O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[Jampie]

That is incorrect.

His first impeachment was for attempting to leverage an investigation into Hunter Biden?s activities in Ukraine in exchange for a $400m package that included assistance for maritime security, special operations units, secure communications and light weapons like sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

There were no heavy weapons as part of that package.

People have a short memory indeed.

I regard rocket launchers in that context as heavy weapons and that's exactly what I meant.

[Jampie]

I think Zelensky ought to have gone with his first instinct when Russia invaded. In the video linked to the article below, dated March 22, 2022, he is shown saying,

(Quote) Security guarantees and neutrality, non-nuclear status of our state. We are ready to go for it. This is the most important point. It was the main point for the Russian Federation as far as I can remember. And if I remember correctly this is why they started the war. . . I understand it is impossible to force Russia completely from Ukrainian territory. It would lead to World War Three. I understand it and that is why I am talking about a compromise. Go back to where it all began. And then we will try to solve the Donbas issue, the complicated Donbas issue. (end quote)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ts-2022-03-27/

But then Boris Johnson showed up and, according to multiple members of the Ukrainian negotiating team, told him to stop the negotiations. I think that was a fatal mistake.

As for what Trump genuinely believes or not. I believe it to be the case because long before he ever sought the nomination for Republican candidate for president, and here I am referring about well back even into the 80s, he had always consistently talked in interviews about it being better cooperate with Russia/Soviets.

But let us even assume that I am wrong and that Trump does not genuinely believe that Zelensky and co. are responsible for wrecking Ukraine. For whatever reason, Trump is lying. Nevertheless, be has cut off American assistance to Ukraine. Zelensky has declared he will not negotiate with the Russians.

So then, what is victory for the Ukrainians and how will it be achieved?

Trump has thus far offered no security guarantees that I'm aware of.

There are three paths to ending this war without Ukraine become some kind of puppet or vassal to Russia.

1. Continue the war until putin dies of old age or is removed or because of the damage his war has done to the Russian people, state, military, and economy. This is one of the worst options IMO but it's what "the west" were supporting, effectively, until recently
2. Ramp up assistance for Ukraine so 1) happens a lot faster, minimising harm. This is my preferred option and has been since 2022.
3. A ceasefire and negotiated solution in place. This is also a bad option IMO, not least because Trump and Putin are not honest negotiators and neither of them are remotely interested in what's best for Ukraine. However, it's an option. It requires western security guarantees that extend to the level of going to war with Russia (boots on the ground and all) if they break the agreement. This is the only thing that will stop Putin from just continuing the war when he feels ready again like he did with the last several treaties. It's also a bad option because letting Putin get away with _any_ gains sends a message to the world that you can invade and conquer territories and keep them, again, something that has been emphatically off the table since WWII.

[andy6025]

Trump has thus far offered no security guarantees that I'm aware of.

There are three paths to ending this war without Ukraine become some kind of puppet or vassal to Russia.

1. Continue the war until putin dies of old age or is removed or because of the damage his war has done to the Russian people, state, military, and economy. This is one of the worst options IMO but it's what "the west" were supporting, effectively, until recently
2. Ramp up assistance for Ukraine so 1) happens a lot faster, minimising harm. This is my preferred option and has been since 2022.
3. A ceasefire and negotiated solution in place. This is also a bad option IMO, not least because Trump and Putin are not honest negotiators and neither of them are remotely interested in what's best for Ukraine. However, it's an option. It requires western security guarantees that extend to the level of going to war with Russia (boots on the ground and all) if they break the agreement. This is the only thing that will stop Putin from just continuing the war when he feels ready again like he did with the last several treaties. It's also a bad option because letting Putin get away with _any_ gains sends a message to the world that you can invade and conquer territories and keep them, again, something that has been emphatically off the table since WWII.

First, sure, you can call the RPGs heavy weapons if you like, but to be clear the heavy weapons (also sometimes referred to as lethal weapons) that everybody else (politicians and media) used as a term to distinguish what Trump was willingness to provide that Obama would not were the Javelins and Tow missiles. These heavy weapons were not part of the weapons package that Trump attempted to use as leverage to acquire a hunter Biden investigation. Those were separate. So my point still stands that Trump would not have provided those if he were a Russian asset (among the other choices I listed).

As for your 3 options, here is my response to them:

1. Continue the war until Putin dies, etc. Among the Russian political class, Putin is a moderate who is viewed as soft on the west. Should Putin no longer be in office, for whatever reason, I do not think you will like the outcome.

2. Ramp up assistance for Ukraine. Given that America is out, this leaves Europe. I do not think there is a lot of ramping up room left to do it in either weapons or money. They don’t have the productive capacity and their cupboards are bare. Ursula just announced she wants to raise nearly a trillion Euros for military spending (some of it private money somehow) but even if they do then where are the weapons to spend it on? And where will Ukraine get the troops to use it?

3. Negotiation, which you say is a bad idea because Trump and Putin are not interested in Ukraines welfare. Trump has already declared himself neutral (but by all means declare him on team Putin if you prefer). Nobody expects Putin to care about Ukraines welfare. So, naturally it is up to Zelensky using whatever cards he is holding to negotiate a settlement that will convince Putin to stop killing Ukrainians and taking Ukrainian territory. Unsurprisingly, that is how negotiations typically work. Or they do not work and Putin resumes killing Ukrainians and taking more territory. I do not think Zelensky is likely to get American security assurances that include American boots on the ground, because as Trump stated, he thinks Zelensky just wants American backing to gain an advantage or to trigger a continuation of the war that draws America in. Trump does not appear to be Interested in that. Starmer does though, as do some of his other allies. Nobody has asked Putin yet, and so far the Kremlin has indicated they will not accept that as part of a settlement, but hey ho - that is what negotiations are for. If they cannot agree, well then, Putin will likely continue the war and take more territory. Istanbul 2022 is looking pretty good right now from the Ukrainian point of view, but unfortunately that ship seems to have sailed.

[Old_pie]

As for your 3 options, here is my response to them:

1. Continue the war until Putin dies, etc. Among the Russian political class, Putin is a moderate who is viewed as soft on the west. Should Putin no longer be in office, for whatever reason, I do not think you will like the outcome.

Well Putin is not going to live for ever so the free West and worldwide democratic countries (USA now excluded) had better start some serious ramping up of their military and be more assertive because of what is incoming after Putin is worse then they had better be deterred.

However Trump is not going to last for ever either and it is just possible that they may also see that holding hands with Russia and isolating itself from its traditional friends is not at all clever.

[Jampie]

First, sure, you can call the RPGs heavy weapons if you like, but to be clear the heavy weapons (also sometimes referred to as lethal weapons) that everybody else (politicians and media) used as a term to distinguish what Trump was willingness to provide that Obama would not were the Javelins and Tow missiles. These heavy weapons were not part of the weapons package that Trump attempted to use as leverage to acquire a hunter Biden investigation. Those were separate. So my point still stands that Trump would not have provided those if he were a Russian asset (among the other choices I listed).

As for your 3 options, here is my response to them:

1. Continue the war until Putin dies, etc. Among the Russian political class, Putin is a moderate who is viewed as soft on the west. Should Putin no longer be in office, for whatever reason, I do not think you will like the outcome.

2. Ramp up assistance for Ukraine. Given that America is out, this leaves Europe. I do not think there is a lot of ramping up room left to do it in either weapons or money. They don?’t have the productive capacity and their cupboards are bare. Ursula just announced she wants to raise nearly a trillion Euros for military spending (some of it private money somehow) but even if they do then where are the weapons to spend it on? And where will Ukraine get the troops to use it?

3. Negotiation, which you say is a bad idea because Trump and Putin are not interested in Ukraines welfare. Trump has already declared himself neutral (but by all means declare him on team Putin if you prefer). Nobody expects Putin to care about Ukraines welfare. So, naturally it is up to Zelensky using whatever cards he is holding to negotiate a settlement that will convince Putin to stop killing Ukrainians and taking Ukrainian territory. Unsurprisingly, that is how negotiations typically work. Or they do not work and Putin resumes killing Ukrainians and taking more territory. I do not think Zelensky is likely to get American security assurances that include American boots on the ground, because as Trump stated, he thinks Zelensky just wants American backing to gain an advantage or to trigger a continuation of the war that draws America in. Trump does not appear to be Interested in that. Starmer does though, as do some of his other allies. Nobody has asked Putin yet, and so far the Kremlin has indicated they will not accept that as part of a settlement, but hey ho - that is what negotiations are for. If they cannot agree, well then, Putin will likely continue the war and take more territory. Istanbul 2022 is looking pretty good right now from the Ukrainian point of view, but unfortunately that ship seems to have sailed.

Exactly what heavy weapons are you referring to then? Trump never supplied tanks, artillery, or large AA gear. IIRC he never supplied anything bigger than the Javelins he was forced to provide by congress.

Russia's rate of advance is glacial to say the least. "we captured just enough ground to bury our dead" as the saying goes. Yeah, it's likely to speed up aided by Trump. That's bad for all the above solutions, including negotiations. Ukraine is still somehow holding ground in Kursk, which completely undermines the "Russia Stronk" narrative.

Any successor to Putin who has four functioning brain cells will see the war for what it is: Not worth the cost. Whether the next guy has four functioning brain cells? No idea. It's very hard to predict who the next guy is even going to be let alone what he'll do. But putin dying? Great result on its own.

Any negotiated settlement will also require arming Ukraine to the teeth. Or the war will just start up again after Putin's bloodied military has caught its breath. So cutting off armaments to them is counterproductive to any peace process.

Generally speaking wars don't end if one side thinks they can win militarily. So the most likely conditions for a negotiated peace are an effective stalemate on the battlefield. We almost have that, but not quite. Denying ukraine the supplies they need will make that less likely, not more.

[andy6025]

Exactly what heavy weapons are you referring to then? Trump never supplied tanks, artillery, or large AA gear. IIRC he never supplied anything bigger than the Javelins he was forced to provide by congress.

Javelins and Tows is what Trump supplied that Obama wouldn’t, and the package in which they were supplied was NOT part of the leverage he sought over Biden. They had nothing to do with each other. Once again, that is misinformation. So the point still stands: if Trump was a Russian asset then he would not have supplied the lethal weapons that Obama refused to supply (in addition to not bombing and occupying Syria or reneging on the INF and open skies treaties).

The conspiracy theory was long debunked. In other news the earth has long been discovered not to be flat and JJ Thomason’s plum pudding model of the atom is no longer accurate. Here, maybe this will help you:

https://www.wral.com/amp/21510033/

Any successor to Putin who has four functioning brain cells will see the war for what it is: Not worth the cost. Whether the next guy has four functioning brain cells? No idea. It's very hard to predict who the next guy is even going to be let alone what he'll do. But putin dying? Great result on its own.

This just tells me you are unfamiliar with Russian politics and that you swallowed the western political and media narrative that Putin alone is responsible for the war (as opposed to Russia as a whole - at least from a western point of view) and that the Russian people are desperately awaiting liberation.

Any negotiated settlement will also require arming Ukraine to the teeth. Or the war will just start up again after Putin's bloodied military has caught its breath. So cutting off armaments to them is counterproductive to any peace process.

While I think that thee is no point you and I negotiating their peace terms between us, Ukraine’s level of demilitarization was one of the last details to have been worked out in Istanbul before Zelensky reneged on his peace proposal (March-Apr 2022). We will see if he makes the same mistake twice.

Generally speaking wars don't end if one side thinks they can win militarily.

They do if everyone knows the inevitable conclusion and they want to skip the part where many more people die and things get further wrecked.

[BigFatPie]

If Trump was a Russian asset, what would he have done differently? Well that is an easy one. In his first term he would not have supplied the heavy weapons to Ukraine that he did and even Obama refused to supply. How do the conspiracy theorists explain that decision? Likewise he would not have bombed and occupied parts of Syria? How do the conspiracy theorists reconcile that? Nor would he have withdrawn from the INF treaty or the open skies verification treaty.

But let us assume that you are correct - Trump is a Russian asset and it is now Russia and America vs Ukraine backed by some of Europe. What should little old Ukraine and England do now?

In other words, given your new shocking revelation, what is your definition of victory and how do you propose to achieve it? And keep in my that a good strategist should also forecast how their enemy will respond to your moves. You have to remain a number of steps ahead.

So go ahead. Tell us how it is done.

If you read my post properly, the proposal is what would he have done differently if he was a Russian asset not that he is one. If you want answers about what Europe could do if he was you?ll maybe have to ask the many people on here who rejoiced when he was elected again.

Meanwhile in new but related news, the US is going to stop intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

https://www.ft.com/content/c58fccea-00c4-4fad-bc0a-0185b7415579

[Bohinen]

It looks like it's all going to be OK now Starmer has said he is willing to put boots on the ground. Not his own boots mind you. This reminded me that his mentor, Tony Bair, said the same thing, and that didn't end well.

Starmer boots

Blair boots

The idea of British troops defending Ukraine against Russia is laughable. Even if they succeeded and fought the Russians off, it would likely end in WW3.

[andy6025]

It looks like it's all going to be OK now Starmer has said he is willing to put boots on the ground. Not his own boots mind you. This reminded me that his mentor, Tony Bair, said the same thing, and that didn't end well.

Starmer boots

Blair boots

The idea of British troops defending Ukraine against Russia is laughable. Even if they succeeded and fought the Russians off, it would likely end in WW3.

I could be wrong but I don?t think we need worry about it. The Russians will never accept western troops in Ukraine as part of a peace treaty and right now the western backers are just negotiating among themselves, largely in public.

[slack_pie]

It looks like it's all going to be OK now Starmer has said he is willing to put boots on the ground. Not his own boots mind you. This reminded me that his mentor, Tony Bair, said the same thing, and that didn't end well.

Starmer boots

Blair boots

The idea of British troops defending Ukraine against Russia is laughable. Even if they succeeded and fought the Russians off, it would likely end in WW3.

This is my thinking too. The war is unwinnable. It either ends with a negotiated compromise or it continues indefinitely with a growing risk of escalation to WW3. Us putting boots on the ground won't help either way. It just costs us money that would be better spent domestically while making us a target for an unpredictable nuclear power.

Is Starmer trying to improve his ratings by looking relevant on a global stage? Or does he genuinely think ploughing men and money into a foreign war of attrition is the way forward?

[i961pie]

Low and behold, Zelensky has changed his position from saying that this war will last a long, long time (Kiss me once then kiss me twice and kiss me once again, it has been a long long time), to now he wants to work with Trump to end the war quickly:

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/...ry?id=65989898

He asn't got any choice Trump has sold him down the river with his love of Putin.

[Jampie]

Javelins and Tows is what Trump supplied that Obama wouldn?’t, and the package in which they were supplied was NOT part of the leverage he sought over Biden. They had nothing to do with each other. Once again, that is misinformation. So the point still stands: if Trump was a Russian asset then he would not have supplied the lethal weapons that Obama refused to supply (in addition to not bombing and occupying Syria or reneging on the INF and open skies treaties).

The conspiracy theory was long debunked. In other news the earth has long been discovered not to be flat and JJ Thomason?’s plum pudding model of the atom is no longer accurate. Here, maybe this will help you:

https://www.wral.com/amp/21510033/

This just tells me you are unfamiliar with Russian politics and that you swallowed the western political and media narrative that Putin alone is responsible for the war (as opposed to Russia as a whole - at least from a western point of view) and that the Russian people are desperately awaiting liberation.



While I think that thee is no point you and I negotiating their peace terms between us, Ukraine?’s level of demilitarization was one of the last details to have been worked out in Istanbul before Zelensky reneged on his peace proposal (March-Apr 2022). We will see if he makes the same mistake twice.



They do if everyone knows the inevitable conclusion and they want to skip the part where many more people die and things get further wrecked.

The WRAL article doesn't back up your claim. There is no debunking. The package of weapons Trump illegally withheld included javelins.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/trump-resisted-ukraine-sale-javelin-antitank-missile/

As this article discusses, trump held up the transfer for 55 days, and his "request" for Zelensky to dig up fake dirt on biden was a direct response to Zelensky talking about getting more Javelins. It was literally his reply in the same conversation.

So how and where were these well established facts "debunked"?

Regarding Russian politics and your immense expertise therein, please enlighten us:

1. Who will succeed Putin in the event of his death?
2. What is this person's policy and attitude to the Ukraine war?

Regarding Zelensky's "peace proposal" that he "reneged" on, please link it. Show me this proposal. Show evidence of its existence. I've asked for this many, many times before and you've provided nothing of substance. This is a Kremlin narrative and it's a lie.

[Jampie]

And also... based on the context you brought up, I considered Javelins to be the heavy weapons you were referring to. You said I was mistaken, and I've asked you to tell me what "heavy" weapons you referred to. Your reply was... Javelins?

[Jampie]

They do if everyone knows the inevitable conclusion and they want to skip the part where many more people die and things get further wrecked.

What is the "inevitable" conclusion of this war, in your opinion?

None of the military analysts I've read or listened to identify any conclusion as "inevitable" so you must have a unique take.

Or a Kremlin propaganda take, judging from your other posts.

[Elite_Pie]

What is the "inevitable" conclusion of this war, in your opinion?

Trump decides to fund weapons for Putin, or he does a U-turn.

Trump will do whatever he sees more likely to make him appear 'the winner'.