Members stevenkesslar Posted March 2 Members Posted March 2 Quote Peskov also hailed the U.S. decision to back a United Nations draft resolution that refrained from calling Russia the aggressor in the Ukraine war, calling it something that previously had been “impossible to imagine.” 63 % of the American public believes Russia started the war with Ukraine. 57 % of Republicans do. Only 4 % of Americans think Ukraine started the war. Only 6 % of Republicans do. The rest say they don't know, or both sides started it. So Trump is telling America a lie that is obvious, and insulting. Not even Republicans believe it. Not even the MAGA base. The only way they can explain this in their own minds is that somehow the insolent pig has to be playing 3D chess that they can't understand. When, really, Trump is just a stupid and insolent and traitorous pig. J6 was the set up for this. Everyone saw with their own eyes that people unleashed by Trump went to the US Capitol and beat the living shit out of cops to try to stop a free and fair transfer of power. As far as I am concerned, America asked for this when we elected Trump by 49.8 % of the vote. We made this bed. Now we sleep in it. We rewarded a traitorous and narcissistic liar for telling his own people obvious lies. This is what we get. No wonder Putin's piglet loves the insolent pig, and is cheering him on. Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted March 3 Author Members Posted March 3 5 hours ago, bucknaway said: Download (92).mp4 11.73 MB · 0 downloads It's a shame @Barknaway doesn't post fewer videos. And more thoughtful ones like these ones with Jeffrey Sachs. When he first started his mindless and endless yapping, I watched every one of at least 50 videos. Maybe more like 100. I wanted to see what I would learn. Basically what I learned is that there is an awful lot of stupid in MAGAland. Seasoned generously with outrageous lies and extra helpings of hate. Mostly I think the MAGA concept is a torrent of nonsense that will intimidate and suppress, while they bitch about censorship. LOL. What a joke. Personally, I welcome it. The more MAGA spews their venom, the shorter their political lifespan. They barely came back from the dead, thanks to inflation. And Joe Biden being too close to being dead. And now they are racing right back into their coffin. It is an intellectual disservice to Sachs to throw him in with this cauldron of ignorance, lies, and hate. But since you have: Jeffrey Sachs: Bipartisan Support of War, from Iraq to Ukraine, Is Helping Fuel U.S. Debt Crisis That's a nice and relatively recent Sachs 101 interview. I strongly agree with him that warmongering is not good for our budget. How about child tax credits instead? If we put money in the hands of the working class, like AMLO's party in Mexico did, maybe we could win a landslide like his party did, too. I have read and watched lots and lots of Sachs for many years. I agree with most of what he says. So I'll make these comments. 1. It would be helpful if the Republican Party had been on board with Sachs 20 years ago, or more. He is right that there is a bipartisan military industrial complex. Ike said that loudly, even though he helped create it. Obama said it quietly, even though he helped use it - unsuccessfully, as Sachs argues - in Libya. That said, the Republicans are the biggest warmongers most of the time. Exhibit A: W., and weapons of mass destruction. The US was the warmonger and aggressor. Why didn't Republicans listen to Sachs then? 2. My main gripe with Team Trump is that they want to end this war and ally with Russia and Putin, which 95 % of America does not want. Why? So they can prepare for war with China, who they think is the competitor we need to arm up for. I don't disagree that China is a threat. But, again, I mostly agree with Sachs. He is arguing that getting out of the fire with Ukraine to jump into the frying pan, or nuclear Armageddon, with China is really fucking stupid. I agree. 3. I do have a problem with saying Ukraine or the EU are "warmongers" for wanting to defend themselves from an aggressor. I do wish, like Michael Caine suggested, that Trump and Republicans would just calm down. They went from this extremely aggressive pro-war strategy in Iraq, which was doomed to fail and did, to the opposite: an abandonment of our principles and our allies. And that is not a principled Republican doctrine, as lots of Republicans trashing Trump right now are being clear about. My Republican Dad is rolling in his grave. This is just Trump being a horrible diplomat and POTUS. He basically sees Putin as a fellow criminal or mafia thug he knows and can work with. 4. Sachs uses the right two words, which are exactly the two words Zelenskyy got into trouble over: "security guarantees". What are the security guarantees for Ukraine? And, as Sachs asks, for the Baltics? What if Estonia is the next target? Maybe it was undiplomatic for Zelenskyy to "Ukraine-splaine" this on TV. But I am glad he did. As Sachs would argue, we have a right to know! Trump should have an answer. Not an insulting lecture to our allies about how ungrateful they are. Or a stupid Tik Tok video with lies and hate. 5. I completely agree with Sachs that Europe should take the lead, both diplomatically and militarily. These two paragraph I read today were music to my ears: Quote U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who organized the March 2 summit before the Trump-Zelenskyy spat, said on Sunday that Europe “must do the heavy lifting” when it comes to protecting Ukraine from Russian expansionism from now on, indicating the reality of a reduced American presence on the world stage. Quote After ingratiating himself with the U.S. president earlier in the week Starmer sees himself as something of a bridge-builder, and Britain along with France and Ukraine are now to draw up a peace plan and then present it to Trump — a marked change from previous assumptions that the U.S. would take the lead. I'm not sure "from now on" actually makes sense. But it clearly makes sense "from now on" until 2028. It's all so up in the air that it's not clear whether Trump is negotiating with Putin, or the EU is, or Ukraine is, or all three. Trump clearly wants to play the honest broker. That's kind of a funny concept in an of itself. But if it keeps Putin from more genocide, I think anything is worth a try. 6. I keep reminding myself that Trump is still a million times better than W. So far, at least. I thought the legacy of W. was two global shit bombs: Iraq and the Global Financial Crisis. Which all the federal agencies W. ran helped set up. Or at least tolerated, while Wall Street planned a global meltdown. I think it is now fair to say that W. left a third ticking time bomb, by insisting in 2008 that Ukraine had to be part of NATO. There are good arguments on both sides of that debate. But I think the verdict is in: it was a key factor in why Putin invaded. But that does not justify an invasion. And Putin has lost the war. Because now everyone in Ukraine would prefer their brothers and sisters in Russia to simply be dead. That is the big humanitarian win of Putin's invasion and genocide. Ukraine wants Russia to just die. The consensus is now that they want to be in the EU. Good luck changing their mind, Vlad. You'll have to invade them and kill them instead. 7. The best model for success is the US/NATO/UN/EU intervention in the Balkans in the 1990's, that did stop a genocide. The lesson I take from that is that someone had to be a leader. And come up with a tough plan to punish anyone who did not agree to peace. Clinton did that. He finally grew the balls to bomb the shit out of whoever would not come to the table and negotiate. A second lesson, which Sachs alludes to, is that the EU at worst can be a paralyzed nightmare of bureaucracy. Clinton ultimately felt that he had to work around the paralysis of the EU and UN. So if Trump wants to play Clinton, and see if he can create a lasting peace, good luck to him. Little Marco was spouting off today about how Trump is the only guy in the world who can even bring Putin to the table. What ridiculous bullshit. But this is not a horrible configuration. Let Ukraine and the EU take the lead on defining what "security guarantees" in Europe means. Starmer is right that the US will ultimately have to get behind it. But if Trump wants to play peacemaker with Putin, go for it. It is better that Trump NOT try to define security architecture. Because he sucks at it. 8. Trump's end game here is still to ally with Putin, a stupid and unpopular idea that won't work, to prepare to go to war with China. The warmongers Sachs does not like are assembling around Trump to plan for that. So anyone who is taking Sachs seriously ought to be afraid of where the Trump Train and its warmonger club car are ultimately headed. By the way, at first I thought this might be some joke. That EU diplomat or parliamentarian or whoever he is in that video sure looks like Sascha Baron Cohen! Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted March 3 Author Members Posted March 3 17 minutes ago, Moses said: Again, thanks for educating me about how stupid AI really is. At least whatever model you are using. I'll just focus on the first statement, which is obviously a figure of speech AI didn't get. Trump has revealed in clear terms that he is a traitor who sides with Putin's view of the world, unlike 95 % of Americans. So it's very logical to think "from now on" we'll need a different strategy - through 2028. AI probably did not get that I was referring to our next Presidential election. After 2028, "from now on" may mean something very different. It's early days. But it's a pretty good guess that a lot of Americans will feel, "This is not what I voted for when I voted for Trump. I don't want Genocide Man as an ally." If a Democrat is elected, I'm guessing Ukraine and Europe will will be quite happy, and welcome US leadership back. Just a hunch. Check and see what AI thinks. And here's another job for AI. Ask AI to figure out Mike Johnson's latest set of illogical verbal contortions, to defend the insolent pig Trump. Quote “I’d like to see Putin defeated, frankly,” Johnson said on NBC. “He is an adversary of the United States." Quote “Putin is the aggressor,” Johnson said on CNN. “It is an unjust war. We have been crystal clear about that.” So there you have Mike Johnson clearly contradicting the insolent pig Trump, who called Zelenskyy a dictator and said Ukraine started the war. Johnson is accurately stating what most Americans think, according to polls. And yet the point of the article is that Johnson is saying Zelenskyy may have to resign, for saying things much less negative about Putin. Zelenskyy's main point in the meeting with Trump, and with US Senators beforehand, was that we can't have peace without security guarantees. Which is exactly what doves like Jeffrey Sachs are saying as well: Ukraine and all these countries, like Estonia, need "security guarantees" so hat Genocide Man will not attack them. Again, most Americans agree. See if AI can figure out why Johnson is contradicting Trump's lies, while saying Zelenskyy may have to resign for stating things most Americans agree with? And on this subject, I have a question for you, our local Russia expert. Assuming there is some kind of cease fire or "peace" agreement, whatever form it takes, do you think Putin would break it while Trump is POTUS, and try to take all of Ukraine again? My answer is no. I think Putin understands that the insolent pig Trump is a huge gift for Russia. So he will just sit back and enjoy all the damage Trump does to US interests, and the interests of our allies. No reason for him to pick a fight with Trump. If true, "from now on" until 2028 Trump himself is a sort of security guarantee for Ukraine. Because Putin won't want to get in the way of all the things Trump will break. If true, it is a silver lining in the cloud of his betrayal of Ukraine. That also gives the EU and Ukraine four years to get their shit together on security guarantees, if they can. Because under Trump it is clear that the US is unreliable as shit to our allies. Quote
Moses Posted March 3 Posted March 3 25 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said: Trump has revealed in clear terms that he is a traitor who sides with Putin's view of the world, unlike 95 % of Americans. Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted March 3 Author Members Posted March 3 15 minutes ago, Moses said: Again, thanks. You are proving AI is stupid. It actually does cite the You Gov/Economist poll I am referring to. Trump said that Ukraine started the war. In the UN, he amazed the world by having the US (along with Russia, and North Korea) vote against a resolution calling Russia the aggressor. In fact, only 4 % of Americans say Ukraine started the war. So Trump actually disagrees with 96 % of Americans on that. It's not an exaggeration. It's treason, as far as I am concerned. The same poll shows that only 3 % of Americans sympathize with Russia more than Ukraine. Anyone watching that Oval Office slap down could logically conclude that Trump does not sympathize with ungrateful Ukraine. But he talked a lot about what poor Vlad and him had to go through together, when Vlad interfered in US elections. So I think it's fair to say Trump sounds like he disagrees with 97 % of Americans, who do not sympathize with Putin and Russia the way he does. Again, Mike Johnson twisted himself into a pretzel disagreeing with Trump while blaming Zelenskyy for saying my people need security guarantees. I sympathize with poor Mike Johnson, having to cover up and lie for Trump all the time. You did not answer my question, so I will repeat it: And on this subject, I have a question for you, our local Russia expert. Assuming there is some kind of cease fire or "peace" agreement, whatever form it takes, do you think Putin would break it while Trump is POTUS, and try to take all of Ukraine again? Again, I think the answer is no. Trump is Putin's great gift. I think Putin will take the win, and let Trump break US alliances and be the insolent pig he is. I've said several times, and will keep saying, it is a huge win for Russia. Putin and his piglet obviously feel that way. But I at least hope the silver lining for Ukraine is that Trump and Putin both have to appease each other. And MAGA does not support Putin. So hopefully Putin will act like he wants peace while Trump is POTUS. I hope. What do you think? Quote
Moses Posted March 3 Posted March 3 11 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said: In fact, only 4 % of Americans say Ukraine started the war. So Trump actually disagrees with 96 % of Americans on that. It's not an exaggeration. It's treason, as far as I am concerned. Fact checking shows what you sucked that "fact" from your middle finger: Quote
Moses Posted March 3 Posted March 3 39 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said: And on this subject, I have a question for you, our local Russia expert. Assuming there is some kind of cease fire or "peace" agreement, whatever form it takes, do you think Putin would break it while Trump is POTUS, and try to take all of Ukraine again? Putin need 3 things form the start. Rated by importance: 1. Neutral status of Ukraine (means staying out of any military blocks, Putin is OK with Ukraine in EU). You call it "interests of national security" when explaining your invasions to Vietnam, Laos, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on... 2. Protection of Russian minority in Ukraine - restoration of Russian language as second state language (at least in regions where Russians are 10% or more share of population - on the east from Dnepr river + Odessa region), Russian schools in these regions, Russian-language TV, radio and newspapers. 3. Elimination pro-Nazi regime of Zelenskiy (mostly means resignation of Zelensky and installing of Ukrainian control of far right movements in Ukraine, dissolving all SS and Nazi-glorificating parties and movements) And since Ukraine declined Istanbul peace talks in 2022 and Russia accepted new 4 regions joining Russian Federation after that, he now wants to keep these regions. Just reminder - in Istanbul Russia was ready to leave these 4 regions (not Crimea tho!) to Ukraine. Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted March 3 Author Members Posted March 3 11 minutes ago, Moses said: Fact checking shows what you sucked that "fact" from your middle finger: Great, Vlad. I cited the source. But you don't believe facts. Third time in a row, thank you. You are good at proving how stupid AI is. Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted March 3 Author Members Posted March 3 4 minutes ago, Moses said: 1. Neutral status of Ukraine (means staying out of any military blocks, Putin is OK with Ukraine in EU) Thanks for a clear answer. That is the big one, of course. And I think it is clear that Putin has won that, at a very steep price for both Russia and Ukraine. This may not be entirely fair. But I do blame this on W. His two great horrors were the Iraq War and the Global Financial Crisis. The first was clearly his fault. I blame the second on him as well, since he ran all the regulatory agencies that at the very least tolerated Wall Street building a mortgage time bomb. But W.'s insistence that Ukraine had to join NATO could be seen as a third time bomb, that just took longer to go off. John Mearsheimer is one of my Top 10 academics that I listen to a lot. He is viewed by some as a Putin apologist. But mostly what he talks about is how Ukraine joining NATO was of course always going to be an existential threat to Russia. I think the honest statement that has to be added to that now is that the US turned out to be a paper tiger. If Ukraine wanted to be part of NATO, and the US was absolutely determined to make it so, that is one thing. But the US has basically shown again it is unreliable in the long run. So with 20/20 hindsight I think W was the original sin back in 2008. Congratulations. If Putin's goal was to keep Ukraine out of NATO, I think he won that. At least for a long time to come. That said, no one forced Putin to invade. It's not like Zelenskyy was just about to sign a treaty joining NATO. Quite the opposite. W.'s original sin in 2008 - if we view it as a sin - was that it was an empty promise. Ukraine was divided about NATO until Putin invaded. Now they are unified in hating Putin, and wanting nothing to do with Russia. So the ironic thing is that, now that Ukraine is unified around hating Russia and wanting to be in NATO, suddenly Trump wants to take away the empty promise. History has many strange and sad turns. Quote
Moses Posted March 3 Posted March 3 59 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said: That said, no one forced Putin to invade. It's not like Zelenskyy was just about to sign a treaty joining NATO. It is exactly Zelensky fault and reason for invasion: in 2019 under pressure of Zelensky and far right parties, Ukraine had added article 85 to national constitution: "Ukraine included its path to NATO in its Constitution in 2019. The changes were part of a constitutional reform that enshrined Ukraine's aspirations for NATO and European Union membership. Specifically, a clause was added to Article 85 of the Constitution, affirming Ukraine’s aim to join NATO and the European Union." After it Russia warned Ukraine many times what any movement in this direction will cross "red line". There were many attempts to resolve problem by diplomacy, including meeting of Putin and Zelensky in Paris on December 9, 2019. Putin told to Zelensky what Russia is OK with Ukrainian membership in EU, but membership in NATO is not acceptable. But the West at that time encouraged Ukraine in every way to continue moving in this direction and reassured that Putin would not go into confrontation, and if he did, the West would support Ukraine as much as necessary. (Hello, Boris Johnson) And now we have what we have. Correction: changes in constitution were made under prev. president of Ukraine - Poroshenko, in Feb 2019. Zelensky became president in May 2019. Boris Johnson visited Ukraine in 2018 during his tenure as Foreign Secretary. On December 12, 2018, he made a trip to Kyiv Ukraine implemented changes to its Constitution on February 20, 2019, 2 months after his visit Zelensky became the President of Ukraine on May 20, 2019 Putin and Zelensky had meeting on Dec 9, 2019 bucknaway 1 Quote
Moses Posted March 3 Posted March 3 And here are more facts to think about (collected by ChatGPT search): Quote
Moses Posted March 3 Posted March 3 how long was Russian-Ukrainian peace talk in Istanbul? ChatGPT said: The peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul on March 29, 2022, lasted for one day. Initially, the meeting was scheduled for two days, but the discussions were concluded within the first day. The Ukrainian and Russian delegations met in person in the Turkish capital, marking a significant moment in diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. Despite some progress, the talks ended without a concrete resolution, and Ukraine later withdrew from continuing the discussions english.alarabiya.net nationalinterest.org . 4o mini You said: Who was head of Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul? ChatGPT said: Searched 3 sites The head of the Ukrainian delegation during the Istanbul negotiations with Russia in March 2022 was David Arakhamia, the leader of the "Servant of the People" faction in Ukraine's parliament. He played a key role in outlining Ukraine's proposals for a new system of international security guarantees, emphasizing the importance of legally binding commitments from various countries to ensure Ukraine's defense in the event of aggression voanews.com president.gov.ua . 4o mini You said: What Arahamia said about reason of withdrawing from peace talk late? ChatGPT said: Searched 3 sites David Arakhamia, the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, explained that Ukraine withdrew from the peace talks in March 2022 for several reasons. Firstly, the agreement proposed by Russia, which included neutrality and a pledge not to join NATO, required a constitutional change in Ukraine. There was no trust that Russia would honor such an agreement, and Arakhamia expressed concerns about the possibility of Russia returning with a more prepared invasion. Additionally, although Boris Johnson advised Ukraine to reject any agreement with Russia and continue fighting, Arakhamia clarified that this advice was not the main reason for the Ukrainian withdrawal. Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted March 3 Author Members Posted March 3 Brzezinski Interview 1998 Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski on Afghanistan in Le Nouvel Observateur So this post will be really off the rails. I am long winded, anyway. But this one is a bunch of complicated but fascinating ideas. In summary, my point is that I would be quite worried that Putin just won a huge battle, but will still lose the war. This post is about Afghanistan and Poland, in particular. And the point is that Zbig, as I will call him, was a native Pole who was the hawk in the Carter Administration. His theories about how these national conflicts play out over the long haul have sure proven to be accurate, every time. His belief in the Carter years was that Poland was too culturally different than Russia for the Warsaw Pact to last. And the job of the US was to gradually and slowly engage in positive ways and pick that alliance apart. That strategy obviously worked under Reagan and Bush 41. Putin would argue that if any country is just like Russia, it is Ukraine. I've never been to Ukraine. So what do I know? But I suspect Zbig's theory is right in this case, as well. Whatever peace or truce or stalemate is created, this will never be forgotten or forgiven by Ukrainians. At some point, when Brezhnev Andropov Gorbachev Yeltsin Putin is dead, Ukraine will probably get their chance for what they all now want: to get out of Russia's orbit forever. Trump will just be a sad chapter in history. The way I got to Brzezinski and 1980 is something Jeffrey Sachs said in that interview I posted above. Sachs is the peacenik who I admire. He is sympathetic with Putin's view, that somehow Putin was almost forced to invade because of NATO. Sachs claimed in the article I posted that Zbig admitted before he died that he and Carter started funding the Afghan rebels even before Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan. He said their goal was to lure the USSR into a Vietnam-like trap. I had never heard that before. So Sachs railed against the US, and also indirectly the USSR. Both empires broke this poor nation Afghanistan for 40 years, he argues. No wonder people hate the US, and the USSR or Russia. We treat their countries like toys, break them, and walk away. I agree with his overall rant about US and USSR and Russian imperialism. He is largely right. Exhibit A for me on the US side is always the Iraq War. But part of Sachs' point is that Afghanistan was a disaster for both the USSR and the US. Brezinski's theory was that this kind of subjugation is always easy to gradually pick apart, if you try. So he thought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, a country that has always repelled outsiders, was a sitting duck. He was right. This is from the 1998 interview of Zbig I hyperlinked above Quote Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists? B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Famous last words. Little did Zbig know that those agitated Muslims would attack America in 2001, and draw the US into the same quagmire. So both the US and USSR are guilty of enormous amounts of stupidity and hubris. Sachs is wrong on his point about Zbig, I think. I found some 104 page essay on this topic from 2012 and read the whole thing. Carter and Zbig did not lure the US into Afghanistan. They of course did not want the invasion. In part because it made Carter look weak. Zbig's point is that if the Soviet Union does invade, we will help the indigenous rebels turn it into the their VietNam. The first installment from the US was only $500,000 in non-lethal aid, given months before the invasion. When it was pretty clear the USSR would invade. So my rejoinder to Sachs is that Afghanistan has done a pretty good job fucking up their country on their own, thank you. When neither the USSR nor US were helping. But it does speak to how even the biggest superpowers in the world can not subject people who don't like them for long. The really fascinating parts of that essay go into great detail about how the beginning of the end of the Warsaw Pact started under Carter. Again, Zbig's theory was that people in Poland and the Iron Curtain wanted to be free. So he pushed the idea that instead of being afraid of provoking Breshnev, we should be doing everything we can to promote Western values and ideals in Poland. Fate intervened, and perhaps God was on Poland's side for once. Zbig met Pope John Paul II when they were both nobodies. They became immediate allies, Poles who hated the USSR domination. In a few years Zbig was in the White House, and we had our first Polish Pope. They talk about when the Iron Curtain really ended was when John Paul II went to his Polish homeland in 1979. We all know the history. It took another very messy decade or so for Poland to become a free market democracy, and for the USSR to collapse. But Zbig's basic theory has proved true, whether in a Muslim nation like Afghanistan or Catholic Poland. When Zbig and Reagan and the Pope set about to turn all these cultural and political and economic cracks into canyons, it really wasn't particularly hard. I think Ukraine falls into exactly the same historical pattern. I'm quite sure the CIA manipulated the hell out of Ukraine. Just like Putin has manipulated US elections. Did the CIA actually set a trap for Putin to invade Ukraine, knowing it would be a quagmire like Afghanistan? First, there is no proof. Second, I doubt it. Much like Carter did not want to be seen as weak when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, I don't think Trump or Biden or anyone wanted Putin to invade Ukraine. Whether it was intended or not, has Ukraine been a trap for Russia? Yes. I think it has. It killed lots of Russians. It screwed up your economy. And so far what you have is a bloody stalemate. And while it seemed objectively true 10 or 20 years ago that Ukrainians were neutral if not friendly to Russia, that world is gone. They hate you. They just spent years killing you. Zelenskyy was undiplomatic in the Oval Office for a reason. His people clearly hate Putin, and don't trust Russia to do anything but kill them, rape them, and steal their children. Trump has put Republicans in the impossible position of having to argue everything Zelenskyy says about Putin is true. But he should resign for saying so. Even though most Americans and Ukrainians agree with him. Putin did not have to invade. I think everything Brzezinski argued correctly would play out in Afghanistan and Poland and the rest of the Warsaw Pact will probably play out in Ukraine as well. You and I agree, I think, that as long as Trump is POTUS there will be some kind of peace or truce or stalemate in Ukraine. Neither Trump not Putin will want to mess with each other. So that is potential good news. I don't think Trump will convince the US, or the EU, that Putin is now our ally. Quite the opposite. But there will be a cold peace, at least. I would be worried that this is much worse than Poland in 1980. The reality is that the USSR could have invaded and crushed Poland in 1980, and almost did. The fact that they were bogged down in Afghanistan actually saved Poland from an invasion, some former Brezhnev associates have argued. But I'm sure the USSR could have crushed Poland's nascent rebellion if they tried. They did try to crush Ukraine. And it failed, badly. So now everyone gets a time out. But there is no reason to think the Ukrainians won't be just like the Poles. I think Putin walked into it a trap of his own making. Check with me in a decade, when Trump is long gone. And Putin is either old, or dead. Quote
Moses Posted March 3 Posted March 3 16 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said: It killed lots of Russians. war can't be without deaths, but Russians are on contract there, they aren't state's slaves as Ukrainians are 16 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said: It screwed up your economy. well, Russian economy growing year by year, only exception was 2022, when Russia had to rebuild it logistics. You can compare: Russian GDP grew in 2024 4,2% while American 1.8%, Germany -0.3% and so on. Even Ruble, about which Biden told it is 200:1 USD in 2022 and reader spoke about 108:1 few weeks ago now is 88:1 USD. 16 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said: USSR It is wrong to compare USSR and Russia, Poland and Ukraine - main reason: Russia has no ideology. It is directly forbidden by Russian constitution, while driver of USSR action in Poland was ideology. Driver of current conflict is national security of Russia. Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted March 3 Author Members Posted March 3 1 hour ago, Moses said: It is exactly Zelensky fault and reason for invasion: in 2019 under pressure of Zelensky and far right parties, Ukraine had added article 85 to national constitution: Ukraine included its path to NATO in its Constitution in 2019. The changes were part of a constitutional reform that enshrined Ukraine's aspirations for NATO and European Union membership. Specifically, a clause was added to Article 85 of the Constitution, affirming Ukraine’s aim to join NATO and the European Union. After it Russia warned Ukraine many times what any movement in this direction will cross "red line". There were many attempts to resolve problem by diplomacy, including meeting of Putin and Zelensky in Paris on December 9, 2019. Putin told to Zelensky what Russia is OK with Ukrainian membership in EU, but membership in NATO is not acceptable. But the West at that time encouraged Ukraine in every way to continue moving in this direction and reassured that Putin would not go into confrontation, and if he did, the West would support Ukraine as much as necessary. (Hello, Boris Johnson) And now we have what we have. Putin can, and in fact has, come up with an endless list of grievances about how Ukraine or NATO forced him to invade. But no one forced him to invade. The easy way for me to agree with your basic point is to go back to Bucharest in 2008. Donald Trump was a reaction to many things. But many of those things were George W. Bush. In the film version, I would send the 2025 version of Donald Trump back to Bucharest, I would have him show W. what the bloody current outcome would be for Ukraine. I'd also show him the devastation in Iraq. And the humiliating end in Afghanistan. I might add January 6th, and point out that the reaction against you led to this. George. And add how his Veep's daughter is now persona now grata among the new MAGA Republican Party. I don't think W. planned on any of that. So my hope is he would react in abject horror, and shut the fuck up about Ukraine joining NATO. On an objective level, it is now clear that no good came of it so far. Kissinger at the time said that Ukraine should be a neutral bridge between Russia and the West. Maybe that was a better idea. That said, I think the same holds true for Putin. This is clearly a good moment for Putin. Maybe a bit like W. under his "Mission Accomplished" sign in Iraq. Famous last words. But W. actually thought he had won in Iraq. All Putin has is a bloody stalemate. My argument, which you won't agree with, is that this has already gone badly for Putin. And it's not going to end well in the long run. It is interesting that you focus on 2019 in your journal of grievances. Trump was President then. And he would kick you out of the Oval Office, too, @Moses, for suggesting that he did not have his buddy Vlad's back. So what if Zelenskyy did this or that? Trump wasn't going to let them join NATO. Nor was Biden. Nor did Biden. Nor will Trump now. It's a weak argument to say that Putin had to invade Ukraine because of something that has been talked about for 15 years, but has always been an empty promise. I will repeat again that, for all his horrors, I would take Trump over W. in a heartbeat. At least this version of the Republican Party isn't launching an adventure like Iraq. And if Harris had won I think there would have been pressure to find a way to freeze the stalemate, too. So I'm personally good with a break in the forever wars. And its now clear that both Ukraine and the EU won't make it easy for Trump to throw their interests under the bus to make a deal Putin would love. Quote
Moses Posted March 3 Posted March 3 2 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said: It's a weak argument to say that Putin had to invade Ukraine because of something that has been talked about for 15 years Then read my post again: Ukraine implemented to Constitution it way to NATO in 2019, not 15 years ago. And 3 years took attempts to resolve problem by diplomacy, including meeting of Putin and Zelenskiy in Paris in December 2019. Quote
