Trump Zelensky today.....
- Thread starter dr.jb
- Start date
I’m still trying to figure out what everyone wants. Are we wanting to cut social services and pay to continue the war? Are we wanting to send our kids in to fight on the ground? Are we wanting to send money and just add it to the debt?
We aren’t really saying what we want to see done and how that gets accomplished.
One side has already decided that whatever Trump says and does is correct.
The other side has already decided that whatever Trump says and does is incorrect.
We have lost our ability to reason.
We aren’t really saying what we want to see done and how that gets accomplished.
One side has already decided that whatever Trump says and does is correct.
The other side has already decided that whatever Trump says and does is incorrect.
We have lost our ability to reason.
Add to the debt.
I disagreed with our actions which I thought led to this war. But we must always reevaluate given the current circumstances. The bottom line is that this has turned into a tremendous blunder for Putin. For a relatively small sum, the meat grinder has grinded down the Russian military and economy. We know it's not $350B as DJT claims. Let's pretend it's $150B. How much is that on a yearly basis? And how much of that $ being spent is then recirculated into the US economy. The meat grinder is Putin's noose. Why take it away from one of your biggest geopolitical adversaries?
Go close our bases across Europe and Asia. Save $ that way. Have DOGE do something useful and investigate why we are paying $2000 for $20 toilet seats and $70,000 for the same missile that someone builds for $700 or $7,000.
But from a bottom line national interest perspective of the US Putin has really shat on himself at relatively little cost to us.
Well, we see it different ways and you see it through your bias and I see it accurately. Lol. Just kidding. I see it through my bias. Trump looked rather uncomfortable to me, especially when Z brought out the prop pics. Obviously that was a planned ambush by Z. He knew Trump was aware of atrocities. No reason to do that except to try and box in Trump to provide more security guarantees. Again, not the time or place to negotiate security terms. Smile, sign the deal, discuss another day in private.
Here's one of the better reads on the subject:
www.foxnews.com
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: 10 bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up
Victor Davis Hanson lays out 10 takeaways from Friday's extraordinary Oval Office meeting between President Trump, Vice President Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
I used to like Victor Davis Hansen when he was more focused with his scholarship. He’s very good on WW2 and Agrarian cultures. Like everyone else now, he’s become just a shill for parroting the administration. His assessment of the video and the sequencing of same is just really off. The entirety of his premise is based upon the sequencing of events in the video— which aren’t accurate other than Trump and Zelensky seemed to get along well early, which I was happy to see.Here's one of the better reads on the subject:
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: 10 bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up
Victor Davis Hanson lays out 10 takeaways from Friday's extraordinary Oval Office meeting between President Trump, Vice President Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
I said it earlier, why would anyone let this news conference go on prior to a deal being formally agreed to and signed? There are sinister reasons for why you would, but that doesn’t mean those reasons existed--no way to know and it is just speculation on the circumstances.
Last edited:
These are great points. Whatever the total number is (see link below), and let's go with the high of 150 bil, the aid toward Ukraine looks like it is split almost evenly between non lethal aid and lethal aid. So $75 bil toward military needs for the sake of argument. Of that $75 bil, I have seen estimates of at least half that amount being out of date/soon to be out of service military equipement that needed replacing (or was to be replaced). For example, the bradley vehicles, the older Abrahams tanks, etc. That replacement cost then gets funneled back into the US manufacturers. It isn't like Ukraine got our best stuff either. They are getting equipment/vehicles, etc that has generally been contemplated (or has been used), for sale to allies. So, we would lose out on benefits of selling those items.
Your point though, is that there is a mitigation of those donations, and I believe we already have a loan deal in place with the Ukraine.
All the data is contained on the State Department website:
I think you've done a good job of distilling this argument down to a paragraph, but allow me to push back on the ideas underlying this realpolitick view with a rephrasing of the bolded parts in a more active voice without the euphamism/metaphor:
By spending billions of dollars, the United States has harmed the Russian economy much more than it has spent and helped end the lives of hundreds of thousands of Russians (and in the process, Ukrainians). Since Russia is one of our geopolitical adversaries, this is a good thing.
Counter: maybe US foreign policy shouldn't be focused on tanking economies (which results in more human misery) and looking to inflict mass casualties on other peoples that we are not at war with?
Let us take your point to the next level, we are not at war with China. Should we do nothing if they invade Taiwan? Japan?
There is a sweet spot somewhere between too hawkish and appeasement. Where it is, I do not know. I respected Carter's desire to place human rights in our decision making matrix. A nation that respects human rights would be provided more leeway.
FWIW, we aren't as respectful of human rights as we should be. But I believe we are ahead of Russia and China
The United States is far ahead of Russia and China.
But if you take the realpolitik view expressed above as its motivation, the US is also in the business of spending billions of dollars in the hope of putting its geopolitical adversaries into "the meat grinder."
I think we, as US citizens, should be required to face what that actually means in human terms rather than treating foreign policy as one big game of Risk. Admittedly, part of me thinks of things through the lens of a competitive game, too, and here I'm just trying to inject some humanity into it, as the Rev. John Ames would do.
My quibble about the humanity is it rewards the dictator. Japan was awful in Manchuria. They began the war with us over their war in Manchuria. They calculated we would not have the stomach for it. If they were right, what would the lives of Manchurians, and Koreans, have been like in the 50s until who knows when?
That is the big unknown. Putin is willing to fight to the last Russian to grab at least two more Oblasts. What will life be like for those who do not want to live under Putin?
We know the Nazis killed innocent as revenge for partisans. Using your argument, should partisans have ceased activity? They were causing death of innocent people.
In the overall view, I have said Ukraine has to be prepared to lose the two oblasts, though Russia needs to guarantee right to leave. The question is, what guarantee do we get to stop a third bite at the apple.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we are supposedly viewing the world from an "American First" perspective. From a Trumpian there are no win-wins, the world is comprised of fixed resources, the case for bleeding Russian through Ukraine makes perfect sense. In fact, you wouldn't want Ukraine to win either.
Trumps says beat up protesters at his rallies. I don't think he cares about the human cost.
Personally, I do think democracy still means something, though that's probably an unpopular opinion these days.
Otoh, I imply from Trumps comments and actions including the new Russian Ambassador to the US that he not only wants the war to end immediately, but he actually wants to expand relations and possibly undertake an alliance with Russia. What we need from them I couldn't tell you. It seems to me that Russia is in a terribly weak position, so from a Trump America first perspective it makes no sense why we are providing concessions and discussing lifting sanctions and starting direct flights before negotiations even begin. Even more ludicrous was his "threat" to Putin for continuing the war; more sanctions and tariffs. Why would the most heavily sanctioned country on Earth be afraid of further sanctions, much less meaningless tariffs when no trade is taking place.
It's all faux outrage, like not wearing a suit. It didn't bother Trump - he even joked about it.
This incessant picking on Zelenskyy for these perceived slights is just a side show, designed to make Z look like the bad guy.
IMO, there are no 'bad guys' here. Trump wants to stop the fighting, no matter what. The easiest way for him to do that is to get Ukraine to cede land in exchange for making a 'deal' with the US for rare earth minerals. But why would Ukraine do that without security guarantees that Russia won't try to capture the rest of Ukraine some day, after they're rebuilt their military?
For reasons I don't entirely understand, Trump refuses to recognize Putin as the aggressor, right or wrong. Maybe Putin has a case against NATO expansion. OK - why doesn't the US agree to block NATO expansion to Ukraine in return for Russia getting the fvck out of Ukraine? I'm sure Ukraine wouldn't have an issue with that, if it gets Russia out of their country.
But Russia's reason for invasion wasn't NATO - that's a side show. Russia has always considered Ukraine as theirs and values the agriculture and raw minerals there. It's not that difficult to see.
There is plenty of blame on both sides for negotiations breaking down. I don't know if it was planned or not - I think it was - but Vance's feigned insult at Z pointing out past Russian agreements that were broken flipped the switch into a full blown shit show.
Last edited:
Thank you…we have 1 vote for adding to the debt.
Personally, I do not want to do that but I respect your opinion.
I dont disagree with VDH with 90% of that, but on #10, even Winston Churchill lost the election after WWII. And he was the epitomy of British fighting spirit.Here's one of the better reads on the subject:
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: 10 bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up
Victor Davis Hanson lays out 10 takeaways from Friday's extraordinary Oval Office meeting between President Trump, Vice President Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
I think Zelenskyy would win an election today in a landslide. That could be part of his stubbornness, because it does play well at home and in Europe.
We have had a pretty consistent foreign policy that seeks to protect the lives of Russian soldiers and improve the Russian economy.
Stop invading your neighbor. By doing so, your soldiers won't face hostile fire and your economy won't face crippling sanctions.
It's very simple and the incredible benefit is that it also seeks to protect the lives of Ukrainians while improving the Ukrainian economy. When our foreign policy aligns with this goal, it is the most effective and human foreign policy approach available.
Good video.
I'm for Russia leaving Ukraine and the US banning NATO from further expansion.
If NATO is the reason for Russian invading Ukraine, seems like a simple solution.
That's if you actually believe NATO expansion is the reason.
Since this is a military and geopolitical investment, I would continue aid to Ukraine at a lower level, pull that aid from other military lines (including lessening military aid to Israel, which is over $12B, while continuing tactical support) and other geopolitical support (such as USAID, which has a budget of nearly $100B).
If the number over the course of our support during Russia's invasion is indeed closer to $96B, those allocations can be closed.
Heck, I support Russia becoming a constitutional republic and joining NATO.
Failing that, I do not know what guarantees we can give Russia. They have far and away the largest nuclear arsenal. It would be suicide for NATO to attack that.
Yeah, I think the whole NATO argument is a huge red herring.
Think Putin can't read a map and see NATO on his doorstep in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia?
Last edited:
I'm for Russia leaving Ukraine, and then forcing the EU. OR Who the eff ever, to go fix the rest! It ain't our fight. We, the US, went and grew up from Europe like a child from their crack/ meth parents. I'm not fixing the continued BS that you continue to get yourself into.
I think there are two things driving this. 1) resources 2) history. China is on this kick that anything that was ever Chinese should be returned. I think Putin believes that, also knows there are limits. China will play the long game. I don't know Russia has that in them. But I think in his dreams, the Baltics, Ukraine, parts of Finland and most of Poland are Russian.
Every time I hear Europeans talking shit about the US, I want to remind them of the Marshall Plan. I had friends in Germany whose families were literally starving after the war.
The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe with almost $13 billion in grants and loans - and that's in 1947 dollars.
And we have many permanent bases there to ensure their security. And many cemetaries of US dead who sacrificed for them.
Time for them to grow up and step up and use some of that 'free' health care and cradle to grave socialism money for their own protection.
A good first step for them would be to go all MAGA and deport their Arab populations that want to change their entire culture.
Well, Trump probably knows what Putin wants since he spoke to him, unlike Biden, who just wanted to fund the killing with no overture towards peace.
I don’t understand Trump’s statements about Putin or Z, but I do understand he is trying for peace. So if he has to offend people by publically stroking Putin's ego to get peace, then fine.
It's the art of the deal, and deals take time. I'm going to give Trump time to work towards peace because Biden sure as hell did nothing to bring it.
We both agree Trump had this shit show dumped in his lap by Biden and his sycophants.
It's going to take time? What happened to 24 hours?
The entire world knows what Putin wants. Trump isn't "trying for peace". He's trying to end our involvement. Those are two very different things.
Gorbachev said it was a myth as well:
There was no promoise or guaranty: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
Putin did ask to join Nato when Clinton was president. But given that the source, who knows what was really said:
In Stone interviews, Putin says he once asked about Russia joining NATO
In a series of interviews with American film director Oliver Stone, Putin said he inquired about Russia joining the alliance when then U.S. President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000.
www.pbs.org
Absolutely not a myth. Baker undoubtedly made the “not one inch eastward” promise. Whether that means a whole lot since it was never codified in writing is a separate discussion.Gorbachev said it was a myth as well:
There was no promoise or guaranty: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
Putin did ask to join Nato when Clinton was president. But given that the source, who knows what was really said:
In Stone interviews, Putin says he once asked about Russia joining NATO
In a series of interviews with American film director Oliver Stone, Putin said he inquired about Russia joining the alliance when then U.S. President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000.
Wish it was 24 hours. Obviously hyperbole by Trump.
I disagree. He's trying for peace and has said so for years. And what a shame that the world has known for 3 years what Putin wants, but nobody took the time to call him to see what would take to end the war. Just let them keep on killing each other.
Gorbachev said it was a myth as well:
There was no promoise or guaranty: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
Putin did ask to join Nato when Clinton was president. But given that the source, who knows what was really said:
In Stone interviews, Putin says he once asked about Russia joining NATO
In a series of interviews with American film director Oliver Stone, Putin said he inquired about Russia joining the alliance when then U.S. President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000.
You should read the ACTUAL transcripts from the meetings in the national archives.
He says lots of things and they rarely happen. Why isn't his supposed desire for peace just more obvious hyperbole by Trump? His actions don't say that he wants peace. His actions say that he wants to take Russia's side and end U.S. involvement. That's very different than trying for peace.
Nobody needs to take the time to call Putin to see what he wants. Everybody knows. Just like Trump's, his actions make it exceedingly clear. If Putin was actually interested in stopping the killing, there's a quick way for Russia to stop it all. Stop invading other nations.
What's a real shame is taking the side of a dictator invading an ally against all of our other allies.
Well, here's what James Baker said about the "not one inch eastward": "There was a discussion about whether the unified Germany would be a member of NATO, and that was the only discussion we ever had," Baker told CNN during a 2009 interview. "There was never any discussion of anything but (East Germany)."
Gates and his crew say any comments were made in the context of the German reunification debate. Talk of NATO’s expansion to the rest of Europe never came up, in part because the Soviet Union and its associated Warsaw Pact were still intact. And in any event, those assurances were not baked into the final U.S. position and agreement around "special military status,
Robert Gates sidesteps a bit, but he believes the Soviets "were led to believe" NATO would not expland eastward.
There are some contradictaory statements to Baker and Gorbachev as well, including a February 9, 1990 call with Gorbachev and Baker discussing German unification "The Soviet leader responds that “[w]e will think everything over. We intend to discuss all these questions in depth at the leadership level. It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable.” Baker affirms: “We agree with that.”"
Regardless, there is no written agreement.
Most things Trump says are hyperbole. Most figures he gives are either inflated or deflated, whichever is in his favor. Most promises he makes, even those made in earnest, are temporary.
If he has to take the side of Putin in the short term to end the war and all the death and destruction, then fine by me. Z is no saint in how he's treated the UOC.
And the more we repudiate Putin, the closer he grows to China. Unless we decide to enact a regime change in Russia, we have to live in this world with him. I'd rather not have him aligning with China, Iran, and NK.
However, credit where it’s due: he made promises to nominate justices from a list given to him by Leonard Leo. And he did keep that promise. Even the most virulent NeverTrump conservatives should be deeply grateful for that.
And he also seems to be making good on his promise to get more forceful on securing the border. More so, to this point, than he ever was in his first term. And he didn’t do a terrible job in his first term…despite being thwarted by a Congress that seems intent on keeping the border porous.
Similar threads
