If it was just some country being invaded then no country would have funded Ukraine.
Western nations have an interest in Europe and particularly in containing Russia.
Trump/Zelensky deal turns into Jerry Springer episode
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Western nations have an interest in Europe and particularly in containing Russia.
JD Vance tooki a ski trip and showed the novice skier he his! Family had to be spirited away to another resort as he was met by protesters with some signs saying :GO SKI IN Russia.
Brokering the peace deal is what he brings to the table...why you keep insisting he's "asking for payment" is beyond me...all he wants is a deal..
It is vague.
I don't know what a final negotiated security guarantee would look like.
You also need to find countries willing to step into that role.
The composition of one now is going to look different than one might have looked like pre-invasion.
And Trump deserves the critique.
You may think dissolving NATO is a good thing, there have long been arguments for fundamentally changing it, restructuring it, or even disbanding it, but it would be silly to say that Trump hasn't repeatedly expressed a desire to exit or dismantle it.
He's been saying that for 8 years or more.
There are dozens of military alliances in existence.
Could one just step in and take NATO's place?
Of course not.
But there are various configurations that could step up to fill a void if NATO vanishes.
In fact, that's almost inevitable, since a new global situation will mean realignment in various ways.
I think that would be likely.
If the idea is that Putin wants Trump to look like he got a win, then he has little reason to press the war as long as he can also sell it domestically at home.
A short pause might also happen, though, since Putin could just start up again, blame Ukraine and the rest of Europe, and count on the US to stay out of it.
If he thinks the new situation means he can get what he wants, why not do it?
(A lot would depend on what the cease fire or peace deal negotiations end up with, of course. If Putin has gotten what he wants from those, he may well see no reason to spend further military resources in Ukraine, preferring to spend them elsewhere.)
The less reliable the US appears, the more Europe will have to decide if they step up and in what way.
So in short, be brings nothing. Got it.
This is like saying "I want to work" when some one asks you "why should I give you this job".
You seem to think he has a lot of sway, so why not?wait wait wait...I thought y'all liberals believe Trump is Putin's bitch? now he's able to encourage Putin?
Hence the need for a security guarantee.
But yes, there is a war.
Wars suck and the endings to wars aren't really happy fun things where nothing sucks either.
There is a theory that besides being bored with the war because it is annoying, Trump really wants credit for ending it and a Nobel Peace Prize because Obama got won.
That's very possible, he is a shallow, insecure mess after all.
Would a ceasefire have gotten Biden a Nobel?
I'm not as sure as you are.
It would have a LOT to do with who was seen as the main broker/peacemaker involved.
That the Prize (especially when it is awarded for peace deals and not other matters) is kind of a fucking mess in terms of its connection to reality is absolutely true, of course.
JD Vance tooki a ski trip and showed the novice skier he his! Family had to be spirited away to another resort as he was met by protesters with some signs saying :GO SKI IN Russia.
How about 'GO fighting Putin in Ukraine' for those Zelensky fan boys?
That's kind of a dumb assessment...
What do you think is gonna happen if someone will not broker a peace deal? there will be no peace... LoL...Zelensky can go find someone he thinks can broker a peace deal...that is if "peace" is what he wants...it seems like his more interested in the billions he will get if the war doesn't stop...Lol...he ain't getting a cent from Drumph...
Yes, all he wants is a deal.
He won't broker the peace without it, according to you.
Now, that would be different from "I want a deal or I will no longer send you weapons" but Trump still being interested in brokering a deal.
But you yourself has said Trump has no ability to broker the deal.
He can't promise he can get Putin to the table or to agree to anything, has already said that Putin should get all kinds of concessions, and has said that he can't work with Zelensky.
So pretty clearly no one should be letting Trump broker this deal, since you admit he can't do it. (And, again, he already promised he could do it before January and failed utterly.)
So why should people be paying him for services he can't deliver on?
Well, if Zelensky wants US backing, it's not for free...Trump is mandated by people to fix the economy and he promised to cut costs...you think it's advisable for him to sign over billions of dollars and not get a deal? C'mon dude...you will be crying here that he's cutting USAID and then turn around and give Ukraine billions...Americans would be pissed if he just gives away tax money without getting a minerals deal...what part of that don't you get?
Where did I say he has no ability to broker a deal? Of all the world leaders right now, who do you think has the ability to sit down with Putin? What I said was there is no guarantee a peace deal would be meet. LoL...so tell me val, is the option fund Ukraine and fight Russia? US is already 175B in on that with abysmal results...keep funding? or have a sit down and see if peace can be achieved? what's your input?
Dumb assessment?
That's rich coming from someone who has been making painfully idiotic comments all morning.
To broker a peace deal Trump needs to bring something to the table.
Right now he brings nothing and he is mischaracterizing a protection racket as brokering a peace deal.
Rightfully Zelensky sees right through it and is standing his ground.
After this year do you think we can spend less money on national
defence against Russia than what it would have been without Trudeau's
military aid to Ukraine?
yes a dumb assessment...
Brokering a peace deal means, you are able to have a relationship to both parties and draft a resolution that could get both parties to agree with...being the POTUS is what he brings to the table...LoL. and Zelensky won't have a ground to stand on if US walks away...LoL
That's a good bunch of words.
But they dont convey any meaning.
Then I guess there is no reason to ask Zelensky to sign a mineral deal.
I do get it.
Trump is highly transactional and thinks the US should be paid protection money.
But clarify something for me.
At this point are you arguing Trump won't end the war without being paid (well, "act as a broker and see if Putin wants to end the war") or are you arguing that Trump is demanding money to pay for weapons, but still wants to end the war regardless?
If you're country is in a hole for 175B...maybe asked what the guy has to offer when he asks for another 100 billions? I mean, that's americans tax money, it probably won't fly if americans don't get something back.
Here is a better bunch of words. Those billions of free money
given to Ukraine would serve our nation's security better if spent on
our own defence in the arctic against Russian aggression. We need
to purchase more submarines and fighter jets and we also can spend
more money to pay our troops good salaries.
