TresPuertas said:

---

this is where I can't find common ground with you.

i agree with most of what you said, but don't agree that Zelenskyy is some sort of pro democracy hero.

hes not a benovlent leader. he's a corrupt grifter. we have sent billions in cash over there and he can't account for a large percentage of it. that's corruption, and he's a major part of it. and even if he wasn't, he's not doing squat to clean it out.

Id be overjoyed to find a real leader installed who would clean out the corruption and money laundering in the government and truly advance the interests of the country and its people. but it ain't Z.

---

I'm not saying he is a pro democracy hero. He's a guy in charge of a country under attack from a much more powerful neighbor. He's probably made thousands of mistakes but he and the rest of his country understands the consequences of losing to Russia.

rootube said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

rootube said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the way trump has handled ukraine so far is roosevelt urging churchill to sue hitler for peace on any terms, and demanding england's coal reserves in return. shameful.

---

You have no plan other than Trump bad give Ukraine money. That's shameful

---

and trump has no plan other than give putin what he wants and hope he doesn't do it again. unamerican and cowardly.

---

The only reason this is going on is because your walking vegetable became president.

---

we can dispense with this talking point now. considering how ardently trump and his admin have allied themselves with putin throughout this conflict, had he been president in 2022 the russian flag would be flying over kiev today.

---

Trump was president for 4 years. Weird, Putin didn't bother invading until after he was gone..

---

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 before Trump was elected.

---

So when Biden was in office?

---

You might want to Google that. They invaded during the Obama administration. We did absolutely nothing. Then they took Crimea. Trump didn't really do anything about it either unless you count pressuring Zelenskyy for Hunter Biden laptop help in exchange for weapons. Biden gave weapons but too little too late and here we are with Trump having a meltdown in the Oval Office. I'd say we botched the whole thing on a bipartisan basis.

---

sincereag said:

---

Why is the good ole USA supposed to provide a security guarantee for Ukraine? The deal that was supposed to be agreed on by both parties today was for the minerals partnership that would economically bind us with Ukraine and provide them more stability. Now we can forget that deal but Ukraine wants us to keep providing financial resources for their war. The American taxpayer will keep footing the war bill, just like we were paying for all the bogus crap that DOGE is uncovering.

---

We are expected to because Zelensky was lead to believe democrats and riño run things.

Yep. Ukraine needs more than money and weapons...

Teslag said:

---

I think it's clear Putin completely miscalculated which president to invade under. Had Trump been president in 2022 he'd have just berated Zelenskyy into instantly surrendering the entire country without a fight.

---

Ok…you have absolutely no idea what would have happened so let's not go there.

However, I do question why you want an endless war that could turn into WWIII.

Russia succeeding in Ukraine comes with a much bigger potential for WWIII than ongoing stalemate in Ukraine. In fact, the longer the stalemate goes on, the lower the probability of a Russian aggressor conflict goes.

FIDO95 said:

---

VDH with another gem

---

A very informed and educated perspective on the complexities of major conflicts like this one.

Farmer_J said:

---

mallen said:

---

Zelensky is a hero, Trump and Vance are imbeciles.

---

I can't believe this post got over the usual 2 or 3 stars from the trolls.

---

Its because so many believe MSM lies, and have never seen Z in drag. They don't care, or dont care to know how corrupt Ukraine is. They will go along with the MIC always. They are neocons and neoliberals. They support establishment candidates and the corrupt uniparty.

I'm not a fan of Russia or Ukraine. But peace is not an option for those who profit off of war. Peace is not an option for those who refuse to accept the Obama and Biden administration's prodding of Putin by talks of bringing Ukraine into NATO. We could never be responsible you see because Russia could never lash out in preemptive way without being the only party at fault. Its black and white to them that Russia is bad.

Frankly our country has done a lot wrong. More Ukrainians dying for a war they will never win is foolish. Time to end it.

It's not our war to end.

Or continue

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Then we should stop funding it and stay completely out of it. Glad we agree

Zobel said:

---

Russia succeeding in Ukraine comes with a much bigger potential for WWIII than ongoing stalemate in Ukraine. In fact, the longer the stalemate goes on, the lower the probability of a Russian aggressor conflict goes.

---

So nukes aren't a factor during a stalemate?

And what would trumps response have been had Putin invaded? Arm Ukraine and support them in a fight against Russia for 3 years?

That's exactly what Biden did. So what would Trump have done differently?

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

Putin is taking an L. This posturing helps him save some face to take that L. Zelensky needs to realize he's never gonna kick Russia out. They are getting a piece and always were. Zelensky gets to keep his job as long as there is war. Beware of a leader in that position. What an idiotic constitution built to motivate its leader to engage in endless war

[Plenty of warning given last night. All users, address arguments with counter-arguments ON TOPIC only or ignore. Do not engage in any form of name calling, trolling, or thread derailing, overt or implied. -Staff]

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

Teslag said:

---

I think it's clear Putin completely miscalculated which president to invade under. Had Trump been president in 2022 he'd have just berated Zelenskyy into instantly surrendering the entire country without a fight.

---

Zelenskyy is probably learning that it's easier to surrender an entire country than to try and go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump in an argument. The man is relentless.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

TheNotoriousP.I.P. said:

---

The United States used to fight wars to protect free peoples from invading forces. Some of them against the very same aggressor that now threatens Ukraine. And we did this because it was morally right to do so. If you are not disgusted by our leader openly bullying the leader of a defensive country and saddling up to minimize the atrocities of the aggressor, then I don't know what to tell you. We shouldn't base our wars and military support off of what benefits us monetarily, we should base them off of what's right and what's wrong. Why else are we spending by far the most money on military advancements if not to defend free peoples where they are threatened?

---

The U.S. also invaded Iraq, stayed in Afghanistan for 20 years too long, screwed up in Vietnam, conducted many covert activities to overthrow regimes, which led to disasters. Yeah, the U.S. post WWII has really held the moral high ground.

"We shouldn't base our wars and military support off of what benefits us monetarily, we should base them off of what's right and what's wrong."
- what? We should absolutely base our decisions on our national security, which includes our economy.

---

"Leading the Free World" carries with it a bit of responsibility, and part of what aids our economy and security is American hegemony. We like to think of ourselves as "the good guys," which means adhering to some sense of morality, decency, and defense of our values. Values can count as currency too, in the political realm. Many Ukrainians bristled at the mineral deal that fell apart today, as it would ultimately make them vassals of the USA, but stated they would prefer to be colonized by us rather than the Russians, because of who we are.

Yes we have problems at home that need addressing, but that doesn't mean that we should neglect the rest of the world in the process, if we wish to remain THE dominant power in the world. If isolationism is what we want, we should at least understand that that comes at a cost too, and part of that cost will be allowing near-peers to become peers, with equal shares of power and prestige, seeking things like undermining the dollar as the most powerful reserve currency. Having powerful peers also makes large-scale conflict more likely, as peers will feel more emboldened to flex for a bigger portion of the global pie.

Zobel said:

---

Russia succeeding in Ukraine comes with a much bigger potential for WWIII than ongoing stalemate in Ukraine. In fact, the longer the stalemate goes on, the lower the probability of a Russian aggressor conflict goes.

---

I have a prediction. The narrative that Russia winning the war is inevitable is completely false. They are currently losing in a spectacular fashion and there is little evidence they can win even without our help. Vance was rambling about how Ukraine needs to mobilize more people but Russia has just as big a manpower problem. They are using North Koreans to make up for manpower shortages because Putin knows if he does another round of mobilization he is probably done for.

Of course I believed yesterday that Trump was going to pull a rabbit out of his hat with this negotiation so what the hell do I know.

Tell Zelensky he can stay on his side of the pond and turn to countries over there for help and support. It is not our war and at least they are in the neighborhood.

He wouldn't have green lighted the invasion like Biden did with his lukewarm warnings to Putin.

rootube said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Russia succeeding in Ukraine comes with a much bigger potential for WWIII than ongoing stalemate in Ukraine. In fact, the longer the stalemate goes on, the lower the probability of a Russian aggressor conflict goes.

---

I have a prediction. The narrative that Russia winning the war is inevitable is completely false. They are currently losing in a spectacular fashion and there is little evidence they can win even without our help. Vance was rambling about how Ukraine needs to mobilize more people but Russia has just as big a manpower problem. They are using North Koreans to make up for manpower shortages because Putin knows if he does another round of mobilization he is probably done for.

Of course I believed yesterday that Trump was going to pull a rabbit out of his hat with this negotiation so what the hell do I know.

---

Depends on your definition of winning, relative to each side.

I think putin/russia will consider it an win if they keep what they have.

I think many will consider it a loss if ukriane losses territory to russia. Zelenskyy clearly feels that way.

Old McDonald said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the way trump has handled ukraine so far is roosevelt urging churchill to sue hitler for peace on any terms, and demanding england's coal reserves in return. shameful.

---

You have no plan other than Trump bad give Ukraine money. That's shameful

---

and trump has no plan other than give putin what he wants and hope he doesn't do it again. unamerican and cowardly.

---

I thought Putin wanted Ukraine. Didn't realize Trump was giving it to him.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

---

Bad analogy.

It's more like the small kid just took a swing at you for trying breaking it up.

---

Understandable when you tell the little kid that the bully gets to keep the shoes and lunch money he stole from you but it's ok because he promises he won't do it again.

If you want to end this then there has to be something in place that gives Ukraine a reason not to feel like they're just selling out for a slow death instead of a fighting chance (slim as it might be).

Looks like somebody is profiting from this conflict!

Putin wants far more than what they have now

Teslag said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not our war to end.

---

Yes it is.

When you see a bully picking on a small kid with a lot of fight, but he stands no chance you break it up.

It's in our interest to say enough is enough.

---

Ya but you generally don't end it by telling the small kid to lay there until the bully is done beating the **** out of him. Then blame the kid for it.

---

I think it's more like it's ending with the biggest kid telling the kid to lay there until he's done negotiating with the bully on how it ends.

It's really hard to say what Russia's manpower issues are, or how many troops they've actually lost. But one thing we do know for certain, Russia has more troops to lose, and in war that usually determines the winner.

Quote:

---

This lie right here needs to die in a fire. There were NO security guarantees in the deal. Zero. None. Zilch. Absolutely nothing in writing. Zelenskyy was on board with the monies. He NEEDs the security guarantees and after the hell Ukraine has gone through in the last generation, I do not blame him. Hell, I agree with him.

---

While technically speaking the mineral rights deal is not a literal "security guarantee," it is the closest that Ukraine is going to be able to get that mimics the dynamics of a literal "security guarantee."

In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, the mineral rights deal will not only constitute long-term US investment and economic interest in Ukraine (in a way that actually benefits us), with all the US assets and (non-military) personnel physically on the ground in Ukraine, it will still serve as a deterrent, albeit a lesser one than NATO membership, to future Russian military aggression. It's not a perfect comparison, but it mimics to a degree the dynamics of The Berlin Airlift in that it would shift the onus of starting WW3 back onto the Russians if they chose to attack Ukraine again.

Combine that with a commitment by all parties to Ukrainian neutrality, and a demilitarized zone along the negotiated border garrisoned by a combination of European and Turkish troops (not covered under NATO Article V); that's the absolute best realistic "security guarantee" Ukraine is going to get.

The kind of security guarantee that I believe you're referring to, one in writing that commits US military forces to going to war against Russia, is simply not going to happen. Not only will the American people (not to mention the Trump Administration) not agree to it, more importantly Russia will never agree to it under any circumstances, for it would be the de facto equivalent of NATO membership.

Remember, Putin also has to sell whatever he agrees to to both the competing political factions within Russia, not to mention his own people. While there's no way he can agree to NATO membership, he may be able to get away with acknowledging Trump's mineral rights deal, which will have the effect of a lesser de facto security guarantee.

The other main benefit of Trump's mineral rights deal, is that it is leverage that Trump/Zelensky can use in negotiations to perhaps get Putin to agree to slightly more favorable for Ukraine territorial settlements in Eastern Ukraine, as what's left of Ukraine would have to have access to some of those resources in the east to be able to fulfil its obligations to the United States under the mineral rights deal.