetent ass-kissers who have no intention of doing anything but affirming every idiotic idea Trump comes up with. Trump is making this once great Republic a joke in the eyes of other democracies. He clearly would love nothing better than to turn this country into a kleptocratic oligarchy with him at the helm...just like Putin, who he SO admires.
This isn't hypothetical...it is right there before your very eyes. You've taken partisanship and morphed it into a cult of personality.
What I can't understand is how you could say you love this country and then support such a hideously immoral man who cares nothing about this country. It isn't hard to see unless you live only within the FOX et al propaganda bubble.
What a sad mess. What a terrible time for the US.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You're wrong in assuming that it would be Ukraine who runs into that first.
Absolutely. Anyone who really follows this would know that.
Also, Russia has suffered far more casualties than Ukraine. In part because of emptying their prisons. But, while Russia is bigger, there is no guarantee that Ukraine will run out of "dudes" first. It's a function of casualties inflicted, and Russia is getting it worse. At least for now.
No. of Recommendations: 17
I'm sure you puffed out your little chest and this made you feel good to type. But it shows that you don't have the first freaking idea of what you're saying.
No, it didn’t make me feel good to puff out my little chest in order to point out to my fellow Americans that Trump is giving our enemy EVERYTHING they want while getting NOTHING in return.
It would make me feel a little better if you opened your eyes and admitted you screwed up royally. Because you did. And the more you refuse to admit your screw up the more you endanger America.
Tell us, why is Trump giving EVERYTHING to Putin that he wants while getting NOTHING in return? Why is Trump getting rid of our crime and national security operations? Why has he removed all independent auditors and destroyed all checks and balances? And why are the obsequious Republicans behaving like they’ve been castrated? Why don’t you give a crap about our republic? With apologies to BHM, wake the fuck up.
No. of Recommendations: 2
These are just a few examples, but there have been many other instances. too many to list here.SNIP
Sigh. And how many of those were at a grinding stalemate?
Dien Bien Phu featured French troops stuck in a valley and surrounded, cut off from support.
The 6 Day War. Were you aware the IAF struck first, and wiped out Egypt's air force on the first day?
Many of your other examples feature terrain as an advantage for the smaller force.
Tell me. Are the Ukrainians defending hilly terrain, Switzerland-style?
Jeez already.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No, it didn’t make me feel good to puff out my little chest in order to point out to my fellow Americans that Trump is giving our enemy EVERYTHING they want while getting NOTHING in return.
Again with the hypotheticals, rooted in abject ignorance.
Do you have running water today? I assume you have stable electricity, given that you're posting here. Are farms around you growing food?
Well, none of that is happening in the Ukraine right now. Yet you and the Europeans would have them keep fighting without a break right down to the last Ukrainian. Some ally *you people* are.
Or maybe...we negotiate a cease fire of some sort where the Ukrainians can have some breathing room to heal up and fix some things.
The rest of your post is more meant to make you feel better about yourself. I'm not here to do that.
Sorry. Not sorry.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Meanwhile, Russia is running out of "dudes". They've practically emptied their prisons (most of whom have subsequently died), and are now offering huge signing bonuses to try to replenish their ranks. And the soldiers they are turning out now are green, and trained to the minimum. A large percentage of their experienced corps is dead or unable to continue (wounded and discharged). They're importing fodder...errr...soldiers from DPRK. They're hurting. If we can see Ukraine through the end of 2026, Russia will be spent. And their economy will be a shambles (it isn't that great already).
This is what I read. Russia is in bad shape and needs the war to stop even more than Ukraine does, till now. I haven't seen the European peace plan.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is what I read. Russia is in bad shape and needs the war to stop even more than Ukraine
…then it sounds like Putin just needs a small push for talks to begin, does it not?
No. of Recommendations: 14
then it sounds like Putin just needs a small push for talks to begin, does it not?
His demand for even more territory than he occupies remains. Now he’s got Trump arguing for his position.
The only one being “pushed” is Zelensky.
No. of Recommendations: 3
His demand for even more territory than he occupies remains. Now he’s got Trump arguing for his position.
You’re reading minds again, and none too successfully.
No. of Recommendations: 8
His demand for even more territory than he occupies remains. Now he’s got Trump arguing for his position.
You’re reading minds again, and none too successfully.
Statement #1; true. A key demand of Putin is control of all the territory that Russia annexed, even the territory he doesn’t control
Statement # 2: True
Trump is repeating the Russian party line
- the claim that Ukraine started the war
-the claim that Zelensky is a dictator and is supported by only 4% of the population
-the claim that Russian victory is inevitable ( Trump is not the only American echoing Putin’s claim)
So you’re wrong, dope. No mindreading necessary.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I’m not going to bother with the performative nonsense posts. If it makes you guys feel better to yell the things you do, have at it.
No. of Recommendations: 12
I’m not going to bother with the performative nonsense posts. If it makes you guys feel better to yell the things you do, have at it.
You’re the only one yelling, dope.
You said I was “mindreading”. I proved that I wasn’t, by presenting verifiable facts.
No. of Recommendations: 0
You’re the only one yelling, dope.
Erm, okay.
No. of Recommendations: 3
This is what I read. Russia is in bad shape and needs the war to stop even more than Ukraine
…then it sounds like Putin just needs a small push for talks to begin, does it not?
Tell us you've never done these types of heavy duty "negotiations" without tellin us that you've never done these types of heavy duty "negotiations". <---- Isn't this your standard?
Watch.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tell us, why is Trump giving EVERYTHING to Putin that he wants while getting NOTHING in return? Why is Trump getting rid of our crime and national security operations? Why has he removed all independent auditors and destroyed all checks and balances? And why are the obsequious Republicans behaving like they’ve been castrated? Why don’t you give a crap about our republic?
Oh, there you go, more of those Dope 'hypotheticals'. /s
No. of Recommendations: 2
Watch
Giving up already?
No. of Recommendations: 2
You said I was “mindreading”. I proved that I wasn’t, by presenting verifiable facts. - Bill
-----------------
Proof? Verifiable? Lets examine your assertion..
Here is the context,
His demand for even more territory than he occupies remains. Now he’s got Trump arguing for his position. - Bill
You’re reading minds again, and none too successfully. - Dope
Statement #1; true. A key demand of Putin is control of all the territory that Russia annexed, even the territory he doesn’t control - Bill
===================
Agree, your Statement #1 is true. Putin's desire to reconstitute the old USSR is long standing and well known.
But this, "His demand for even more territory than he occupies remains. Now he’s got Trump arguing for his position." is where mind reading is required.
I don't recall Trump ever advocating for reconstituting the old USSR. Your attempt to rebuff Dopes assertion of mind reading with a claim of verifiable facts but have not provided any.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't recall Trump ever advocating for reconstituting the old USSR. Your attempt to rebuff Dopes assertion of mind reading with a claim of verifiable facts but have not provided any.
Thanks. After he bent reality into a pretzel I decided it wasn't worth it to try to fix it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Italy: 171,000 active personnelOh, yeah. You can cross Italy off your list. Meloni sez "Nah, bruv" to Italian troops:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ukraine-itali...“Italy has expressed doubts regarding the proposal of France and the UK on sending European troops. I think it is very difficult to implement; I am not sure about its effectiveness. That’s why we announced that we will not send Italian soldiers to Ukraine,” Meloni told Rai1 TV.
No. of Recommendations: 3
This is what I read. Russia is in bad shape and needs the war to stop even more than Ukraine does, till now.
Interesting you read that. Most of the media doesn't cover it in any detail. I know I sound like a broken record, but it seems to take someone like Perun to pull all those disparate source together and present it -with citations- in a concise format.
Yes, Russia is hurting. They don't have conscription (yet), they've burned through a lot of the professional/career soldiers, they're activating artillery pieces from WWII (or scavenging for parts those that can't be activated)**, they are activating (or scavenging) armor from the Khrushchev era, their economy is about to circle the drain...and they can't even retake Kursk (the Russian territory seized by Ukraine last year). Putin needs this to be over, desperately. I expect -this isn't from Perun- he'll demand the return of Kursk, and to retain all captured Ukrainian territory. Anything less, and he'll appear weak.
I would have to pull up the videos to look at the charts again, but Russian casualties have been horrendous. Russian propaganda downplays the numbers to just a few thousand, while claiming ~1M Ukrainian casualties. Independent sources estimate it's more like 150K+ Russians dead, and at least 500K wounded. Meanwhile, Ukrainian dead are ~50K, plus about 400K wounded. That's 3x the kill rate in favor of the Ukrainians. Give or take, from what I remember when I was catching up on his videos two weeks ago.
It has degenerated into a trench war, with lots of fixed fortifications and minefields. If either side tries to make advances, they have to fight through all that (and take lots of casualties). That's one reason the Kursk offensive was such a surprise...the Russians were caught flat-footed, despite drones covering the battlespace. The Ukrainians did suffer elevated casualties because of the trenches and mines, but once they were through that, they broke out for a decent territory grab. Some reports said the Russians just turned tail and ran. It's mostly a war of attrition at this point. Putin needs it to be over...yesterday.
**Keep in mind, artillery barrels have a limited lifetime. They need to be replaced after firing some hundreds of rounds, so even if they activate an artillery piece, they need to either make or scavenge new barrels frequently. Easier than building a new piece, or a new tank (whose barrels also need replacing, assuming the tank lives long enough). But it is still a materiel/manufacturing requirement for their logistics.
