Sweet

This isn’t a dig at you Cubs. I’m pointing out how the narratives in this thread have changed over time. If you think I’m the bad guy for pointing that out - well that’s your weakness. I believe it’s best to consider my responses as a way to sharpen your blade. As I’ve said before, we are information peasants, and I have to believe this is not what Trump intends. However you could very well be correct, this might be exactly what Trump intends, but for reason explained I think it doesn’t work as a peace plan. In fact I think it does the opposite.

I’m not giving my opinion, just examining the one you’ve given. All I’m saying is that based on what you described in your peace and minerals deal, rejecting peace achieves more of Russia’s stated pre-war goals. If Russia accepts your peace and minerals deal, the US would be present in Ukraine and there would be hell to pay for Russia if they broke the peace. That’s an even worse situation for Russia than before the war. And separately, what you’ve outlined with this peace and minerals deal, and specifically the consequences for Russia breaking it, contradicts everything you and others have said before about avoiding WW3 and not funding or supporting war in Ukraine.

Sergey Lavrov literally said today that the presence of European troops in Ukraine as peacemakers would be a direct act of war with Russia. I’ve just explained in that post (edited to be fair) but also the one above it, and the one above that, that the scenario you are describing incentives Russia to keep fighting because it accomplishes more of their pre-war aims than the peace you described. Russia’s goals - no NATO powers in Ukraine. Your peace, US mineral deal and presence in Ukraine with ‘he’ll to pay for Russia if they break peace’ and European troops as peacemakers?

You appear to be saying different things. Im going to quote you. Under this peace scenario the “US establishes their mineral deal using US resources - if peace agreement is violated by Russia, there is hell to pay by Russia with US involvement”. Also under this peace deal “UK/France/Germany” in Ukraine as peacekeepers? So if Russia agrees peace and then breaks it they would be at war with UK / Germany / France with US supporting. But if the just continue the war, it’s Ukraine only they are fight, but worst case scenario they would be fighting the UK / France / Germany. Why would Russia accept peace then when it 1) achieves none of their stated goals, in fact it’s worse than before, and 2) any break in peace would be war with several European powers with US supporting.

Because the reason for the war, according to Putin, which you cited yesterday, was NATO at their borders - NATO being Europe and the US. You just said, that under a peace deal the US would be in Ukraine, and it’s not like Europe can leave the region. So it’s basically NATO in Ukraine. By rejecting peace, at worst the Russians fight the Europeans and the US get out of the region. By accepting peace they get US in Ukraine and ‘hell to pay’ by breaking any future peace. So they don’t achieve their goal of getting the US and Europe out of Ukraine - quite the opposite - and in any future war they are fighting both the US and Europe. These are the scenarios you just outlined.

Do you not see that there is a clear incentive for Russia to reject peace? Regarding the other points - why is risking WW3 and funding the war now OK in the scenario you described.

Europeans fought with America not long ago in Afghanistan after American invoked Article 5. British involvement ended just 10 years ago.

Why would Russia sign up to that lol. So if Russia / Ukraine accept peace, there will be a mineral deal and US involvement in Ukraine with possible security guarantees. ‘Hell to pay for Russia if it breaks it’ - so now risking WW3 and funding for a war against Russia is OK? Which is it? If Russia rejects a deal, the US walks away, and there is no US involvement in the region. Exactly what Russia wants lol. If this is the plan it’s horrendously bad. I have to assume that this isn’t what Trump has planned.

So this is different that what you have said before. Pretty sure. I’m not going to try and find the posts earlier in this thread - can’t be bothered - but I’m pretty sure you were talking about ‘ambiguous’ security guarantees with the mineral, and if peace fails because of Russia the US would be helping Ukraine again. Now you are basically confirming what I and others have been saying all along. If this IS the position of the US, there is even less incentive for Russia to have a peace deal than with Biden as President. So much for trying peace and all that talk then. You might ask well just wash your hands and be done with it rather than moralising about peace deals.

Today, talking about European countries putting troops the police the peace: “Such things, if you call them a peacekeeping force, they must be discussed and agreed to by [all] sides. This is something which neither Macron or Starmer or other advocates of deploying troops to Ukraine have not even mentioned," Lavrov says. He adds: "We will see the presence of such troops on Ukrainian territory the same way as we saw a potential Nato presence in Ukraine... this would mean not supposedly hybrid, but direct, official and unconcealed involvement by Nato countries in a war against the Russian Federation.” Yes… European troops to ensure the peace would be a direct war against Russia.

There are Trump haters and people who aren’t Trump haters though. Douglas Murray attended Trump’s inauguration, he has a critical piece about Trump’s stance on Ukraine in the Spectator today.

All of this is true. Trump went to Germany years ago and basically said we are spending lots on nato spending, you aren’t, and you are buying all this oil and gas from Russia. of course there the amount bought is not the same as profit for Russia. Still it shouldn’t be happening, and plans are being made to move away from that. Canada had an open goal to provide this and Trudeau said no I understand.

I think overall that is how trump works. However, ‘Who would ever sign a thing like this?’ - Trump said that a couple of weeks when referring to US trade deals. Trump negotiated and signed this trade deal with Canada and Mexico. So if the USMCA deal sucks then he’s probably to blame.

Biden didn’t even run, mostly because of his obvious (to anyone with eyes) failing mental capacity. I don’t really understand the obsession of money in the Ukraine. The 150 bn US committed to isn’t even a lot compared to GDP or tax receipts. Likewise for the EU, why does getting payback on the money matter. They’re giving their lives. Just seems so shallow.

Is Putin a warmonger? I wouldn’t call Biden a warmonger, it’s not like he wanted war. In fact he tried to stop it by publicly releasing confident Russian plans in the hopes of deterring them.

Two things. If providing aid to Ukraine is getting America involved in a proxy war then America has already been in that proxy war. The second, where has Trump said he will engage in a proxy war if peace talks fail? I’ve never got any impression that Trump will turn on military aid if peace talks collapse. And to be clear. I think peace is really the only show in town.

That’s not sympathy. I don’t see strong arming, how could Zelenskyy possibly strong arm the US president? I’m being serious - how can he even do that? I see a desperate man asking for some help. The strong arming that has occurred is Trump on Zelenskyy - not the other way around. I’m not sure Zelenskyy has lost anything he wasn’t going to lose. I believe Trump was fairly clear it was his intention to end aid before he was elected. That’s of cold comfort to Zelenskyy but there is a silver lining, Europe are finally doing something that looks substantial.

I’m really not sure what you think Zelenskyy should do different. It’s not like he choose to be fighting a war. He probably hates grovelling for aid and help, it’s a bloody awful job he has.

It’s not a game cubs, you almost seem to be enjoy seeing him suffer.

Agree with the banks, and that does help explain some of the terrible price action in US banks lately. Not sure about the Mag7 - perhaps countries won’t want their data housed in the US if it’s not a trusted partner? Maybe Regarded trading influence in Europe for Russia. Yes, terrible idea. Though I don’t think that’s the plan, it’s just seems to be the unintended outcome from other policies - we will see.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I have to ask, if you are basically out of US stocks, what stocks are you in? Where are the equivalent of the Mag7 but in Europe? There are cheaper stocks in Europe but are they better long term bets? Trump has four years more, after that it’s almost certain he won’t be president again, and I have my doubts about some of his agenda living on when he steps down. Europe seems serious about change, but there is plenty of time to get long and plenty of time for Europe to mess it up too. If you are an American investor right now, your greatest asset might be patience.

“He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.” Done

Yes. Putin said this himself years ago. Equally important a question is why do Russia’s neighbours feel the need to join NATO, a defensive alliance? Are these countries allowed to choose their own future, or should they be dictated to by big neighbours? The EU is not NATO, why should that be off the table? In all my posts, and I am sure this is obvious by now, I’m not neutral. I believe in Democracy and Liberty, I’m not on Russia’s side. I think the risk of nuclear war is very small to non-existent, nobody is considering the invasion of Russia.

You’re own citizens first, clearly. And I agree you have no ‘obligation’ to help, and nor does Europe for that matter. *I am not sure what I mean by obligation which is why it’s in ‘’.

I don’t know about 150 bn, but I do know NATO members went to war with the US in Afghanistan. This cost the UK about 37 billion dollars according to ChatGPT. About 500 lives and 2,500 seriously wounded. Regarding adhominems, I have a rule. I try not to start it but I will return the serve. If you check above, if I am using adhominems they definitely aren’t against everyone - maybe Greg - but he gives it, and to be fair, he can take it too.