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?