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

[SwalePie]

Ukraine does not have to agree to the Black Sea cease fire deal if they think it is unbalanced.

As for Russia achieving the peace they so desire by simply packing up and going home, so too could Ukraine achieve peace by submitting to the Russian conditions. Is that not acceptable? Oh, what a surprise. The Ukrainians must be evil war mongers.

Stop being childish. Every school boy knows that there are necessary conditions for each side to accept before peace can be reached. If you cannot understand that then you truly belong on the short bus.

Ukraine had already agreed to the Black Sea Ceasefire deal, as had Russia. Russia then decide to append various conditions which were not in the originally agreed deal, causing it to become unbalanced after the fact.

[andy6025]

Ukraine had already agreed to the Black Sea Ceasefire deal, as had Russia. Russia then decide to append various conditions which were not in the originally agreed deal, causing it to become unbalanced after the fact.

You do not know that. The best you can do, which I doubt you have even done, is listen to or read the statements released by each of the parties to the agreement, or simply listen to however the media chooses to spin it.

IF, in the extremely unlikely scenario that there has been some colossal misunderstanding by the parties or IF, also unlikely, one party has chosen to alter the terms of the deal, then the others can withdraw from it.

This really is not rocket science. The rest of all this babble is simply PR for the cameras.

[andy6025]

I would add that even the US statement on the deal says: The United States will help restore Russia?s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.

[Med Pie]

I would add that even the US statement on the deal says: The United States will help restore Russia?s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.

It doesn't say this though does it..............from the Atlantic publication.

Goldberg reported that the officials had also discussed the potential for Europe to pay for US protection of key shipping lanes.

"Whether it's now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes," the account associated with Waltz wrote on 14 March.

The message continued, saying that at Trump's request, his team was working with the defence department and state department "to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans".

At one point in the thread the Vance account griped that the strikes would benefit the Europeans, because of their reliance on those shipping lanes, adding: "I just hate bailing Europe out again."

The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: "VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It's PATHETIC."

"If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return," states a message from someone called SM - presumed to be deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller.

[SwalePie]

You do not know that. The best you can do, which I doubt you have even done, is listen to or read the statements released by each of the parties to the agreement, or simply listen to however the media chooses to spin it.

IF, in the extremely unlikely scenario that there has been some colossal misunderstanding by the parties or IF, also unlikely, one party has chosen to alter the terms of the deal, then the others can withdraw from it.

This really is not rocket science. The rest of all this babble is simply PR for the cameras.

Neither of us truly 'know' that Andy. Either way

[andy6025]

It doesn't say this though does it..............from the Atlantic publication.

Goldberg reported that the officials had also discussed the potential for Europe to pay for US protection of key shipping lanes.

"Whether it's now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes," the account associated with Waltz wrote on 14 March.

The message continued, saying that at Trump's request, his team was working with the defence department and state department "to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans".

At one point in the thread the Vance account griped that the strikes would benefit the Europeans, because of their reliance on those shipping lanes, adding: "I just hate bailing Europe out again."

The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: "VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It's PATHETIC."

"If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return," states a message from someone called SM - presumed to be deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller.

Oh dear. How embarrassing.

[andy6025]

Neither of us truly 'know' that Andy. Either way

I did not claim to know the details of the deal. My point still stands that if Zelensky truly believes he somehow got mugged and that Russia was going to let Ukraine resume commercial operations while not being allowed to resume their own, then he is free to withdraw Ukraine from the deal.

[SwalePie]

I did not claim to know the details of the deal. My point still stands that if Zelensky truly believes he somehow got mugged and that Russia was going to let Ukraine resume commercial operations while not being allowed to resume their own, then he is free to withdraw Ukraine from the deal.

True. To be frank, the details of any conditions applied by either side should be clearly set out before the parties agree though, so one would assume that one party has therefore reneged. It would be a stretch to think it was not Russia in this case, based on past performance.

[andy6025]

True. To be frank, the details of any conditions applied by either side should be clearly set out before the parties agree though, so one would assume that one party has therefore reneged. It would be a stretch to think it was not Russia in this case, based on past performance.

I do not assume that anyone has reneged. Unless I have missed some breaking news it seems that the deal is going through and that Zalensky is just whining in public just for the sake of whining.

[BigFatPie]

Ukraine does not have to agree to the Black Sea cease fire deal if they think it is unbalanced.

As for Russia achieving the peace they so desire by simply packing up and going home, so too could Ukraine achieve peace by submitting to the Russian conditions. Is that not acceptable? Oh, what a surprise. The Ukrainians must be evil war mongers.

Stop being childish. Every school boy knows that there are necessary conditions for each side to accept before peace can be reached. If you cannot understand that then you truly belong on the short bus.

As youre so knowledgeable about the current situation maybe you could say what Russia are giving up under the proposed ceasefire deal?

[andy6025]

As youre so knowledgeable about the current situation maybe you could say what Russia are giving up under the proposed ceasefire deal?

Under the terms of the agreement, they will allow Ukraine to conduct maritime trade out of the Black Sea. It is my understanding that Ukraine typically exports over 30m metric tons of grain via the Black Sea, among other products.

Similarly, Russia will also be permitted to export agricultural products via the Black Sea.

What were you hoping, that a deal would be struck whereby Ukraine can export their products but Russia would still be barred? I cannot see why you would expect Russia to accept that.

[Jampie]

Ukraine does not have to agree to the Black Sea cease fire deal if they think it is unbalanced.

Ukraine is being forced into this deal by the fact that Trump has taken Russia's side and cut off all support. That and Europe still seems incapable of picking up the slack.

As for Russia achieving the peace they so desire by simply packing up and going home, so too could Ukraine achieve peace by submitting to the Russian conditions. Is that not acceptable? Oh, what a surprise. The Ukrainians must be evil war mongers.

Ukraine didn't invade Russia. Well, not until last year, after putting up with Russian invasion of their territory since 2008. But you keep forgetting this? Or do you actually believe the absolute nonsense claim that Ukraine "provoked" all powerful Russia by wanting to get into NATO?

Stop being childish. Every school boy knows that there are necessary conditions for each side to accept before peace can be reached. If you cannot understand that then you truly belong on the short bus.

Ah yes, the guy who believes every last piece of moronic Russian propaganda accusing me of stupidity. How amusing.

[Jampie]

As to what we were hoping, I can only speak for myself, but I would hope that a ceasefire achievement would mean that both sides cease... firing? This isn't a ceasefire, it's a freedom of navigation agreement. And like all agreements he's made in the last several decades, Putin is likely to breach it the instant it's convenient to do so.

I knew Trump's claim that he would end the war in 24 hours was a ridiculous lie. But I hoped his implication that he could end the war relatively quickly wasn't. Obviously though, it was.

And what I feared with the Trump administration - that he would be very much on Putin's side in the conflict, so far absolutely nothing he's said or done since taking office has put that fear to rest. I'd say he's gone out of his way to confirm it. He cut off all aid and intelligence support to the Ukrainians - what pressure has he applied to Putin? None whatsoever that I can see.

[Jampie]

Regarding the latest example of the Trump administration's hypocrisy and incompetence - that they managed to invite the editor of the Atlantic into a private Signal chat in which they were discussing a military strike... before, during and after the strike, including live updates...

Where do we begin? I have worked with classified information... it is important to note that there are different levels of it. For example, something like state department emails would only ever qualify as one of the lowest level of classification. Email is unencrypted traffic it's literally illegal to put anything actually secret into an email. Yet Trump's supporters endlessly railed against the fact that Clinton kept her own private email server. I don't approve of her doing so, but let's line it up with what they're now willing to excuse...

The chat included notification of when the F-18's making the strike took off... this would be classified at a level where it would never have been put into an email. And they managed to send it directly to a journalist. Directly. Like, straight to his phone. Had he been a bad actor, he could've warned the target. He could've put the pilots in danger.

This conversation should never have been conducted on anybody's private phones. The participants (in the government, not the journalist) would have other means of communication that were secure, and importantly, that would comply with the laws about data retention.

Which brings me to the fact that the discussion is set to self destruct in a few weeks. I imagine one motivation for using Signal on their phones was so they could avoid any long term record of their discussion.

Then there's the content. Quite apart from literally discussing how they would extract payment from Egypt and Europe for the operation, it's abundantly clear that while the human target was a combatant (according to intel), the actual building destroyed was a residential civilian one, and that it was reduced to rubble. There was no discussion at any point about the moral or ethical considerations of doing so - that civilians would inevitably have been killed in the strike. They just didn't even bring it up. Nobody cared.

I just don't understand how anyone could read that conversation and approve of this. What's the 4D chess move here? Does Trump have a secret plan like he does with Tariffs to... er... what were Tariffs supposed to achieve again? Was it the stock market crash, the economic slowdown, or the destruction of the US's soft power?

Even as I go on, ignoring what these abject cretins SAY and only paying attention to their actions, I just can't understand how they still have support. Until I check out the fox news website, or any other Murdoch publication, where an alternative to reality is presented.

[andy6025]

Ukraine is being forced into this deal by the fact that Trump has taken Russia's side and cut off all support. That and Europe still seems incapable of picking up the slack.

Trump has not cut off all support. He did for a short time but then resumed weapons deliveries and intelligence sharing. That is a strange definition of taking russias side.

That said, Trump could well end support for Ukraine if Zelensky refuses to play ball. If that happens then the Ukrainians are certainly free to carry on as they wish. But if what you mean to say is that the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune is the case, well, why should the Americans continue to pour money into the ukrainian black hole when the president who campaigned on ending the war won in a clean sweep?

Ukraine didn't invade Russia.

Ukraine invaded Donetsk and Lugansk, after an unconstitutional coup took place, kinda like the Jan 6 event in Washington, only in the case of Ukraine the mob won. The oblasts declared their independence, in accordance with the UN charter which upholds the right self determination. And after Ukraine invaded them, Russia came to their aid, in accordance with article 51.