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

[i961pie]

Touching letter. Gets you right here.

What its author fails to realize is that Trump genuinely believes he is the only one saving Ukraine, and that the likes of Biden, Johnson, Zelensky, Macron, and Tusk, etc., are the ones responsible for wrecking it and killing over a million people. As such, a letter like this might as well just say:

Please, sir, please. Please may we wreck it some more?

The answer is pretty obvious.

Blimey that's a short reply from you Andy? It's usually a 14 page rambling dossier on our much you love Putin. I like the short version even if it is your usual crap.

[Jampie]

Touching letter. Gets you right here.

What its author fails to realize is that Trump genuinely believes he is the only one saving Ukraine, and that the likes of Biden, Johnson, Zelensky, Macron, and Tusk, etc., are the ones responsible for wrecking it and killing over a million people. As such, a letter like this might as well just say:

Please, sir, please. Please may we wreck it some more?

The answer is pretty obvious.

How do you know what Trump believes, genuinely or otherwise? Do you take him at his word? I don't believe you do. I have seen evidence in this very thread that you're an intelligent human being. Which rules out believing anything Trump says at face value.

And assuming he did believe that Ukraine and its allies are responsible for the destruction for fighting back and for giving Ukraine the tools to do so, respectively, instead of, you know, the people who actually started the war by invading and are still attacking to this day. Assuming he really believes that, then he's an idiot. Because obviously Putin is responsible. Obviously the invading Russian armed forces are responsible. If Putin hadn't given the order, or the Russians had stayed home, there would have been none of the destruction and loss of life.

Do you honestly believe the Ukrainians should have just rolled over and given up, and let Putin turn them into a puppet state (or worse)?

[andy6025]

Tump's first impeachment was for refusing to reply those heavy weapons. People have short memories.

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.

[andy6025]

How do you know what Trump believes, genuinely or otherwise? Do you take him at his word? I don't believe you do. I have seen evidence in this very thread that you're an intelligent human being. Which rules out believing anything Trump says at face value.

And assuming he did believe that Ukraine and its allies are responsible for the destruction for fighting back and for giving Ukraine the tools to do so, respectively, instead of, you know, the people who actually started the war by invading and are still attacking to this day. Assuming he really believes that, then he's an idiot. Because obviously Putin is responsible. Obviously the invading Russian armed forces are responsible. If Putin hadn't given the order, or the Russians had stayed home, there would have been none of the destruction and loss of life.

Do you honestly believe the Ukrainians should have just rolled over and given up, and let Putin turn them into a puppet state (or worse)?

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?

[andy6025]

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

[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.