Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (51 Viewers)

[duffer]

An unhinged and immature ("your orange hero") response.

While others rightly voice reservations about the permanence, structure and cost of any peace deal, your crazed rant is motivated solely by your blind, tribal hatred of Trump rather than any hope that the death and misery suffered by the Ukranians, Russians and even North Koreans just might be close to ending.

You've absolutely proved my original point.

I will continue to hope that the long overdue talks bring an end to the hideous slaughter.

In the meantime, have a good day, I'm off to see my customer in beautiful Gothenburg. Always an enjoyable couple of days.

Crocodile tears mate. You wouldn't be posting about this 'hideous slaughter' at all if it wasn't for Trump's lunatic appeasement plan and your urge to support everything he does at all costs.

The permanent solution to the death and misery is to stand up to the person who caused it, Putin, rather than reward him.

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Crocodile tears mate. You wouldn't be posting about this 'hideous slaughter' at all if it wasn't for Trump's lunatic appeasement plan and your urge to support everything he does at all costs.

The permanent solution to the death and misery is to stand up to the person who caused it, Putin, rather than reward him.

As an aside, I wonder if Russia will be invading the US to ‘denazify’ the country following Elon’s salutes.

 

[Grendel]

Crocodile tears mate. You wouldn't be posting about this 'hideous slaughter' at all if it wasn't for Trump's lunatic appeasement plan and your urge to support everything he does at all costs.

The permanent solution to the death and misery is to stand up to the person who caused it, Putin, rather than reward him.

How would you "stand up" to Putin?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Crocodile tears mate. You wouldn't be posting about this 'hideous slaughter' at all if it wasn't for Trump's lunatic appeasement plan and your urge to support everything he does at all costs.

The permanent solution to the death and misery is to stand up to the person who caused it, Putin, rather than reward him.

The window of opportunity to beat Russia was for Biden to be more decisive in providing aid to Ukraine and allow the use of weapons in Russia. The Biden administration gave enough support for Ukraine to stay in the fight, but not enough to win it.

Unless NATO is serious about putting boots on the ground, the state of affairs is unlikely to change and there’s even pragmatism on the Ukrainian end to make some sort of peace.

 

[Grendel]

The window of opportunity to beat Russia was for Biden to be more decisive in providing aid to Ukraine and allow the use of weapons in Russia. The Biden administration gave enough support for Ukraine to stay in the fight, but not enough to win it.

Unless NATO is serious about putting boots on the ground, the state of affairs is unlikely to change and there’s even pragmatism on the Ukrainian end to make some sort of peace.

This is a long but interesting read

How America’s Aid to Ukraine Actually Works

Only a small percentage of the overall aid package takes the form of cash transfers to Kyiv; the vast majority goes right back into the U.S. economy.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[shmmeee]

The window of opportunity to beat Russia was for Biden to be more decisive in providing aid to Ukraine and allow the use of weapons in Russia. The Biden administration gave enough support for Ukraine to stay in the fight, but not enough to win it.

Unless NATO is serious about putting boots on the ground, the state of affairs is unlikely to change and there’s even pragmatism on the Ukrainian end to make some sort of peace.

What makes you say that exactly? Why would giving them the support now not work in your opinion?

The options as I see them are:
- Weapons to Ukraine so they can beat Russia
- NATO beats Russia on the ground
- Capitulation to Russia and hand huge resources and propaganda wins to a major geopolitical enemy

 

[Grendel]

What makes you say that exactly? Why would giving them the support now not work in your opinion?

The options as I see them are:
- Weapons to Ukraine so they can beat Russia
- NATO beats Russia on the ground
- Capitulation to Russia and hand huge resources and propaganda wins to a major geopolitical enemy

Fortunately your nonsense is restricted to behind a keyboard in Bedworth

 

[PVA]

The window of opportunity to beat Russia was for Biden to be more decisive in providing aid to Ukraine and allow the use of weapons in Russia. The Biden administration gave enough support for Ukraine to stay in the fight, but not enough to win it.

Yep there was a clear window where Ukraine could have 100% driven Russia out of the country.

Unfortunately the West did not allow Ukraine to capitalise on that, and now we're in the current mess.

 

[Grendel]

Yep there was a clear window where Ukraine could have 100% driven Russia out of the country.

Unfortunately the West did not allow Ukraine to capitalise on that, and now we're in the current mess.

The west didn’t want it

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yep there was a clear window where Ukraine could have 100% driven Russia out of the country.

Unfortunately the West did not allow Ukraine to capitalise on that, and now we're in the current mess.

The Biden Administration’s foreign policy has been particularly disastrous. Its policies in Ukraine and elsewhere has basically prevented their allies in taking decisive action to ‘finish the job’.

Right now, Ukraine doesn’t have the means to actually win and the war is a stalemate. If Ukraine can fight and keep it without military aid, then they have leverage. If not, they’re fucked. So what can they do without direct intervention from NATO which isn’t going to happen.

It’s also complete hypocrisy from the EU nations to get upset now over Trump’s peace talks. Had they not continued to buy Russian oil and gas and actually were committed to equipping the Ukrainian army with modern tech in a timely manner, it could’ve perhaps made a difference. Instead, it was actually Britain that took the lead (in Europe) and countries like Germany (in particular) that quivered in fear of upsetting Russia.

 

[Grendel]

The Biden Administration’s foreign policy has been particularly disastrous. Its policies in Ukraine and elsewhere has basically prevented their allies in taking decisive action to ‘finish the job’.

Right now, Ukraine doesn’t have the means to actually win and the war is a stalemate. If Ukraine can fight and keep it without military aid, then they have leverage. If not, they’re fucked. So what can they do without direct intervention from NATO which isn’t going to happen.

It’s also complete hypocrisy from the EU nations to get upset now over Trump’s peace talks. Had they not continued to buy Russian oil and gas and actually were committed to equipping the Ukrainian army with modern tech in a timely manner, it could’ve perhaps made a difference. Instead, it was actually Britain that took the lead (in Europe) and countries like Germany (in particular) that quivered in fear of upsetting Russia.

Yeah - Germany now despite its bluster - will do nothing

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yeah - Germany now despite its bluster - will do nothing

It’s embarrassing on their part. At one point they were refusing to let other EU nations (Spain and/or Poland) to export German-origin kit to Ukraine and Zelensky often complained at DE consignments being late.

The European nations are panicking over what the talks mean for Ukraine mean. The assumption is that the USA will sell-out Ukraine when the Trump admin is so unpredictable, it could force Russia into concessions it wouldn’t have made. The Biden/Harris admin was too predictable to negotiate effectively.

 

[shmmeee]

The Biden Administration’s foreign policy has been particularly disastrous. Its policies in Ukraine and elsewhere has basically prevented their allies in taking decisive action to ‘finish the job’.

Right now, Ukraine doesn’t have the means to actually win and the war is a stalemate. If Ukraine can fight and keep it without military aid, then they have leverage. If not, they’re fucked. So what can they do without direct intervention from NATO which isn’t going to happen.

It’s also complete hypocrisy from the EU nations to get upset now over Trump’s peace talks. Had they not continued to buy Russian oil and gas and actually were committed to equipping the Ukrainian army with modern tech in a timely manner, it could’ve perhaps made a difference. Instead, it was actually Britain that took the lead (in Europe) and countries like Germany (in particular) that quivered in fear of upsetting Russia.

The EU reduced Russian gas imports from 45% to 17% in two years.

 

[shmmeee]

It’s embarrassing on their part. At one point they were refusing to let other EU nations (Spain and/or Poland) to export German-origin kit to Ukraine and Zelensky often complained at DE consignments being late.

The European nations are panicking over what the talks mean for Ukraine mean. The assumption is that the USA will sell-out Ukraine when the Trump admin is so unpredictable, it could force Russia into concessions it wouldn’t have made. The Biden/Harris admin was too predictable to negotiate effectively.

The assumption is Trump will sell out Ukraine because that’s what he’s proposing to Ukraine. Most of your takes on this seem to be “EU bad so Trump good”. Trump isn’t unpredictable at all he’s done exactly what you’d expect someone in Russias pocket to do.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The EU reduced Russian gas imports from 45% to 17% in two years.

Which would’ve gave Russia time to diversify its supply chain to service other countries, which it did. If it actually cared about Ukraine, it would’ve cut its imports and took on the cost of that decision. It didn’t.

Gas and oil imports makes up a massive % of Russian revenue so the EU effectively partly bankrolled an invasion it simultaneously denounced.

Ironically, the German (and US) political classes and media laughed at Trump when he chastised them for closing their nuclear plants and relying on Russian oil in his first term.

 

[SBAndy]

Which would’ve gave Russia time to diversify its supply chain to service other countries, which it did. If it actually cared about Ukraine, it would’ve cut its imports and took on the cost of that decision. It didn’t.

Gas and oil imports makes up a massive % of Russian revenue so the EU effectively partly bankrolled an invasion it simultaneously denounced.

Ironically, the German (and US) political classes and media laughed at Trump when he chastised them for closing their nuclear plants and relying on Russian oil in his first term.

And yet now the assorted cockwombles on both sides of the pond rally against “net zero” seemingly not realising a good chunk of that is to do with energy security so that their populace are less affected by geopolitics.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The assumption is Trump will sell out Ukraine because that’s what he’s proposing to Ukraine. Most of your takes on this seem to be “EU bad so Trump good”. Trump isn’t unpredictable at all he’s done exactly what you’d expect someone in Russias pocket to do.

No it’s not. My take has been the EU’s and the Biden administration’s approach was a disaster. I do fear that the possibility that a Trump admin could give a big win to Russia and risk a bigger, global conflict down the line. However, the facts on the ground have changed materially from 2023 and it’s pretty clear that Ukraine probably isn’t going to eject Russian forces and there’s no good keeping a war ongoing in a perpetual stalemate.

Biden said in public the Russians could get away with a ‘small scale incursion’ into Ukrainian territory a fortnight before the invasion happened. If that didn’t green light an invasion in the first place, what would? That’s without looking into the Afghanistan withdrawal which was immensely damaging for US prestige even amongst its allies.

It’s not all bad from the Biden administration, they did well to coordinate military aid to Ukraine but stopped short of allowing Ukraine to press its advantages when it had them. Specifically, two things, only allowing US kit to be used for defensive purposes. Had they been able to strike into Russia before the much anticipated ’counter-offensive’, it could’ve really turned the tides of war.

But no, the Biden administration only allowed strikes into Russia too late in the day when the war had ground to a stalemate.

It didn’t have a clear victory plan for Ukraine. Was it to eject the Russian military from Ukraine or to retake Crimea? In my view, it would’ve been to retake Crimea but that would’ve meant allowing Ukraine to strike into Russia.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

And yet now the assorted cockwombles on both sides of the pond rally against “net zero” seemingly not realising a good chunk of that is to do with energy security so that their populace are less affected by geopolitics.

Net zero, in practice, has meant developed countries with large energy needs just export their emissions elsewhere.

Germany had a successful ‘net zero’ policy of embracing nuclear power. Ironically, in the name of green policies and a fear of a Fukushima style meltdown. That is a tragedy for both the German economy and the cause of ‘net zero’, one of many poor decisions by Merkel towards the end of her Chancellorship.

 

[Grendel]

The EU reduced Russian gas imports from 45% to 17% in two years.

Don’t they get some now from India - exported to them by Russia?

EU bankrolling Putin with growing Russian fuel buys from India, report warns

The EU is paying more for fuel imports made from Moscow’s crude, showcasing the growing failure of its signature price-cap sanction.

www.politico.eu

 

[duffer]

Meanwhile, back to Trump and what the "war on woke" actually does to important things like public health.

It also shows that free speech clearly no longer involves the right to criticise Trump or Musk, for federal employees at least.

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r294

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Don’t they get some now from India - exported to them by Russia?

EU bankrolling Putin with growing Russian fuel buys from India, report warns

The EU is paying more for fuel imports made from Moscow’s crude, showcasing the growing failure of its signature price-cap sanction.

www.politico.eu

I work quite closely to export controls / sanctions space and frankly, it’s a mixed bag in terms of enforcement. It’s having an impact, but not the slam dunk politicians have suggested.

 

[duffer]

No it’s not. My take has been the EU’s and the Biden administration’s approach was a disaster. I do fear that the possibility that a Trump admin could give a big win to Russia and risk a bigger, global conflict down the line. However, the facts on the ground have changed materially from 2023 and it’s pretty clear that Ukraine probably isn’t going to eject Russian forces and there’s no good keeping a war ongoing in a perpetual stalemate.

Biden said in public the Russians could get away with a ‘small scale incursion’ into Ukrainian territory a fortnight before the invasion happened. If that didn’t green light an invasion in the first place, what would? That’s without looking into the Afghanistan withdrawal which was immensely damaging for US prestige even amongst its allies.

It’s not all bad from the Biden administration, they did well to coordinate military aid to Ukraine but stopped short of allowing Ukraine to press its advantages when it had them. Specifically, two things, only allowing US kit to be used for defensive purposes. Had they been able to strike into Russia before the much anticipated ’counter-offensive’, it could’ve really turned the tides of war.

But no, the Biden administration only allowed strikes into Russia too late in the day when the war had ground to a stalemate.

It didn’t have a clear victory plan for Ukraine. Was it to eject the Russian military from Ukraine or to retake Crimea? In my view, it would’ve been to retake Crimea but that would’ve meant allowing Ukraine to strike into Russia.

Just on the Afghanistan withdrawal, that was a mess started by Trump, who negotiated direct with the Taliban (over the heads of the actual Afghan government of the time), and massively reduced US support and numbers. Sounds like a familiar plan.

Biden undoubtedly finished it off, but to suggest Trump didn't start the ball rolling is to ignore the facts.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Just on the Afghanistan withdrawal, that was a mess started by Trump, who negotiated direct with the Taliban (over the heads of the actual Afghan government of the time), and massively reduced US support and numbers. Sounds like a familiar plan.

Biden undoubtedly finished it off, but to suggest Trump didn't start the ball rolling is to ignore the facts.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

The chaotic nature of the withdrawal was the damaging thing rather than the actual withdrawal itself. It was immensely embarrassing for the US and NATO members.

Trump wasn’t in office so we really don’t know one way or the other how it would’ve went down. He is on record saying his advice was to leave US military equipment in Afghanistan (which happened) and Trump disagreed and frankly, what he said about the matter was consistent with his character.

On this issue specifically, I don’t think the withdrawal would’ve played out in the same way. That said, that’s an academic point so not really worth debating.

 

[fernandopartridge]

For once we agree on something , these are totally unreasonable demands

There were always going to be reparations in one form or another from the USA. They do not get involved in all these conflicts for any philanthropic reasons. Trump is just overt about it.
As I've said all along, Ukraine have been strung along by the USA but now the US is not even pretending otherwise.

 

[Sick Boy]

There were always going to be reparations in one form or another from the USA. They do not get involved in all these conflicts for any philanthropic reasons. Trump is just overt about it.
As I've said all along, Ukraine have been strung along by the USA but now the US is not even pretending otherwise.

Exactly. I find it hard to understand how people can be so naive.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Exactly. I find it hard to understand just how people can be so naive.

This and it’s naive that any country other than the Baltic states and Poland have a real shared interest with Ukraine.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

This and it’s naive that any country other than the Baltic states and Poland have a real shared interest with Ukraine.

Allowing Ukraine to be wiped off the map and absorbed by Russia would have consequences beyond the immediate vicinity.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Allowing Ukraine to be wiped off the map and absorbed by Russia would have consequences beyond the immediate vicinity.

That’s not really on the table though is it? They will probably cede the Donbas and Luhansk. Unless NATO directly intervenes, which it won’t, Ukraine doesn’t look likely to eject the Russian occupation.

The only bet Ukraine has is if the Russian Federation collapses in a similar fashion to how the USSR did. Which, it may happen as no one expected the speed of which the USSR collapsed, but is it likely? Probably not. In any case, how long could Ukraine last without military aid? Again, probably not very long.

These are pragmatic considerations that were deferred by the last US administration. There was a moment when Russia probably could’ve been defeated and the difficult decisions to escalate delivery of high-tech weaponry as well as allowing the use of said weapons for offensive purposes were delayed right until the end of the presidency.

Besides, we don’t know any details about the peace talks so it’s all conjecture atm.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That’s not really on the table though is it? They will probably cede the Donbas and Luhansk. Unless NATO directly intervenes, which it won’t, Ukraine doesn’t look likely to eject the Russian occupation.

The only bet Ukraine has is if the Russian Federation collapses in a similar fashion to how the USSR did. Which, it may happen as no one expected the speed of which the USSR collapsed, but is it likely? Probably not. In any case, how long could Ukraine last without military aid? Again, probably not very long.

These are pragmatic considerations that were deferred by the last US administration. There was a moment when Russia probably could’ve been defeated and the difficult decisions to escalate delivery of high-tech weaponry as well as allowing the use of said weapons for offensive purposes were delayed right until the end of the presidency.

Besides, we don’t know any details about the peace talks so it’s all conjecture atm.

The arguments for settling the matter decisively early on were written off on here and elsewhere for the risk of further 'escalation'. Unless there is an actual safeguard against a future invasion then it will eventually happen again.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The arguments for settling the matter decisively early on were written off on here and elsewhere for the risk of further 'escalation'. Unless there is an actual safeguard against a future invasion then it will eventually happen again.

Yep and I agree. Russia has already ‘ruled out’ foreign troops to enforce the peace.

At the end of the day, the position of the Trump administration is influenced by what happened 2 years prior and frankly, the previous US administration and EU countries gave Ukraine enough to prevent collapse but not enough to win. Particularly when the window of opportunity was there to capitalise on Russian weakness. That didn’t happen.

My personal view is that the political will to defeat Putin wasn’t there then and isn’t there now. The West, as a whole, was craven and still isn’t equipped to fight a war against Russia.

My hope is that the Trump administration mitigates Ukrainian losses by threatening to escalate military aid to Ukraine and Russia take what they can and pick up their aggression when there’s a weak (perceived or real) president (likely a Democrat) in the Oval Office.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The arguments for settling the matter decisively early on were written off on here and elsewhere for the risk of further 'escalation'. Unless there is an actual safeguard against a future invasion then it will eventually happen again.

What sort of safeguard are you referring to here?

 

[Grendel]

What sort of safeguard are you referring to here?

Hr will just say NATO

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Hr will just say NATO

How does that not protect against a future invasion?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

How does that not protect against a future invasion?

Why would Russia agree to those terms?

 

[Grendel]

How does that not protect against a future invasion?

How would it be agreed?