Russia-Ukrainian War - Political

[Fundmanagerthrwawy]

1 minute ago, cubsfan said:

 

You definitely should not - in which case, you are on your own.

 

War it will be!

 

It may have been Biden's war - but now it is Ukraine & Europe's war.

We want it settled. You don't.

 

Trump is just the messenger for the American people - so let them have it ! @Fundmanagerthrwawy

When people like Putin crave war there will be war, he started all of this 16 years ago. He wants to control Ukraine, its resources, and all other imperial territories lost at the collapse of the USSR. It's best to understand that rather than act like Chamberline in WW2. 

It wouldn't have been Biden's war, as he would have continued backing Ukraine to push back against the aggressor. 

 

Considering 52% of Americans support Ukraine, I suspect not. Trump is withdrawing support because his boss (Putin) has asked him to. 

[Fundmanagerthrwawy]

1 minute ago, Sweet said:

Why would Russia sign up to that lol.

 

This is the bad offer.

 

So if Russia / Ukraine accept peace, there will be a mineral deal and US involvement in Ukraine with possible security guarantees.

 

If Russia rejects a deal, the US walks away, and no US involvement.  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.

It's actually funny. It's like they can't see past their own nose. 

[james22]

Europeans won't fight to defend their own country.

 

Who believes they'll leave their girls behind with illegal immigrants to go off and fight in Ukraine?

 

Not that they've the financing or arms to do so anyway.

 

[Sweet]

1 minute ago, james22 said:

Europeans won't fight to defend their own country.

 

Who believes they'll leave their girls behind with illegal immigrants to go off and fight in Ukraine?

 

Not that they've the financing or arms to do so anyway.

 

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

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sweet

[james22]

[Fundmanagerthrwawy]

2 minutes ago, james22 said:

Europeans won't fight to defend their own country.

 

Who believes they'll leave their girls behind with illegal immigrants to go off and fight in Ukraine?

 

Not that they've the financing or arms to do so anyway.

 

This is the most deranged comment I've seen for a while. 

[Fundmanagerthrwawy]

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Europeans fought with American not long ago in Afghanistans after American invoked Article 5.

 

 

JD Vance must have bought a membership here!!

[Fundmanagerthrwawy]

2 minutes ago, james22 said:

America got 40% on this, so they'd be middle of the pact here. Hardly a convincing percentage. 

[cubsfan]

25 minutes ago, Sweet said:

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.

 

 

Huh???

 

Russia wants peace and Russia wants "something". The "something" we know is no NATO, keep Crimea, Donbas and a whole lot of other territory. 

 

What does Russia give up?  stop the war, gives back "some" territory, and has to live with

a DMZ, European force, and Ukraine armed to the teeth.

 

 

If Russia does not want peace - then the war continues without the US and with the backing of 

a Europe that wants war.

 

Are you saying that Putin wants to fight Europe in addition to Ukraine?

 

 

[Sweet]

Just now, cubsfan said:

 

Huh???

 

Russia wants peace and Russia wants "something". The "something" we know is no NATO, keep Crimea, Donbas and a whole lot of other territory. 

 

What does Russia give up?  stop the war, gives back "some" territory, and has to live with

a DMZ, European force, and Ukraine armed to the teeth.

 

 

If Russia does not want peace - then the war continues without the US and with the backing of 

a Europe that wants war.

 

Are you saying that Putin wants to fight Europe in addition to Ukraine?

 

 

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.

[cubsfan]

Just now, Sweet said:

Do you not see that there is a clear incentive for Russia to reject peace?

 

 

What?  Why would they reject peace when they will have to go to war with Europe???

[Sweet]

17 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

What?  Why would they reject peace when they will have to go to war with Europe???

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.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sweet

[cubsfan]

6 minutes ago, Sweet said:

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 in any future war they are fighting both the US and Europe.

 

These are the scenarios you just outlined.

 

What you are missing - it is NOT a NATO force at all. 

This is not a NATO action - it's a UK/France/Germany organized by PM Stalmer.

 

Italy has already said - no way.  You think Turkey is going to fight their best friends the Russians?
 

[cubsfan]

Latest - negotiations with Zelensky look to continue next Weds in Saudi Arabia 

 

 

 

[Fundmanagerthrwawy]

21 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

What you are missing - it is NOT a NATO force at all. 

This is not a NATO action - it's a UK/France/Germany organized by PM Stalmer.

 

Italy has already said - no way.  You think Turkey is going to fight their best friends the Russians?
 

Who is PM Stalmer?

 

If Russia wants peace, why don’t they end their invasion? 

Edited 2 hours ago by Fundmanagerthrwawy

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

What you are missing - it is NOT a NATO force at all. 

This is not a NATO action - it's a UK/France/Germany organized by PM Stalmer.

 

Italy has already said - no way.  You think Turkey is going to fight their best friends the Russians?
 

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.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sweet

[cubsfan]

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

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” - so America would be involved one way another if Russia breaks the peace.

 

Also under this peace deal “UK/France/Germany” in Ukraine as peacekeepers?

 

So UK / Germany / France at war with Russia and US supporting.

 

Why would Russia accept that?

 

Why does Russia want to fight Europe (non-NATO) in the absence of US/Zelensky agreement?

 

You said there was a clear incentive for Russia to reject any Trump proposal.

 

You still have not answered that.

[Sweet]

Just now, cubsfan said:

 

Why does Russia want to fight Europe (non-NATO) in the absence of US/Zelensky agreement?

 

You said there was a clear incentive for Russia to reject any Trump proposal.

 

You still have not answered that.

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? 

[cubsfan]

2 minutes ago, Sweet said:

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? 

 

Looks like there is no reason to proceed with talks in your mind. 

 

It's not like the Russians aren't know to negotiate like this. So you are saying you are certain the Russians are not bluffing.  IF that is true - it will be a long protracted war and peace is not in the cards.

 

Trump indicates his conversations with Russia have been different.

 

 

 

 

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Looks like there is no reason to proceed with talks in your mind. 

 

It's not like the Russians aren't know to negotiate like this. So you are saying you are certain the Russians are not bluffing.  IF that is true - it will be a long protracted war and peace is not in the cards.

 

Trump indicates his conversations with Russia have been different.

 

 

 

 

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 deal 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.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sweet

[cubsfan]

13 minutes ago, Sweet said:

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 deal 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.

 

 

Oh, you really are a piece of work. My goodness! 

 

 

[james22]

2 hours ago, Fundmanagerthrwawy said:

This is the most deranged comment I've seen for a while. 

 

Evidence to the contrary?

[Sweet]

Just now, cubsfan said:

 

Oh, you really are a piece of work. My goodness! 

 

 

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.

[cubsfan]

I'll agree that I definitely do not understand your points. And I don't think you're a bad guy.

Let's just say I'm dense. That's good enough for me.

[james22]