Politics

[Pondoro]

Remember when Trump told Germany relying on Russian energy was a mistake, Germany and all the EU journalist laughed like hyenas.

The EU has been funding Putins war machine for years while at the same time having little to no military preparation or arms for counteracting such an event.

The EU should take responsibility for their own actions but more importantly their lack of action for years on end.

Europe is rearming on a massive scale now.. But you are quite right, Angela Merkel and others stupidly bought russian gas..

 

[spike.t]

I hear Zelinskyy wears pretty small shoes

Pretty big balls though.....

 

[Brent in Az]

Pretty big balls though.....

I'll give him that...

 

[Brent in Az]

Hillary Clinton said she would nominate Trump for a Nobel peace prize if he can end the war.
Is this Hillary's way of saying "Don't put me in prison"?.......lol.

 

[deewayne2003]

Hillary Clinton said she would nominate Trump for a Nobel peace prize if he can end the war.
Is this Hillary's way of saying "Don't put me in prison"?.......lol.

Or trying to gain favor with the right as her husbands dealings with Epstein come under the microscope?

 

[Tanks]

From Rubio's speech:

unfortunately, because one side is always looking for leverage on the other. In this particular case, the Russian side as well. And so I think that that's the core of what we're trying to work through here.

He seems to blame Ukraine as always looking for leverage and then adding Russia almost as an afterthought.

Which side does he think started the war and invaded another country?

 

[spike.t]

 

[Red Leg]

This was released from the UK MOD today and represents just one of the forms of enormous leverage that the US has in these negotiations without even addressing increased military support or additional economic sanctions. To remind, this is Russia fighting this war not the USSR. It has only a bit more than half the population base of the old Soviet Union, and Putin has carefully insulated the Moscow and St. Petersburg areas from the worst effects of the battlefield - particularly casualties. Whatever the Kremlin's public posturing, this war has been a disastrous and unsustainable miscalculation.

 

[Vashper]

About three years ago, I read that Putin would be forced to change his policy by confiscating his personal accounts. Has this already happened or not yet?

 

[Red Leg]

About three years ago, I read that Putin would be forced to change his policy by confiscating his personal accounts. Has this already happened or not yet?

When a mafia-like Don has access to the financial reserves of the nation state and no one with the courage to complain, why be concerned about personal accounts.

 

[Brent in Az]

About three years ago, I read that Putin would be forced to change his policy by confiscating his personal accounts. Has this already happened or not yet?

Putin is no dummy. I'm sure he has large amounts of cash stashed somewhere.

 

[1dirthawker]

So trump demanded a ceasefire like he had been bloviating about all week?

so Aaron,

what has canada been doing to stop the war in ukraine?

 

[CoElkHunter]

Putin is no dummy. I'm sure he has large amounts of cash stashed somewhere.

Some $200 BILLION estimated by some accounts.

 

[Aaron N]

so Aaron,

what has canada been doing to stop the war in ukraine?

Bilateral aid to Ukraine by country GDP 2025| Statista

Estonia and Denmark had the highest ratio of bilateral support to Ukraine to donor GDP as of February 2025. Poland ranked eighth by GDP share of aid to Ukraine.

www.statista.com

As per GDP more than the United States, but that’s not my issue here. Trump keeps making claims about how he is going to end war. Either shake your big stick, or stop making promises. There is nothing more exasperating to me than a big talker.

 

[spike.t]

To me he is putting zelensky in an impossible situation.....saying he can end the war now....but giving up any territory is forbidden in the Ukrainian constitution....and why the hell should Ukraine have to give any up.....giving putin his win .....

Trump says Zelensky 'can end war if he wants' as leaders prepare for White House talks - follow live

The leaders of the UK, France and Germany will accompany Ukraine's president for crunch talks on ending Russia's war against Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

 

[spike.t]

White House talks more important than US-Russia summit in Alaska

The Washington meeting could prove to be crucial to the future of Ukraine, and all of Europe's security.

www.bbc.com

 

[mark-hunter]

To me he is putting zelensky in an impossible situation.....saying he can end the war now....but giving up any territory is forbidden in the Ukrainian constitution....and why the hell should Ukraine have to give any up.....giving putin his win .....

The way how I see this:
Some territory is lost de facto. Not yet, de iure.

And there is no visible force to kick the Russians out, as of now. That is the fact.
That status can stay forever with "temporarily occupied territories" if they are not recognized.

On the other hand:
The long-term Ukrainian objective should be (and it actually is) to join the European Union.
A country CAN NOT join European Union if there is a territorial dispute.
Legally speaking, they are in a similar situation, as Serbia with Kosovo dispute. Not in EU so soon.

So, what is the long-term best interest for Ukraine?

Ukraine, territory-wise, has two options:
Keep stubborn, protest, complain, keep armed conflict, and stay out of EU.
Or, cut the losses, and move on, accept new borders, join EU.
Where is better? What is better? A country in the EU, or a country in the middle of nowhere (literally)

Now, as we can look at old media outlets with some distance, we can see the following.
- Invasion started 2022, with miscalculation on both sides. Russia expected a quick victory, and Ukraine expected endless Western support to kick the Russians out, which should be an easy win
- unprecedented military and financial aid followed.
- The Ukrainian summer offensive in 2023 failed in a fiasco
- Ukrainian offensive to Kursk, failed in FIasco
- F16's as last large material aid, so far has no significant impact, looks like more defensive roles in shooting down drones, a few f16 already lost
- Ukraine has no Navy (all gone).
- Tank brigades restructured to armored battalions, with other available armored vehicles. (Tanks gone?)
- Western material support and warehouses in EU are depleted after three years. (my country gave all its tanks T72 upgraded, to support Ukraine, and received nothing in return. This is a statement by our president. I can assume, similar situation elsewhere. With warehouses empty, Europe must first replenish, and then eventually give support, whereas the military support given so far was not sufficient. So how much more? Who will pay?

Which national parliament will vote to pay for the next brand new 100 tanks, 25 million each, to be sent to Ukraine? For rearmament of own country, yes, but a brand new 25 million dollar tank, to be sent to Ukraine with fresh paint? What about planes? Artillery? Patriots? Shells? Ammunitions? For a non-EU, and non-NATO Country? Hmmm... This is the dilemma?

If two major counteroffensives fully supported by the collective West that Ukraine could mount failed, what else can be mounted for future offensives? What else is needed? And of course, who will pay?

 

[Altitude sickness]

About three years ago, I read that Putin would be forced to change his policy by confiscating his personal accounts. Has this already happened or not yet?

Putin is thought to be one of the world’s richest men.

To avoid a bad look to the peasants and avoid seizure from other nations. None of it is technically in his ownership. He earns approximately $140k per year.

His answer is the estates and yachts are loaned to him by generous friend's.

So the real question is when will someone have the balls to go after all his friends and enablers.
Squeezing him from all sides.


I’m hopeful that Putin is just trying to play Trump‘s art of the deal (asking for more than you know is possible) full well knowing he cannot get the entire Donbas region. When he will be happy with the ground Russia currently holds.

If he opened with keeping the ground he holds. We would ask him to take less so hopefully it’s just typical negotiations.

Now, if after today’s meeting with Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy offers that Russia can keep everything it holds and Putin then declines Zelenskyy offer then negotiations need to stop and sanctions immediately started. And supply weapons for a huge Ukrainian offensive on Moscow.

 

[PrechtlM98]

https://elitexpert.ua/en/politika/p...z-putinim-ne-mav-svogo-perekladacha-nbc-news/

Just heard that if Wittkoff had used his own translaters instead of Putins translators there would have
never been a summit in Alaska....

 

[Red Leg]

The way how I see this:
Some territory is lost de facto. Not yet, de iure.

And there is no visible force to kick the Russians out, as of now. That is the fact.
That status can stay forever with "temporarily occupied territories" if they are not recognized.

On the other hand:
The long-term Ukrainian objective should be (and it actually is) to join the European Union.
A country CAN NOT join European Union if there is a territorial dispute.
Legally speaking, they are in a similar situation, as Serbia with Kosovo dispute. Not in EU so soon.

So, what is the long-term best interest for Ukraine?

Ukraine, territory-wise, has two options:
Keep stubborn, protest, complain, keep armed conflict, and stay out of EU.
Or, cut the losses, and move on, accept new borders, join EU.
Where is better? What is better? A country in the EU, or a country in the middle of nowhere (literally)

Now, as we can look at old media outlets with some distance, we can see the following.
- Invasion started 2022, with miscalculation on both sides. Russia expected a quick victory, and Ukraine expected endless Western support to kick the Russians out, which should be an easy win
- unprecedented military and financial aid followed.
- The Ukrainian summer offensive in 2023 failed in a fiasco
- Ukrainian offensive to Kursk, failed in FIasco
- F16's as last large material aid, so far has no significant impact, looks like more defensive roles in shooting down drones, a few f16 already lost
- Ukraine has no Navy (all gone).
- Tank brigades restructured to armored battalions, with other available armored vehicles. (Tanks gone?)
- Western material support and warehouses in EU are depleted after three years. (my country gave all its tanks T72 upgraded, to support Ukraine, and received nothing in return. This is a statement by our president. I can assume, similar situation elsewhere. With warehouses empty, Europe must first replenish, and then eventually give support, whereas the military support given so far was not sufficient. So how much more? Who will pay?

Which national parliament will vote to pay for the next brand new 100 tanks, 25 million each, to be sent to Ukraine? For rearmament of own country, yes, but a brand new 25 million dollar tank, to be sent to Ukraine with fresh paint? What about planes? Artillery? Patriots? Shells? Ammunitions? For a non-EU, and non-NATO Country? Hmmm... This is the dilemma?

If two major counteroffensives fully supported by the collective West that Ukraine could mount failed, what else can be mounted for future offensives? What else is needed? And of course, who will pay?

I think what you offer is a valid small nation perspective. But Ukraine actually is not one. Indeed, after three years of war and without offering the numerous caveats available with respect to weapons and losses, I would argue they currently represent the most powerful military purely in Europe.

What they have accomplished logistically with a kaleidoscope of weaponry and munitions from Soviet stocks to current production from the West is something I would have predicted as impossible just a few years ago. Their drone innovation has changed warfare. Since the defeat of the initial Russian offensive, Russia has gained only an additional 1% of Ukrainian territory at the cost of a million casualties.

The F-16 is a fine 4th generation fighter. But it is not a penetrator acting on its own. In US hands, it would only be used over hostile territory once stealth aircraft and long range missile fires had neutralized enemy air defenses. Ukraine does not have that option. As a result, it is primarily being used as a cruise missile interceptor. I would note the Russian air force has proven itself totally ineffective following the first weeks of the conflict.

The 2023 offensive did indeed fail. NATO, to include US leadership, pushed Ukraine to attempt it with inadequate forces and training. I disagree with your assessment of the Kursk offensive. Its purpose was to relieve pressure on the Donetsk front as the current defensive belt was completed. In that it succeeded. It also represented a political and military embarrassment to Russian leadership. I suspect Ukraine was surprised by its initial success. Because of it they were able to tie down 70,000 Russian troops, force Putin on his knees to Pyongyang for more, and inflict over thirty thousand casualties.

Other than Russia, the only nation that has failed in this conflict has been the US. Unlike the rest of NATO, the US has vast stockpiles of modern armored vehicles that could have been provided to Ukraine in numbers that would have overwhelmed Russia's older and far less capable reserve weaponry. The Biden administration, in what is still an unfathomable set of decisions decided instead on a minimalist strategy that simply kept the UA in the fight.

3700 M1 Abrams tanks are currently sitting in storage. They will never again be used by American forces in combat. Yes, much of that inventory would take work to make combat ready, but even the oldest models are an overmatch for any T-72 or T64 that ever rolled of an assembly line. The Biden administration provided a grand total of 31. Those 3700 are still sitting there and represent an offensive capability for which Russia would have no meaningful answer - as do over 800 M2 Brads.

But to your primary point, yes, with the failure of the US to provide meaningful offensive military capability, Ukraine will have to cede territory to achieve "peace." (And no, the weaponry provided by the first Trump administration also was not of an offensive capability nature). I am absolutely certain that Russia could be forced to withdraw from the portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia they currently control for clear "title" to the Crimea and what they hold in the Donbas. Sadly, I see the Trump administration is as loathe to use diplomatic pressure as Biden was to provide meaningful military aid.