www.twz.com
www.nbcnews.com
That's a stupid take.Trump says Ukraine should not have fought Russia but instead should have made a deal.
Trump suggests Ukraine shouldn't have fought back against Russia
“Zelenskyy was fighting a much bigger entity, much bigger, much more powerful,” Trump said. “He shouldn’t have done that, because we could have made a deal.”
Trump says Ukraine should not have fought Russia but instead should have made a deal.
Trump suggests Ukraine shouldn't have fought back against Russia
“Zelenskyy was fighting a much bigger entity, much bigger, much more powerful,” Trump said. “He shouldn’t have done that, because we could have made a deal.”
Why are they still fighting and why isn't the media asking questions? On Jan 21 both parties were supposed to immediately cease all combat operations.
Smarter than what? And please riddle me this... why would the most heavily sanctioned country on Earth be threatened by tariffs?
I was listening to something on NPR about the crackdowns on even talking like a S Korean. Same language, but English creeps into S Korean and they don't speak it as abruptly as N Koreans. It was a fascinating report.
By all accounts that I have read, they have been taking a pounding. Also their entire reason for existing changed once they saw porno on demand.
Can't read it because I don't have the app, but heard at some point this week that the entire 12k would be dead or wounded before end of Feb and another 12k would be sent in March.
So the Trump Peace Plan is for Russia to win the war.
NATO membership isn't realistic, I agree, but asking Ukraine to give up the territory they won in exchange for Russia keeping the territory they won? Ukraine gets nothing from this deal. Better to just keep fighting a guerilla war.
Russia hasn’t accomplished much at all. I would have a hard time saying they won or are winning
If this deal were accepted - spoiler: it won't be - that would be a win. They'd get to keep the four oblasts they annexed, and Ukraine would have to leave Kursk? There is no way Zelensky agrees to that.
It looks like Russia gets every stated goal. And they get all that rare earth minerals, frankly probably the real reason they attacked. Whenever Britain gets tired of peacekeeping, maybe 5 years, Russia gets another bite.
It might not even be a real leak. It's just some guy on Twitter.
Even worse, he got it from The Daily Mail. If it were National Enquirer I might be worried.
"Territorial Concessions: Kyiv would recognize Russian sovereignty over annexed lands and withdraw troops from Kursk."
Let's think about this for a minute - would Trump be suggesting the US be paid back for aid to Ukraine with rare earth materials - which are in the contested areas - if he didn't think Ukraine would end up controlling those areas?
This must be a a real 'leak' - it's on the internet.
I backed off once I saw the source was the Daily Mail. In this thread, I'll simply ask, why would a right-wing news source make up something on Trump?
I don't know, but there are some right-wingers that desparately want Russia to win. I don't get it, but it's a fact.
So we do agree that said deal would not be good for Ukraine. Unless NATO said, "we are out if you don't" I don't know why they would accept that. I know they are going to lose most/all of their territory Russia occupies, but to not in some way get guaranteed protection from the next bite of the apple would be silly. And frankly, NATO membership is about the only way that happens.
That deal would suck for Ukraine and there's no way they'd take it anyway.
