Russia-Ukrainian War - Political

[RichardGibbons]

13 hours ago, james22 said:

He had ONE job: secure US support.

 

He failed.

 

It's not at all clear to me that Zelensky failed, because it's not clear to me that that was his "ONE" job.

 

The situation is this:

1. The USA was an ally, but is aligned with Russia now.
2. Trump wants to plunder Ukraine's resources during a time of crisis, without offering any security benefits to Ukraine.
3. Even if Trump did offer security benefits, Trump doesn't follow through on his deals. The only sensible deal to make with Trump is one where you get all the benefits up front. He'll renege on any other deal whenever he feels it might benefit him.

Given this, the optimal strategy isn't to "secure US support", because there's no such thing if you're trying to make a long-term deal with Trump. Rather, the optimal strategy is to rebuild a new democratic alliance with the rest of the world.

 

To do this, he could:

1. Demonstrate to the world the degree of venality he's dealing with in the USA to rouse the emotions of non-Americans.
2. Make every other country on the planet consider whether they could be in Ukraine's shoes, and realize that the USA would respond the same way.
3. Make it 100% clear to Europe that the USA is not going to help Ukraine anymore.
4. Make it extremely clear that the USA is not in the freedom and democracy business anymore.
5. Force a viable democratic alternative to crystallize around other countries.

The meeting accomplished numbers 1-4, and the only question is whether #5 will be the outcome.

 

And, if you think Trump is playing 4-D chess, this is roughly what he claims to want too--other nations stepping up for defence, and a return to American splendid isolation combined with imperialist expansion.

 

So, it's quite possible that this was a win-win for both Zelensky and Trump.

[Gregmal]

14 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

Trump wants to plunder Ukraine's resources during a time of crisis, without offering any security benefits to Ukraine.

In a funny way, it’s interesting we/people idolize Warren Buffett for investing with the same approach. Of course, his marketing of such strategy is many times prettier, and easier to justify, but it’s the same thing. 

[whiskybravo]

This is not 1938 or 1941.  Putin not will push further for living space (lebensraum) for the Russian people or “rush to the Caucasus” to seize the non existent oil resources of Western Europe.

It is also not 1949 when we “marshaled” our funds to lift Europe off the canvas.  New world circumstances logically dictate for Europe to take the lead in Ukraine going forward.  We’ll try to focus on China.

[cubsfan]

5 hours ago, Castanza said:

The problem is Europe can’t just push a button and fill US military and Intelligence support or supply lines. That is for a future “game.” 
 

War is not football and you don’t get a halftime to make adjustments. You roll with the game plan you had out of the gate until the game ends. It would take years for Europe to fill the shoes of the US in all areas. 

 

The USA mobilized in a matter of months after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. That was 80 years ago and Europe has a massive industrial base.  It's amazing what a nation has to do when it is motivated.

[RichardGibbons]

23 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

Putin not will push further for living space (lebensraum) for the Russian people or “rush to the Caucasus” to seize the non existent oil resources of Western Europe.

 

Simply asserting this doesn't make it true.

 

Hitler started with Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland.  Russia started with Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. Putin doesn't strike me as a fellow who will permanently agree to peace for our time when there are weaker countries to plunder.

[Sweet]

51 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

In a funny way, it’s interesting we/people idolize Warren Buffett for investing with the same approach. Of course, his marketing of such strategy is many times prettier, and easier to justify, but it’s the same thing. 

Lol, stretch of the year.

 

Edited Saturday at 09:52 PM by Sweet

[cubsfan]

4 hours ago, Sweet said:

That doesn’t make sense though.  The US was on Ukraines side during the Biden era - it amounted to military aid but not a security guarantee.  Now it’s not on Ukraine’s side.

 

What is this ‘ambiguity’ - spell out what exactly what that could mean?  You think Trump is going to drop a bomb on a Russian general?  I don’t.

 

The problem for Trump is he has already set out his limits publicly.  He has been consistent in his messaging for Ukraine for years now.

 

I’d love to be more wrong here, but as predicted he is soft on Putin and tough on Ukraine.

 

He has not spelled out his security guarantees. He should not. The minerals deal was a predicate required for the security aspect. First Zelensky agrees to Trump's further participation in the final agreement. Then Trump engages with Putin - and as a go between - to arrange a final and lasting cease fire. It's a multistage process - at any time, if Putin doesn't agree to Trump's terms - the deal is off - and the USA is out. The whole deal is off, including mineral's deal.

 

If Putin does agree with Trump's terms - and violates the final agreement - then Putin knows there will be holy hell to pay. He did the same thing with Iran, the Taliban and the Russians in Syria.

 

In the case of Iran and Taliban - he warned them against any futher killing of Americans.

He was never specific at all about what would happen. When he killed Soleimani - Iran stopped their nonsense - they were shocked that an American President would do such a violent thing to take out the highest member of Iran's military, a high ranking statesmen. That itself is an act of war to assissinate another country's statesment.That is what  @james22 means with strategic ambiguity. Trump is totally unpredictable. He may be a mad-man, but he's our mad-man.  Putin will be told "don't violate the agreement or there will be hell to be paid".

 

When the Taliban killed American soldiers after Trump's warning - he dropped the MOAB on their tunnel complex killing hundreds of Taliban. Message was recieved. Trump also showed the highest Taliban leader, Abdul,  a picture of his family's house - and told him "don't kill any more Americans".

When Abdul asked him why the picture - Trump told him - you don't want to find out, don't kill any more Americans.

 

When you are the biggest badass these guys have ever seen - you are risking your life & country when you call his bluff.

 

You think he is Putin's buddy. I think Putin is petrified of the wrong move against Trump.

What other single country than the USA can destroy Russia for good?

Why does Putin want to find out?

 

After all, he's likely to prevent NATO membership for Ukraine, get to keep Crimea & Donbas.

 

 

We see it differently obviously.

 

[Sweet]

1 minute ago, cubsfan said:

 

He has not spelled out his security guarantees. He should not. The minerals deal was a predicate required for the security aspect. First Zelensky agrees to Trump's further participation in the final agreement. Then Trump engages with Putin - and as a go between - to arrange a final and lasting cease fire. It's a multistage process - at any time, if Putin doesn't agree to Trump's terms - the deal is off - and the USA is out. The whole deal is off, including mineral's deal.

 

If Putin does agree with Trump's terms - and violates the final agreement - then Putin knows there will be holy hell to pay. He did the same thing with Iran, the Taliban and the Russians in Syria.

 

In the case of Iran and Taliban - he warned them against any futher killing of Americans.

He was never specific at all about what would happen. When he killed Soleimani - Iran stopped their nonsense - they were shocked that an American President would do such a violent thing to take out the highest member of Iran's military, a high ranking statesmen. That itself is an act of war to assissinate another country's statesment.That is what  @james22 means with strategic ambiguity. Trump is totally unpredictable. He may be a mad-man, but he's our mad-man.  Putin will be told "don't violate the agreement or there will be hell to be paid".

 

When the Taliban killed American soldiers after Trump's warning - he dropped the MOAB on their tunnel complex killing hundreds of Taliban. Message was recieved. Trump also showed the highest Taliban leader, Abdul,  a picture of his family's house - and told him "don't kill any more Americans".

When Abdul asked him why the picture - Trump told him - you don't want to find out, don't kill any more Americans.

 

When you are the biggest badass these guys have ever seen - you are risking your life & country when you call his bluff.

 

You think he is Putin's buddy. I think Putin is petrified of the wrong move against Trump.

What other single country than the USA can destroy Russia for good?

Why does Putin want to find out?

 

After all, he's likely to prevent NATO membership for Ukraine, get to keep Crimea & Donbas.

 

 

We see it differently obviously.

 

 

We are all information peasants here, guessing as to what will or won’t be offered.  So I’m not judging you, but there is nothing in your post really regarding the ambiguity that isn’t speculation.  Which is fine, it’s your opinion, but we don’t see it the same way.

[cubsfan]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

I rewatch the last 10-15 min:  this was not a trap.
 

But Vance was clearly ready to pounce should Zelenskyy stepped out line, ….. knowing the resistance from Zelenskyy and steady flow of leaks. 
 

Trump goes with his instinct. As some point he just realized it won’t happen so he put him down. 
 

anyhow done for today on this topic 

 

I'll only respond knowing that I have not seen it. @Xerxes

 

But it was reported much of the 40 minute meeting, less the last 5 minute blowup - Zelensky was making faces and rolling his eyes - which Trump could not see. Others reported this - and Vance was sitting directly across from Zelensky.

 

So - don't know if it's true or not. Don't really care anyway.

[Gregmal]

23 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Lol, stretch of the year.

 

His MO is be greedy when others are fearful which translated means take advantage when others are hurting and his actions in the past involve “waiting for phone calls” when others are at max desperation and have no other alternatives and then proceeding to extract as much as possible in a totally one sided fashion. He’s a hero though. 

[cubsfan]

2 hours ago, Sweet said:

Yeh, it was actually Vance who started it by lecturing on diplomacy.  And Zelenskyy pointed out that had been tried.  Not quite sure how it blew up the way it did.

 

Incidentally, the day before Vance also did a similiar thing with UK PM Starmer about free speech, and Starmer hit back.  That didn’t blow up, and there were no claims of disrespect.

 

I think Vance has shown he is a bit of a liability. Trump and Zelenskyy managed to get on OK even though they did not see eye to eye.  Oddly, Vance claimed that Zelenskyy was trying to ‘litigate’ it publicly, yet it was he who started the public litigating.

 

I agree it wasn’t a plan to trap Zelenskyy, but surely Trump must be thinking that his VP kinda chucked a grenade. Zelenskyy threw back and it kicked off.

For reference this is Starmer vs Vance the day before:

 

 

Just remember - Trump has NO problem putting his own people in place. He's done it often.

He has tremendous confidence in JD Vance - and I can see why.

 

Many in the MAGA party wanted nothing to do with Zelensky. They think he is a liar and scumbag.

They counseled Trump not to meet with Zelensky and play peacemaker, that he could not be trusted.  And of course, Putin can't be trusted. Many want him to just pull the plug on the Ukraine war because of the corruption and election interference. 

 

Trump actually wants to be peacemaker.

[cubsfan]

26 minutes ago, Sweet said:

 

We are all information peasants here, guessing as to what will or won’t be offered.  So I’m not judging you, but there is nothing in your post really regarding the ambiguity that isn’t speculation.  Which is fine, it’s your opinion, but we don’t see it the same way.

 

No problem at all @Sweet

 

I'm done with this thread for good. I really hope Trump washes his hands of this terrible war.

It's Europe's war - the USA has had terrible quagmires like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

No more pointless wars for us, as the electorate demands.

 

The USA has China, Mexico, Middle East and a $37T deficit to deal with. More than enough. 

 

Europe hates Trump and Americans - so we just need to get out for good and let you all deal with it.

 

Edited Saturday at 10:34 PM by cubsfan

[Aurelius]

Quote

Europe hates Trump and Americans - so we just need to get out for good and let you all deal with it.

Not true! Americans are polite and well liked. 

 

Trump on the other hand... not well respected; laughing stock; disliked; etc. Sure that's true. But Trump exhibits some of the worst character traits: constant blatant lying; arrogant, petulant; bully; narcissist; and I could go on. 

 

But let's hear what Munger had to say: 

 

[Eng12345]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

The USA mobilized in a matter of months after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. That was 80 years ago and Europe has a massive industrial base.  It's amazing what a nation has to do when it is motivated.

The USA had spent the prior 2-4 years quietly mobilizing its industrial base through increased military expenditures and programs like the lend lease act.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 11:16 PM by Eng12345

[Xerxes]

More details before and after 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/01/politics/inside-trump-zelensky-meeting?
 

[Xerxes]

 

 

 

[Castanza]

As always the best resource on the war with in-depth topics and credible hosts and guest. Lots of moving parts here and they address views from ALL perspectives. Definitely worth a listen. 
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/war-on-the-rocks/id682478916?i=1000696797256

Edited yesterday at 12:47 AM by Castanza

[Red Lion]

3 hours ago, Gregmal said:

In a funny way, it’s interesting we/people idolize Warren Buffett for investing with the same approach. Of course, his marketing of such strategy is many times prettier, and easier to justify, but it’s the same thing. 

Trump could have taken preferred stock warrants instead.  

[Spekulatius]

I don’t think I have ever seen President of any country embarrassing themselves in front of a camera as much as Trump and Vance did. I thought the same thing when they voted on the side of North Korea and Russia and with Russia against Ukraine but yet they have done it again.

 

The only team that can go any lower are Trump and Vance themselves.

 

Decades of diplomatic credibility of the USA went down the drain the last few weeks. I don’t think this is really repairable any more.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 01:46 AM by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

From 8 years ago. Republican U.S. senators (Graham and McCain) in eastern Ukraine, promising the moon. At least McCain (RIP) was a man integrity. 
 

Geopolitics ain’t suppose to be pretty nor romantic. It bites. Nothing personal. Everybody gets used. 

 

 

[Xerxes]

I don’t know this chap (Keane) very well but he seems to be on the right wavelength. 
 

 

 

[Spekulatius]

If like to listen to the comments from Vlad Vexler every once in a while. He analyses what is happening more from a politico philosophical point of view:

 His view is that Zelenskyy was unprepared for the attack and has underperformed. He just can’t connect with Trump’s thinking. The mineral deal when done right should be a great angle for Zelenskyy align interests and get an angle for more support from the US. Not that this was very likely anyways with the way things were going , but it it’s his job to try and he failed.

 

Compare this to how Macron handled Trump just a few days ago. macron knew exactly what to do and what to say and even though he interrupted Trump one or two times to make his point he did this on a very professional and effective manner. Zelenskyy didn’t. I think Zelenskyy needs to learn from this and perhaps sent another negotiator first and get coached in the meantime how to deal with Trump.

 

Everyone who sits in this room is a loser here.

Edited yesterday at 03:47 AM by Spekulatius

[Mephistopheles]

Vance is such a tool. So cringeworthy. As are all of the other  ass kissers (Cruz, Graham). I don’t know how these grown men live with themselves having given away their testicles.

 

At least Trump is a funny guy. The others are so fake and unbearable. I’m sure Trump can’t stand them either.

Edited yesterday at 03:51 AM by Mephistopheles

[james22]

11 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Posted here especially for James [ @james22 ] . . .

 

Thanks, John.

[Sweet]

4 hours ago, Mephistopheles said:

Vance is such a tool. So cringeworthy. As are all of the other  ass kissers (Cruz, Graham). I don’t know how these grown men live with themselves having given away their testicles.

 

At least Trump is a funny guy. The others are so fake and unbearable. I’m sure Trump can’t stand them either.

What made it worse for Vance, particularly when he was demanding Zelenskyy say thanks, was that he voted against sending aid to Ukraine. I didn’t realise this to this morning.  He went full Karen in the oval offices and he’s a liability.  I wonder if he is in the next Oval Office meeting - if not Trump may have sidelined him.

 

Zelenskyy made a mistake too, he took the bait when he should have shut up.  But he’s a president of a country at war for over three years.  You can see visibility the toll it has taken on him.   He’s done more for his people than just about any other modern politician I think off.  In other words he deserves some slack.

 

No slack for Vance though.  It’s permanently altered my view of him.
 

Good video by the way @Xerxes of the Gen. Jack Keane.