Russia

[benjii]

15 hours ago, whelk said:

I will give credit where due if Trump actually properly fucks Russia by fucking India with tariffs 

As soon as India offer him (not necessarily the US, him) something he'll TACO it as usual.

[whelk]

I’d forgive Trump for everything if he had the balls to call a hit in on Putin when he’s in Alaska. Fuck this diplomacy

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

I’d forgive Trump for everything if he had the balls to call a hit in on Putin when he’s in Alaska. Fuck this diplomacy

Agent Orange can't do anything against his handler.

[badgerx16]

I get the feeling that what has been implied in the media is "The Deal";

In return for agreeing to cease hostilities and freeze things on the current front lines, Russia gets to keep Crimea and gains that small part of Donetsk it does not currently occupy.

Ukraine gets "security guarantees", ( which will hopefully prove worthwhile this time around ), but cannot join NATO.

 

I don't think Putin will have agreed to give up anything he currently controls. Marco Rubio has said that "both sides must make concessions, if only one side does then that is surrender". I suspect that Russia's 'concession' is to agree to the security guarantees - Would it really indicate 'surrender' if Russia were to agree to withdraw from some of the occupied territories ? 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:48 by badgerx16

[egg]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

I get the feeling that what has been implied in the media is "The Deal";

In return for agreeing to cease hostilities and freeze things on the current front lines, Russia gets to keep Crimea and that small part of Donetsk it does not currently occupy.

Ukraine gets "security guarantees", ( which will hopefully prove worthwhile this time around ), but cannot join NATO.

 

I don't think Putin will have agreed to give up anything he currently controls. Marco Rubio has said that "both sides must make concessions, if only one side does then that is surrender". I suspect that Russia's 'concession' is to agree to the security guarantees - Would it really indicate 'surrender' if Russia were to agree to withdraw from some of the occupied territories ? 

 

 

 

Agreed. Russia will not want to withdraw from what they control - they want those 5 areas. 

Trumps tweet re NATO and Crimea was completely unnecessary ahead of today. Interesting as well that the initial meeting doesn't involve the Europeans. I had understood it was a multi person meeting, not bilateral. 

Trump and Putin have all but carved this. Today feels like a take it or leave it pitch, with a "we'll only support you if you concede" message. I hope I'm wrong. 

[badgerx16]

Just now, egg said:

Agreed. Russia will not want to withdraw from what they control - they want those 5 areas. 

Trumps tweet re NATO and Crimea was completely unnecessary ahead of today. Interesting as well that the initial meeting doesn't involve the Europeans. I had understood it was a multi person meeting, not bilateral. 

Trump and Putin have all but carved this. Today feels like a take it or leave it pitch, with a "we'll only support you if you concede" message. I hope I'm wrong. 

Trump only cares about being the 'peace maker'. If Ukraine don't agree to what he proposes then he will walk away and say "at least I tried".

Don't forget, he made the peace 'deal' with the Taliban in Afghanistan - look how that worked out. He also sponsored the January ceasefire between Israel and HAMAS. Perhaps he is hoping for 'third time lucky'?

 

[tdmickey3]

What ever is agreed and if it is, Putin is a lying cunt and will make up shit about Ukraine and start bombing again sometime in the future, he needs removing somehow

The prick cannot be trusted and the orange man baby will do what ever suits him....

[badgerx16]

Item 3 of Article 257 of U.S. Law No. 115-44

 

Quote: "This is U.S. policy – to never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation or the separation of any part of Ukrainian territory through the use of military force."

This law was signed in 2017 by U.S. President Donald Trump.

[Sheaf Saint]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Item 3 of Article 257 of U.S. Law No. 115-44

 

Quote: "This is U.S. policy – to never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation or the separation of any part of Ukrainian territory through the use of military force."

This law was signed in 2017 by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Interesting stuff. I can't wait to see how he's gonna spin that when he tries to convince Ukraine to accept the Russian gains. No doubt he'll deny any knowledge of it, and it's highly likely that he genuinely doesn't remember signing this into law.

[AlexLaw76]

52 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Interesting stuff. I can't wait to see how he's gonna spin that when he tries to convince Ukraine to accept the Russian gains. No doubt he'll deny any knowledge of it, and it's highly likely that he genuinely doesn't remember signing this into law.

The key is if Ukraine accept it.

[egg]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The key is if Ukraine accept it.

The key is continued US support if Ukraine don't accept it. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

The key is continued US support if Ukraine don't accept it. 

And continued US support will likely be linked to meeting the 5% spend on defence from European nations. 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

And continued US support will likely be linked to meeting the 5% spend on defence from European nations. 

Very possibly. 

And the security guarantee if they do accept could well be "we guarantee to supply Europe with info, hardware and weapons (at our usual outrageous prices) which they alone will be using, and that any retaliation from Russia will not necessarily trigger article 5". 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Very possibly. 

And the security guarantee if they do accept could well be "we guarantee to supply Europe with info, hardware and weapons (at our usual outrageous prices) which they alone will be using, and that any retaliation from Russia will not necessarily trigger article 5". 

Just watched the press conference of all the leaders around the table, and 5% defence spending was mentioned by Trump.

It is so obvious that, as you say, Europe will need to pay for US hardware/support because of years of disgraceful underfunding of our own forces have left us all completely hollowed out of machinery and capability

[Baird of the land]

11 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

I get the feeling that what has been implied in the media is "The Deal";

In return for agreeing to cease hostilities and freeze things on the current front lines, Russia gets to keep Crimea and gains that small part of Donetsk it does not currently occupy.

Ukraine gets "security guarantees", ( which will hopefully prove worthwhile this time around ), but cannot join NATO.

 

I don't think Putin will have agreed to give up anything he currently controls. Marco Rubio has said that "both sides must make concessions, if only one side does then that is surrender". I suspect that Russia's 'concession' is to agree to the security guarantees - Would it really indicate 'surrender' if Russia were to agree to withdraw from some of the occupied territories ? 

 

 

 

From what I’ve seen suggested was russian land concessions from small areas they hold in sumy/kahrkiv regions.

[tdmickey3]

This below is a good appraisal 

Analysis: We're further away from peace now - with Ukraine wishing Trump remembered key facts

By Dominic Waghorn, international affairs editor, in Ukraine

It's always wise to let the dust settle before reaching conclusions with this presidency.

But on the face of it, we are further away from peace now than we were two weeks ago. 

The consensus that held back then was that Vladimir Putin will only relent under maximum pressure.

He does not want slithers of territory. He wants the whole of Ukraine extinguished and absorbed into his greater Russia.

To stop him, allies agreed an immediate ceasefire was necessary and much more painful pressure, namely sanctions hitting his oil industry. Europeans and Republicans in Congress agree on that.

Vague security guarantees

Then came Alaska and Donald Trump's U-turn. No ceasefire and no more severe sanctions. So, less pressure.

Yesterday's reality TV diplomatic circus in Washington has not shifted him on that stance, so he stays - it seems - now aligned with Putin on those crucial points.

Making matters worse for Ukraine's allies seems to be accepting it will have to give up land taken by force. 

They sweeten the pill by saying of course only Ukraine can decide whether or not to cede territory, but there is now enormous pressure on Zelenskyy to do so.

In return, there is nebulous and vague talk of security guarantees. European leaders are seizing on the fact Trump did not rule out American troops being involved and hinted at US support for post-war security arrangements.

Putin facts

But that is little consolation for Ukrainians. They point out this president changes his mind as often as his socks and goes back on commitments, even those enshrined in international treaties.

The best that can be said for the White House meeting is it sets up more such meetings. 

Much of yesterday's events were focused on stroking Trump's ego. Many here would prefer he was reminded of a few hard facts about this war: Putin cannot be trusted. Putin wants the end of Ukraine. Putin will only relent under maximum pressure. 

Protracted international diplomacy may suit Trump's craving for attention, but the Ukrainians fear it will only take us further away from peace.

[badgerx16]

[Lighthouse]

[moonraker]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

is that the manger of the White House gift shop?