ts5641 said:

---

He's right. As soon as you started seeing the left and poopy pant's admin protecting and exalted Zelensky you knew he was a bad dude.

---

Does the right exalting Putin mean he's a "good dude"?

Zelensky went right along with the CIA Ciaramella/Vindman etc. impeachment efforts. He could have easily come right out and said 'absolutely not, I was not pressured at all, and probably it's right to continue to look for corruption, though I would never take an action without consulting Victoria Nuland or her henchmen at the US embassy anyway, without respect to something President Trump said.' Instead, he smirked, then went right along as well in launching the proxy war once "Biden" was in office.

Finally, 5 years later Biden pardoned his son and brother for all the corruption with Burisma/Ukraine. Sigh. Now, Zelensky has already flipped to bending the knee after talking with Kellog, and presumably some cuts to US intelligence sharing about Russian forces. Hopefully David Goldman is right on this part of Trump's diplomatic forays:

Quote:

---

The Economist pundit "Talleyrand" on February 19 deplores "the readiness with which much of the world has accepted the humiliation of Ukraine and its European friends. The pattern was set long ago: where were the South Vietnamese at the peace negotiations in Paris? Where were the puppet rulers of Afghanistan when the USA finally began talking with the Taliban? And now, what about the stalwart Mr Zelenskyy? Proxies are almost always treated thus…. If the Ukrainians are clever, they'll quietly ask about applying for entry to the BRICS. Join the queue."

A three-way summit in Moscow is far from certain. If it occurs, the agenda will look something like this:

1) A ceasefire in Ukraine with Russia in permanent control of the territory it has already taken, including most of the core Russophone provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, along with new elections in Ukraine that almost certainly would eliminate Zelensky. Some European or UK peacekeepers might be allowed, given that the Europeans have too few deployable forces to make trouble, and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has already declared peacekeepers would not be protected by the mutual defense provisions of NATO treaties.

2) A rapid end to economic sanctions on Russia. Whether gas supplies would be restored is a matter of negotiation, given that Trump would rather sell US natural gas to Russia (at roughly double the Russian price) rather than restore Russian supplies.

3) An agreement with China to stabilize the status of Taiwan. This probably would fall short of a new Shanghai Agreement (that 1972 treaty restored diplomatic relations between the US and China), but be robust enough to please both sides.

4) The beginning of a nuclear arms negotiation on the scale of the Reagan-Gorbachev agreement at Reykjavik in 1986.

---

Take it to the russia conspiracy thread

This thread is about Trump (and Vance, and Rubio now) calling out Zelensky and the Ukraine war, and his diplomatic efforts to end it.

It isn't a 'conspiracy' at all to see how this diplomacy plays out, and have no idea what 'conspiracy' thread you are even referencing, but whatever.

🇨🇳🇺🇸🇷🇺 China approves talks between the US and Russia

“China supports all efforts aimed at achieving peace, including the recent consensus reached by the United States and Russia, and is ready to play a constructive role in peace talks”
— Foreign Minster Wang Yi pic.twitter.com/8wh86lUpwK

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) February 21, 2025

This is reality. It's working, and Trump is right.

Quote:

---

China supports the "recent consensus" the U.S. and Russia have reached on ending the war in Ukraine, the country's top diplomat said Thursday.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told a Group of 20 summit in South Africa that Beijing "hopes that the parties concerned can find a sustainable and lasting solution that takes into account each other's concerns," according to a statement put out early Friday by China's foreign ministry.

"China supports all efforts dedicated to peace, including the recent consensus reached by the United States and Russia," and was willing to play a "constructive role" in peace talks, the statement added.

---

China supporting this should be a red flag.

Hopefully Ukraine will find a way to kill Putin.

And then what? It's very likely if that were to happen Putin's replacement would be far worse.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

And then what? It's very likely if that were to happen Putin's replacement would be far worse.

---

There isn't going to be anyone worse than Putin.

Quote:

---

Reality is both Putin and Zelensky can suck and we should have zero part of their fued. We also don't have to take sides and prop one up against another.

---

Kudos to you for being objective

I don't think this Rubio commentary calling out Zelensky as a liar was posted here, but it should be;

🚨NEW: Marco Rubio claims that President Zelenskyy acted two-faced with him and President Trump and warns him not to hustle the United States.

RUBIO: "We discussed mineral rights with Zelenskyy and said we want to be in a joint venture with you because we think we need a… pic.twitter.com/Tczl8KEnwl

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) February 21, 2025

Quote:

---

RUBIO: "We discussed mineral rights with Zelenskyy and said we want to be in a joint venture with you because we think we need a security guarantee. We need to be paid back some of the $200B in taxpayer money we've given you. He said 'Sure, I need to run it through my legislative process.'

I read two days later he's saying he rejected the deal. That's not what happened in that meeting. We're trying to help these guys. Ukraine doesn't directly impact the daily lives of Americans, there should be some gratitude here.

When you see him accusing the President of disinformation, that's highly counterproductive. President Trump isn't going to take that. He's not going to get gamed. He hopes Zelenskyy isn't trying to hustle the United States, that's not going to be productive here."

---

Will Zelensky go out as Karzai/the Shah, or Khadafi/Noriega at this point, and when, are becoming the operative questions? The fascinating thing is that the Administration seems though to be unaware that the rare earth element claims from Kiev were just fake anyway.

Zelensky-Kellog presser canceled after their chat. CTH:

Quote:

---

President Zelenskyy's announcement in Turkey where he changed plans and cancelled his trip to Saudi Arabia, aligns with this ongoing dynamic. In the pretending version, Zelenskyy justified his change in plan because he felt slighted by a non-invitation to participate in the talks between the Russian team and U.S. team.

However, in the non-pretending review, we all know Zelenskyy cannot make an independent decision. In the background of Zelenskyy's decision making there are just too many interests.

Zelenskyy's comments from Turkey were exceptionally obtuse. The meeting between Secretary of State Rubio and Foreign Minister Lavrov was about organizing the communication channels for further discussion. There was no reason for Zelenskyy to be in the room as Russia and the USA talked about how to structure their contacts. Zelenskyy's reasoning for cancelling his trip to Saudi Arabia was nonsense.

Following Zelenskyy's remarks from Turkey, President Trump dropped the "dictator" hammer that captured all the headlines. President Trump was in full non-pretending mode during all of his comments, including Trump's repeated point about initiating a ceasefire and Ukraine needing to organize elections. The latter point is extremely troubling for the IC elements who control Zelenskyy for obvious reasons.

Without doubt, President Trump caught everyone off-guard with the forcefulness of his remarks. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is now in the non-pretending crosshairs. This is the dynamic to watch most, because the principals (Putin and Trump) are both well known for their brutal honesty.

I doubt Kellogg knew President Trump was going to hit Zelenskyy with such a direct confrontation. Heck, I doubt anyone knew how forceful President Trump was going to be. As a consequence, any press availability today -less than 24 hours since President Trump's remarks- was going to be filled with questions to Zelenskyy about them, as well as questions to Kellogg. Cancelling the presser was a smart move.

President Trump is being President Trump, navigating a complicated dynamic in search of an optimal solution; and as he is prone to do, his attributions and explanations for his opinion's cuts through the Gordian knot of diplomatic pretending.

In the background, the elements who support, control and utilize Zelenskyy for their own goals and objectives, were likely also caught off-guard. How could they not be?

---

Always have been

Sorry folks...

🇺🇸🇺🇦 Arms deliveries to Ukraine slow, US not planning new aid packages, - Trump's national security adviser Waltz and House Speaker Johnson

▪️The slowdown in deliveries is due to depleted stocks, Waltz said.
▪️House Speaker Johnson said that Congress does not support the idea of… pic.twitter.com/EIQGEcbhN8

— -- GEROMAN -- time will tell - 👀 -- (@GeromanAT) February 20, 2025

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TxSquarebody said:

---

Only a sovereign nation for as long as they can keep it.

---

Isn't that what they are being demonized for trying to do?

---

No, they are free to do that. We shouldnt have to give them hundreds of billions of dollars. Let other nations slug it out over border lines. Only get involved when it is absolutely critical to our safety and well being...or maybe even if our economy is seriously threatened.

---

One, the money we're spending on Ukraine is related to our own geopolitical interests. Not some undying intrinsic love or sympathy for Ukraine.

Two, you can believe we shouldn't be doing that while simultaneously maintaining moral clarity on the topic. The fact that you may not see this as a good investment or the fact that Ukraine is a corrupt county doesn't change the reality that there is a very clear moral distinction between the two sides here.

I don't blame people for being ignorant regarding the ramifications to us if Ukraine falls to Russia. I do blame people who claim to believe in objective moral truth that suddenly become moral relativists who believe in nothing but raw power when it comes to this issue.

Love seeing Finland calling it a surrender. I predicted that very early on.

Part of the issue you might consider also believing is that a contributing factor to this is that the 'pro war' faction often are the same folks who bought into all the covid fauci flu/vaccine BS. And before that Russia, russia russia. And before that…it goes on and on. We have pro-war 'Kiev regime is morally superior' types who absolutely have been dishonest in my opinion and repeatedly/fervently/persistently for instance lie about what those of us opposed to propping up Zelensky have said and believe.

I feel zero compunction to support their hatred of Russians, Russia, or Putin just to have that cited repeatedly as to why I cannot criticize the Kiev regime's fight/subjugation of its own people. The Democrats, neocons, and narrative true-believers (I think you've had a few posts over the years about 'natural mutation' vs. lab leak etc as well) don't deserve full credit for denouncing Putin, in other words, while excoriating those who don't simply join in 'the cause' of 'stacking Russian bodies' etc ('put that on the conspiracy thread'). I don't think Russia, nor Ukraine are admirable in many respects, but one is diplomatically and geopolitically vastly more important, and neither should be held on a pedestal as a paragon of freedom and righteousness.

I've never seen the folks I consider to be 'pro Kiev' denounce the beatings of Russian Orthodox Church members, torture and murder of Gonzo Lira, burning of books/banning of media/speech, or 'press gangs' of conscription van 'recruiters either. The folks who won't do that…I cede zero moral high ground to, and no, this isn't an offer to force me to 'make a statement' about Putin.

Teslag said:

---

Why do so many backflips to never call out Putin? Or give him any blame?

---

I think Putin is an evil man, and I want him to die a terrible death.

This is the only way to have a conversation with Teslag on this subject. You have to preface every post this way, or he WILL call you out.

BusterAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Why do so many backflips to never call out Putin? Or give him any blame?

---

I think Putin is an evil man, and I want him to die a terrible death.

This is the only way to have a conversation with Teslag on this subject. You have to preface every post this way, or he WILL call you out.

---

Many do not share your sentiments on Putin. Some outright hope he prevails.

Teslag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Why do so many backflips to never call out Putin? Or give him any blame?

---

I think Putin is an evil man, and I want him to die a terrible death.

This is the only way to have a conversation with Teslag on this subject. You have to preface every post this way, or he WILL call you out.

---

Many do not share your sentiments on Putin. Some outright hope he prevails.

---

We need to get out of Ukraine, but try to keep Kiev standing.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I thibk the disconnect is some believe the right are pro Russia when reality is we are trying to be realistic about Ukraine.

Ukraine was so propped up in the media ANY deviation from that narrative probably appears to some as a pro Russian stance.


Lets wind the clock back. At the onset of the war the media was making up stuff like the GHOST OF KIEV. It was absolute nonsense pure super hero esq propaganda. But posters even here believed it was real. Because they wanted it to be real.

Same thing Zelensky. The media painted him as a super hero etc. and people gobbled it up.


Reality is both Putin and Zelensky can suck and we should have zero part of their fued. We also don't have to take sides and prop one up against another.

And if anyone cant recognize our own involvement in this war is purposefully ignorant.

And if anyone wants to get holy then thou let's remember in 2003 the United States invaded a sovereign nation under 100% false narrative that has led to the expenditure of trillions of dollars and a million dead Iraqi.

---

BusterAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Why do so many backflips to never call out Putin? Or give him any blame?

---

I think Putin is an evil man, and I want him to die a terrible death.

This is the only way to have a conversation with Teslag on this subject. You have to preface every post this way, or he WILL call you out.

---

Many do not share your sentiments on Putin. Some outright hope he prevails.

---

We need to get out of Ukraine, but try to keep Kiev standing.

---

Then stop whining when we refer to them as "pro Russia".

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TxSquarebody said:

---

Only a sovereign nation for as long as they can keep it.

---

Isn't that what they are being demonized for trying to do?

---

No, they are free to do that. We shouldnt have to give them hundreds of billions of dollars. Let other nations slug it out over border lines. Only get involved when it is absolutely critical to our safety and well being...or maybe even if our economy is seriously threatened.

---

One, the money we're spending on Ukraine is related to our own geopolitical interests. Not some undying intrinsic love or sympathy for Ukraine.

Two, you can believe we shouldn't be doing that while simultaneously maintaining moral clarity on the topic. The fact that you may not see this as a good investment or the fact that Ukraine is a corrupt county doesn't change the reality that there is a very clear moral distinction between the two sides here.

I don't blame people for being ignorant regarding the ramifications to us if Ukraine falls to Russia. I do blame people who claim to believe in objective moral truth that suddenly become moral relativists who believe in nothing but raw power when it comes to this issue.

---

Oh, that explains why some of you are fine dabbling with WWIII...you have been propagandized into believing this is about Ukraine "falling to Russia". You can't be serious.

IMHO, Zelensky is not much more than a flim flam, BS artist and his soft touch (Joe Biden/Lindsey Graham) were simple fools, easily led astray.

I don't think this Rubio commentary calling out Zelensky as a liar was posted here, but it should be;

🚨NEW: Marco Rubio claims that President Zelenskyy acted two-faced with him and President Trump and warns him not to hustle the United States.

RUBIO: "We discussed mineral rights with Zelenskyy and said we want to be in a joint venture with you because we think we need a… pic.twitter.com/Tczl8KEnwl

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) February 21, 2025

That video and what Rubio said is a big deal. And even what went on between Zelensky and Biden. Maybe he is a bit of strutter.

The VP's response to those that say we are appeasing the Russians:

In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture… https://t.co/w7OQemI3R7

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 21, 2025

In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture "appeasement." We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not.

2) As far as I can tell, accusations of "appeasement" hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we're even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea--based often on fake media reports--that we've "given the Russians everything they want." Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false.

Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth.

But the bigger issue, as I think Niall knows, is that most of those loudly shouting "appeasement" are people who aren't dealing with the reality on the ground.

3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I"m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I've seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he's awfully good at this. But we're not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags.

The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying "maybe we'll let Ukraine into NATO" defies all common sense. Again, it's not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground--realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.

4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don't ultimately matter. I'm happy to defend POTUS's criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he's the president, but I agree with him). You're welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don't bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TxSquarebody said:

---

Only a sovereign nation for as long as they can keep it.

---

Isn't that what they are being demonized for trying to do?

---

No, they are free to do that. We shouldnt have to give them hundreds of billions of dollars. Let other nations slug it out over border lines. Only get involved when it is absolutely critical to our safety and well being...or maybe even if our economy is seriously threatened.

---

One, the money we're spending on Ukraine is related to our own geopolitical interests. Not some undying intrinsic love or sympathy for Ukraine.

Two, you can believe we shouldn't be doing that while simultaneously maintaining moral clarity on the topic. The fact that you may not see this as a good investment or the fact that Ukraine is a corrupt county doesn't change the reality that there is a very clear moral distinction between the two sides here.

I don't blame people for being ignorant regarding the ramifications to us if Ukraine falls to Russia. I do blame people who claim to believe in objective moral truth that suddenly become moral relativists who believe in nothing but raw power when it comes to this issue.

---

Oh, that explains why some of you are fine dabbling with WWIII...you have been propagandized into believing this is about Ukraine "falling to Russia". You can't be serious.

---

It's pretty wild that you believe history ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that the rules governing human geopolitical interactions forever no longer apply.

That's a good response by JD, and as surmised, much of what have been hearing isn't even official. Really shouldn't be unless leaked and even then unless from the leaders its not solid. This happened a bit with Reagan and Gorbachev in 1985 and when they came out, the rumors were off.

Can somewhat agree with the Niall guy on something like the 20% land shouldn't be conceded up front, that would seem to give away a major tool. But the whole point seems to be what we have heard is inaccurate. Will wait.

rgag12 said:

---

The VP's response to those that say we are appeasing the Russians:

In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture… https://t.co/w7OQemI3R7

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 21, 2025

It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not.

---

I said this at the beginning of the conflict. In the middle of the conflict. And say it still today. Adjusting your ends to the means isn't appeasement it is acting rationally.

Zelensky is not Ukraine.

We can support Ukraine.
And don’t support Zelenskyy.

— Diana Panchenko 🇺🇦 (@Panchenko_X) February 21, 2025

Just another data point.

docb said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

And then what? It's very likely if that were to happen Putin's replacement would be far worse.

---

There isn't going to be anyone worse than Putin.

---

LMAO that's what they said about getting rid of Qaddafi and Saddam and Lenin

and every Czar and Kaiser Wilhelm II

how did that work out for world peace?

LMCane said:

---

docb said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

And then what? It's very likely if that were to happen Putin's replacement would be far worse.

---

There isn't going to be anyone worse than Putin.

---

LMAO that's what they said about getting rid of Qaddafi and Saddam and Lenin

and every Czar and Kaiser Wilhelm II

how did that work out for world peace?

---

And even aside from that, given present conditions in Russia, can almost be assured that is wrong. A replacement will be worse, more cruel, and far more vindictive.

Putin is alot more rational than it may seem and it is even more a comment on our foreign policy and state department's work as him that things got as bad as Jan 2021 in the first place after the real potentials of the first decade. This impasse was avoidable, and far earlier than Jan 2021.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Zelenskyy wanted to come to the table but wasn't offered a seat

---

I don't think it's fair to say he wasn't offered a seat. Trump offered Z the drivers seat but he refused to agree to pay us back for the aid using the rare earth.

---

What fool what give up their biggest bargaining chip to the country signaling they'd rather support the country that invaded you?

If Ukraine is going to give those up, they have to get major arms assistance or a new security deal from western countries that might actually honor them since Trump has decided the US will not.

---

So we agree Zelensky was offered a seat?

---

No. He was never offered anything that made sense for them.

You can't offer someone a knife to kill themselves and then say you gave them a choice in life.

His response.

Well, thank God also for free and open debate.
Having visited Ukraine every year but one since 2011, I think I have an informed and realistic view.
I repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for its failure to deter Putin in 2021 and failure to end the war while Ukraine still had some leverage.
I have said more than once in the past three years that the war would not have happened if President Trump had been reelected in 2020.
I supported his campaign for reelection last year, consistently predicted his and your victory, and welcomed the "vibe shift" that victory represented.
I have also supported the President's previous calls to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine.
So I am not sure I really qualify as a globalist.
In fact, I agree with all five of the points you make. Indeed, I praised your Munich speech.
But I simply cannot understand the logic of beginning a negotiation this difficult by conceding so many crucial points to Russia.
As I understand it, before negotiations have even begun, NATO membership for Ukraine has been taken off the table and the loss of 20% of its territory has in effect been conceded. Correct me if I am wrong.
I have read also (though it may not be true) that "American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer." China? Seriously?
On Wednesday, President Trump accused Ukraine of having "started it," meaning the war.
He also cast doubt on the legitimacy of President Zelensky's government.
It is not "moralistic garbage" but a hard and realistic lesson of history that wars are easy to start and hard to end.
As for "historical illiteracy," here are some facts.
It took 1 year, 10 months, 25 days for Woodrow Wilson to negotiate an end to World War I (it helped that the Allies won);
2 years, 18 days to negotiate an end to the Korean War;
3 years, 5 months, 24 days to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War;
And 5 years, 5 months, 1 day to negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt.
I earnestly hope that the Trump administration can negotiate an end to this war. But if we end up with a peace that dooms Ukraine first to partition and then to some future invasion, it will be a sorry outcome.
To repeat, I agreed with most of your criticisms of Europe at Munich. I would add that the Europeans have talked for "strategic autonomy" for too long without making a serious attempt to achieve it.
But you and President Trump campaigned last year with a slogan that dates back even further than George H.W. Bush's words that I quoted. That phrase was "peace through strength."
I wish you luck.

You reversed the order. Niall said that posted first, then the JD response is to it. You see if click on the link itself.

titan said:

---

I don't think this Rubio commentary calling out Zelensky as a liar was posted here, but it should be;

🚨NEW: Marco Rubio claims that President Zelenskyy acted two-faced with him and President Trump and warns him not to hustle the United States.

RUBIO: "We discussed mineral rights with Zelenskyy and said we want to be in a joint venture with you because we think we need a… pic.twitter.com/Tczl8KEnwl

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) February 21, 2025

That video and what Rubio said is a big deal. And even what went on between Zelensky and Biden. Maybe he is a bit of strutter.

---

Just as long as he doesn't mentioned that's exactly what they've been doing to Ukraine and European leaders and to them it's just "diplomacy". If another country does it, it's just offensive to America.

My problem is most is pure hypocrisy.