Russia-Ukrainian War - Political

[Sweet]

15 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

It's really wonderful to see Europe FINALLY step up and own this conflict.

They should have done it 2 years ago - but definitely better late then never.

 

Too bad it took Trump to get them to finally move:

 

 

 

Unfortunately it’s still nowhere near enough - yet

[Parsad]

5 hours ago, flesh said:

I’m not maga, just want the deficit at 3% if gdp and wars to end. However your comment is premature, also, you’re assuming goals that aren’t goals. 
 

I’ll be looking at results over time and not much else. Not temporary feelings. 
 

All the haters need to ask themselves now, what if anything would they consider a win. Write it down. Look at it in a couple years. There will be some and of course there won’t be because different goals. 
 

 

 

Well, he had four years plus the first 40 days of this term to repeal or overhaul Obamacare.  If that's anything to go by, you'll be waiting a long time. 

 

Incidentally, I don't hate all of his goals...I think many have merit...but he's doing it in the most brutish way possible. 

 

Now if he was getting results...then you could live with it.  But he's not getting results, so I'm just suggesting a lot of his efforts could have been handled differently so that they were achieved without alienating half the country and most of the world!  Cheers!

[Spekulatius]

I think Europe need to breakdown from the USA. Article 5 being in question (nobody know what Trump would do in case European country would be attacked from Russia - my guess nothing) it means NATO is worthless. The only logical conclusion is to exit NATO  and start their own security alliance NATO 2.0. This means getting theirs beefed up and independent of the USA, get enough nukes. Europe has 2M soldiers and 450M people and is technological and economically ways stronger than Russia. It‘s almost laughable to think that Europe as unified  power could not deal with Russia by themselves.

 

As far as supporting Ukraine, The EU has ~200B Euros in frozen Russian funds at its disposal that are in Belgium and Luxemburg that with some legal changes can be used to fight Russia - oh the sweet irony of fighting Russia with Russian money. Looks like this is starting based on the announcement from Keir Starmer on the UK security summit today).

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Spekulatius

[cubsfan]

15 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Cubs, if your country was being attacked every day by Putin, and then the U.S., Putin and a handful of others with no representative from your country meet privately to negotiate a peace settlement...wouldn't you be wary of any deal?

 

Zelenskyy said that his people would not support any agreement without security guarantees to Chris Murphy.  it's the same thing he was saying to Vance, when they lit him up.  How is that ungrateful, conniving or poor negotiating?  He's just trying to make sure that if he hands over his country's resources, he's getting actual peace with guarantees of support from the West if Putin breaks any agreement.  Cheers!

 

The purpose of the Friday meeting was for Zelensky to sign the economic agreement, then have

a private lunch with the President & his cabinet, then have a press conference. Zelensky agreed

to sign BEFORE he arrived in DC, and was the agenda.  Trump had teed up the security issues with France & the UK earlier in the week. Everyone was on board, as now Zelensky had the 3 major countries behind him due to Trump.

 

He broke the verbal agreement, by refusing to follow through - and destroyed his chances with President Trump.

 

Rubio, Bessant and JD Vance - all warned Trump previously that they had reservations about

Zelensky's character - that they were not sure he could be trusted. 

 

Turns out they were correct.

[cubsfan]

21 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Unfortunately it’s still nowhere near enough - yet

 

The UK, France and the Scandinavian countries have very powerful air forces.

 

Should all else fail - the UK & France have nukes. 

 

That should give Putin plenty of reasons to rethink negotiating a peace deal with Europe.

[Sweet]

3 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

The purpose of the Friday meeting was for Zelensky to sign the economic agreement, then have

a private lunch with the President & his cabinet, then have a press conference. Zelensky agreed

to sign BEFORE he arrived in DC

Did he?

 

It was anticipated that he might.

 

But I never saw anything that said he had agreed to sign it beforehand.

[cubsfan]

1 minute ago, Sweet said:

Did he?

 

It was anticipated that he might.

 

But I never saw anything that said he had agreed to sign it beforehand.

 

You need to listen to the interviews with Rubio, Bessant, JD, Lindsey Graham. 

[cwericb]

13 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Rubio, Bessant and JD Vance - all warned Trump previously that they had reservations about

Zelensky's character - that they were not sure he could be trusted. 

 

Yeah, well there was at least one other guy in the room who couldn't be trusted and it wasn't Zelensky. And if you disagree with this then you have been living in a bubble.

 

[cubsfan]

2 minutes ago, cwericb said:

Yeah, well there was at least one other guy in the room who couldn't be trusted and it wasn't Zelensky. And if you disagree with this then you have been living in a bubble.

 

 

That's exactly why the Europeans get to run the deal now, since they don't trust Trump.

 

You should slide Justin Trudeau in there with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (who looks pretty competent to me.

[LC]

@Parsad Is there a way to ignore specific topics? After multiple pages of menswear discussion I've had enough

[Sweet]

27 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

You need to listen to the interviews with Rubio, Bessant, JD, Lindsey Graham. 

I don’t think they are reliable sources given all that has happened.  That may have been the impression they had, but I didn’t see it reported anywhere that Zelenskyy was going to sign a deal.  He was expected to sign a deal but that’s different for agreeing beforehand to sign it.

[Gregmal]

17 minutes ago, LC said:

@Parsad Is there a way to ignore specific topics? After multiple pages of menswear discussion I've had enough

Welcome to the club. Housewives have National Enquirer and People. I guess for grown men it’s soap opera-esque War Propaganda. 

[LC]

12 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Welcome to the club. Housewives have National Enquirer and People. I guess for grown men it’s soap opera-esque War Propaganda. 

 

I'd suggest we all have a drink to defuse the mood but I guess 90% of COBF hates even that idea  

[Gregmal]

Too busy worrying about old man Putin taking over the world I guess… well placed usage of the word “dictator” in North America has an 83.7% hit rate causing short term disorientation. Highly effective.

[Gregmal]

In the 50s and 60s savvy media operators and politicians would yell “commie!” at crowds, instantly turning human beings into rabid dogs. The tricks haven’t really gotten any more advanced, they just change shape. 
 

Meanwhile Putin, after 19 terms as dictator, took some sliver of old Russia back after a decade of US and NATO provocation, and after almost two decades decided he wanted a few more parcels. At this pace, by the time he’s 194, he’ll have 1/8 of the old USSR band back together! Get your nukes ready!

[SharperDingaan]

Trump f***** **, that's all there is to it. Didn't get the minerals, will still have to support Ukraine via NATO, and can't fire Vance as a way of taking the blame .... what a loser  All that's left is an old man flapping his gums, and sycophants trying to put the best possible spin on domestic consumption. 

 

SD 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by SharperDingaan

[John Hjorth]

!

 

Lively pages up and lively pages down about which a$$hole insulted which a$$hole!  

 

Gregs [ @Gregmals ] long term calculations above are killing me! 

Edited 16 hours ago by John Hjorth

[Parsad]

4 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Zelensky is the one begging for help, not the United States. 

 

In the past, if I interviewed a candidate that I liked for our managment team, I generally gave them some information about my superior, who were generally very successful and a bit formal.

I remember one candidate that "dressed down" for the boss. It was a disaster and the boss

reminded me "We sell million dollar engagements - what's wrong with this guy?"

 

It's very clear that Zelensky doesn't think he needs to "sell himself" to the guy that can make him a hero.  Very, very poor judgement.

 

Modi didn't wear a suit.  He wore Indian formal dress, but not a suit...should he be told to change attire?  When Trump was about to entertain the Taliban at Camp David, I don't think there was a request to change attire...although the meeting was then cancelled.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

4 hours ago, james22 said:

 

You think it rude and condescending for your employer to expect you to dress for an interview?

 

To expect guests to dress for your wedding?

 

In any case, when you've the money, you set the rules. The onus is always on the supplicant.

 

 

No one in any other administration was bitching about attire...and bitching is the appropriate word.  Fucking pussies in the White House!  Cheers!

[cwericb]

While it is laughable to think that the White House now wants to be the 'fashion police' dictating how other world leaders must dress.

 

The reality is, that this is just another petty ploy from these clowns to divert attention from one more Trump F**K UP. 

[james22]

If you're wearing a Canadian tuxedo, you might want to sit this one out.

[Parsad]

8 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

You need to listen to the interviews with Rubio, Bessant, JD, Lindsey Graham. 

 

I read this story with interview comments by Rubio and Vance.  We all know Graham's comments on Trump.  Now they all kiss his ass day and night. 

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-trumps-potential-running-mates-harshly-criticized-him-in-the-past

 

So do you really think their comments have any validity at all compared to a guy leading his country through war, who got seriously bum-rushed by the very same guys when he came to visit the White House?  This is crazy that you put any credence at all to what these guys say.  I thought Ted Cruz was a turtle, but these two are even worse!  They not only would sell their mothers to get what they want, they'd sell their children!  Cheers!

 

 

[Luke]

8 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

!

 

Lively pages up and lively pages down about which a$$hole insulted which a$$hole!  

 

Gregs [ @Gregmals ] long term calculations above are killing me! 

And surely John enjoys reading because you wouldnt keep posting if it wouldnt be interesting!

[skanjete]

9 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I think Europe need to breakdown from the USA. Article 5 being in question (nobody know what Trump would do in case European country would be attacked from Russia - my guess nothing) it means NATO is worthless. The only logical conclusion is to exit NATO  and start their own security alliance NATO 2.0. This means getting theirs beefed up and independent of the USA, get enough nukes. Europe has 2M soldiers and 450M people and is technological and economically ways stronger than Russia. It‘s almost laughable to think that Europe as unified  power could not deal with Russia by themselves.

 

As far as supporting Ukraine, The EU has ~200B Euros in frozen Russian funds at its disposal that are in Belgium and Luxemburg that with some legal changes can be used to fight Russia - oh the sweet irony of fighting Russia with Russian money. Looks like this is starting based on the announcement from Keir Starmer on the UK security summit today).

 

 

Correct! On Friday, NATO effectively ceased to exist. It became clear that the US does not keep its promises, meaning Europe can no longer rely on the US to fulfill its NATO obligations—regardless of who is president. If the EU can muster enough unity and set aside internal disagreements for the sake of common security, it could form a unified army. The statements made on Sunday after the London summit reflect this intent.

This will be a painful process for Europe's welfare states, requiring a serious shift in priorities. However, if they succeed (within a decade?), the geopolitical landscape will change significantly:

1. Europe will become independent in terms of security, rendering NATO obsolete.
2. US influence over Europe will drastically decline.
3. The US will no longer be able to count on European allies in a potential conflict with China.
4. US global influence will weaken regardless, as it has proven to be an unreliable partner. Countries balancing between Chinese and Western influence—such as resource-rich African nations—are more likely to lean toward China than the US.

I can think of a few reasons why Trump is throwing Ukraine under the bus—perhaps to pull Russia away from China's sphere of influence or to secure Russian support for his own territorial ambitions. But in the long run, he is isolating the US, which will prove catastrophic for its global influence and position.

[Sweet]

10 hours ago, Gregmal said:

took some sliver of old Russia back after a decade of US and NATO provocation, and after almost two decades decided he wanted a few more parcels.

England was in control of Ireland (a sliver of old England) much longer than Russia controlled Ukraine.  The Ukrainians too regard themselves as Russian just like the Irish regard themselves as a type of English.

 

And of course Putin would consider Ukrainian democracy, free markets and a desire to live like free like the Americans a provocation.  What a despicable way to live.  How dare the Ukrainians - I mean old Russians.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Sweet