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

[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-...a-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...itank-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'.