• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Political impacts of Ukraine war

MrWhyt said:
trump is letting russia keep the territory it stole, he's not ending the invasion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well he is ending the war. You win some you lose some. What do you make of the fact Russia made all it's moves while either Obama or Biden were in office, and did nothing in UKR during 45's term?
 
QV said:
Yeah, well he is ending the war.
Click to expand...
by rolling over for russia. And the war only ends if Ukraine agrees to end the war. He can't force them to stop fighting.

edit:
What do you make of the fact Russia made all it's moves while either Obama or Biden were in office, and did nothing in UKR during 45's term?
Click to expand...

I think this statement is whiney whataboutism designed to make trump look like he's standing up to putin when in reality he conceded on russias two big demands before the talks had even started.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine has been steadily losing territory.
Russia is getting bled dry.

Sounds like UKR wants a peace deal. Sounds like Putin wants an off ramp. Trump is facilitating both.

The hard part will be getting to a deal where nobody thinks they lose too badly in the outcome. There will be all kinds of critics who don't have any skin in the game.
 
QV said:
Yeah, well he is ending the war. You win some you lose some. What do you make of the fact Russia made all it's moves while either Obama or Biden were in office, and did nothing in UKR during 45's term?
Click to expand...
The answer is pretty clear. Russia was getting what it wanted under Trump 1.0

It changed under Biden.


More analysis. Despite MAGA wanting to think trump is some guy to be feared, Russia is more than happy to have him in power to advance their interests.
 
QV said:
Ahhh "analysis" from a media company being funneled millions and millions of US tax dollars via USAID....
Click to expand...
Beyond that what about it do you refute? And based on what?
 
Imagine how this thread would go without a contrarian point of view. Name calling, and the support of that, is unbecoming.
 
Remius said:
Beyond that what about it do you refute? And based on what?
Click to expand...

I'm taking an opinion piece article that is receiving money from USAID with a grain of salt in light of the significant concerns being raised about USAID funding, the money flow, ect.
 
QV said:
I'm taking an opinion piece article that is receiving money from USAID with a grain of salt in light of the significant concerns being raised about USAID funding, the money flow, ect.
Click to expand...
Of course. But again what is the refutation of the premise beyond that?

You are convinced that Trump is such a strong leader that Putin held back. The thesis of the article which is substantiated with plenty of evidence the Putin was getting exactly what he wanted with Trump in power and not what he wanted under Biden.

I’d like to hear your worldview on why that premise is false and what supports your position.
 
QV said:
I'm taking an opinion piece article that is receiving money from USAID with a grain of salt in light of the significant concerns being raised about USAID funding, the money flow, ect.
Click to expand...
Again since you do not understand what USAID funding is used for, and some of it is is classified - it is hard to take you seriously.

When you start talking less like a Russian plant, and more with an open mind - then having a discussion with you will be meaningful.
 
So what are the acceptable terms of peace?

Unconditional surrender by Russia is out. Ukraine hasn't the resources, or the ability to manage large formations effectively. No-one else has the will to intervene and defeat Russia in a way that could force unconditional surrender.

Status quo ante - Russia gets nothing - is not much better than unconditional surrender by Russia, so it's out, too.

Anyone who wants to make a dissenting case that either of the above could be achieved should do so. But if "Russia gets nothing" is ruled out, that leaves "Russia gets something". So for the realists, what is "something"? Meanwhile, Russia is slowly winning ground even if we comfort ourselves that Russia failed to achieve its maximum objectives in the early weeks.
 
Brad Sallows said:
But if "Russia gets nothing" is ruled out, that leaves "Russia gets something".
Click to expand...
there is a differnece between "Russia gets something" and "Russia gets all they want" . Handing over ukrainian territory and promising to keep ukraine out of NATO are two giants want for russia, the great negotiator conceded these before the talks even started. There's been no talk of "russia gets to pay reparations" or "russia gets to hand over war criminals" or "russia gives back the children they stole".

edit: we've seen what russia gets, what does ukraine get other than, the war takes some time off?
 
Brad Sallows said:
So what are the acceptable terms of peace?
Click to expand...
All Russians dead.
Brad Sallows said:
Unconditional surrender by Russia is out. Ukraine hasn't the resources, or the ability to manage large formations effectively. No-one else has the will to intervene and defeat Russia in a way that could force unconditional surrender.
Click to expand...
Actually if you track Russians combat power and the fact that they are now starting to drop, the only reason Putin is talking is that he is aware that his house of cards in getting very precarious.


Brad Sallows said:
Status quo ante - Russia gets nothing - is not much better than unconditional surrender by Russia, so it's out, too.
Click to expand...
Lots of Russians get to go home above ground.


Putin swings at The Hague.




Brad Sallows said:
Anyone who wants to make a dissenting case that either of the above could be achieved should do so. But if "Russia gets nothing" is ruled out, that leaves "Russia gets something". So for the realists, what is "something"? Meanwhile, Russia is slowly winning ground even if we comfort ourselves that Russia failed to achieve its maximum objectives in the early weeks.
Click to expand...
Russia is actually losing on the ground. They have hit a point where they cannot use their glide bombs well, due to their jamming that is keeping some of the less advanced Ukrainian weapons from taking huge swathes of Russians out.

Russian ground control is being decreased - slowly
  • Russian troop numbers are down.
  • Russian material is in the shitter.
  • Russia has gotten MORE NK troops this week, and more NK equipment. Winning recipe right?

So no Russia getting something shouldn’t be on the table, unless you want to encourage China on Tawain.
 
I think people should calm down and see what happens if/when a peace deal is reached. I much doubt anyone knows what trajectory and means Trump is employing. You think he's letting Russia off the hook, but in reality, you don't really know what he's doing. And why should he lay all his cards on the table so that his enemies can toss wrenches into his plan. The only thing the layman knows is what's on the news and what's on the internet. Neither is a trustworthy source for quality info.

It's going to be interesting if he gets a peace deal. People not getting killed, infrastructure rebuilding, etc. However, when that objective is met, instead of being thankful, he'll face a barrage of 'this wasn't fair.' 'He should have demanded yada yada.' While his detractors are running down the field with the goalpost. He very seldom doesn't get what he wants. I'm not going to defend or detract. I'm waiting to see what he does. Only three people need satisfaction in the end. Trump, Zelinsky and Putin. As long as they come away feeling they fought for and got the best deal possible, it's a win, win, win.

No matter what anyone else has to say about it.
 
MrWhyt said:
there is a differnece between "Russia gets something" and "Russia gets all they want" . Handing over ukrainian territory and promising to keep ukraine out of NATO are two giants want for russia, the great negotiator conceded these before the talks even started. There's been no talk of "russia gets to pay reparations" or "russia gets to hand over war criminals" or "russia gives back the children they stole".

edit: we've seen what russia gets, what does ukraine get other than, the war takes some time off?
Click to expand...
I know there's a difference.

Given the current situation, what is reasonable?

If there's no serious likelihood Russia thinks its position is weak enough to take what you think is reasonable, what would you advocate doing to make Russia take your conditions seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
The International
Replies
0
Views
316
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
Short War Illusion
Replies
0
Views
1K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
George Wallace
SEP 2024 - Kiel Institute Report - "Fit for war in decades: Europe's and Germany's slow rearmament vis-a-vis Russia"
2
Replies
26
Views
9K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
S
The Hans Island Dispute (1973-2022) - aka the Whiskey War
Replies
2
Views
1K
SPuitH
S
Kirkhill
Information Wars
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
RangerRay
RangerRay
Back
Top