Trump, Putin Summit

[Publius]

You are not wrong. Trump didn’t show up with much to offer from Putins pov as from the wests point of view we are only mediators, not a party to the conflict. Of course this is technically true but the UA would have collapsed years ago without our help.

Russia is going to find life quite a bit harder if Trump is to be believed. I guess we are at the end of the road. Trump has said for years now he would unleash the UA with all the weapons of war we currently reserve from them. Number one being long range fires on strategic targets. Currently the UA can fudge the border on clear tactic targets (assembly points, supply points etc)

So where are we? After what would normally be an acceptable first round (no break down on talks), Putin smiled like a Cheshire cat and delivered nothing of apparent value. Trump has demanded a cease fire or massive escalation. I suppose it’s time to remove the Geo Fences and put Russia on defense for a while.

Unfortunately only way to end this invasion appears to be to attack Russia were they live, eat sleep and pray. See how they like having their Apartments, Shopping malls and Churches struck.

Personally I think it would be a great place to combat test Rapid Dragon as the UA is sans bombers. The problem is exactly as you described: we only have around -2500* and needs hundreds if not thousands more in the increasingly likely event of War with China.

Trumps release that they (Ru UA) need a Peace Treaty not a Ceasefire sounds really great but it just means Putin didn’t budge.

*Rapid Dragon and JASSM et al, are open source based on contract quantities and extrapolating the work in Troy.

(Sorry if I was remotely close, Bob)

What is most remarkable for me is the willful ignorance to first ignore that almost all initial diplomatic meets as one such this seldom produce groundbreaking announcements.
It’s brevity was telling and other that WAG no one can say for sure what it indicates.

Second is the almost suicidal insistence to do nothing to try and bring about an end to a 31/2 year war involving Russia and US via proxy. 31/2 years of formal and informal elevated nuclear threat concerns.
Is this not something working towards concluding?

That personal political biases dictate hope for failure, rather than chance of deescalation.

I say this as one of the few here who has stated almost from the beginning that direct involvement of US troops actually fighting in Ukraine would not just be required to prevail. But doable in regard to the risk matrix of escalating beyond Ukraine or conventional weapons.
But no one it seems willing to bite on that hook.


After 31/2 years of western weapons volume and lethality incrementally expanding. Some here still believe there is some silver built to kill the werewolf.

The effort to tie support of Ukraine to some form of patriotic domestic litmus test is laughable. Ukraines existence or non-existence has very little to do with any real security concerns for the US or NATO for that matter

Wow your concerned about nato security? Imagine all that money and weaponry having been poured into actual Eastern flank NATO members states. Instead of expended in Ukraine.

How many ATACAM’s and patriot batteries could have been deployed to the Baltics.
What would a battery of MSLR’s I. Northern Finland mean to Russia less than a hundred miles from Murmansk or St Petersburg.

But we would rather celebrate no apparent breakthrough as proof of failure.

Putin’s a “Prick”. But he’s Russias prick and who we are stuck dealing with.
But somehow in the twisted diplomacy of TDS. Calling a nations who’s leader, has enough nukes to carpet bomb Europe, “a killer”. Is somehow more diplomatically wise than trying to treat them as a leader of a nation state.

Some in the west seem hell bent for war and destruction of Putin. Just as long as it can be done without involving western troops or casualties.

How’s that worked out.

When all of Ukraine falls to Russia I hope you enjoy the memory of the smug indifference felt with the no compromise approach to Ukraines future.

Will what Trump is trying to do work? I have no idea. I do know the odds Ukraine driving Russia from eastern Ukraine are virtually nonexistent. But sure let’s just keep doing g the same thing expecting different results.

 

[william]

Why wouldn't they? The US/Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites was a strategic failure (regardless of what the WH would have you believe); Iran remains a nuclear threshold state with an intact stockpile of enriched uranium, and they're restarting their nuclear program as we speak.

And the president stated that if this is the case they will get hit again.

Iran is also not militarily threatened by the US - except for airstrikes, which do not win wars. With the US (aka the "Great Satan") in a tailspin - domestically and on the international stage - time is obviously on their side.

American tanks could be in Tehran inside a week, and they know it. Hell, the Israelis go do it on their own.

Bottom line: you cannot simply play whack-a-mole with Iranian nuclear facilities. This is a losing strategy.

Yes you can. America has the ability to bomb iran back to the stone age if we choose to do so.

 

[Deleted account]

Because the far right is secretly ashamed of themselves. Or know I'm right and can't defend their pathetic and morally perverted position so they go to personal attacks. But their transparent responses did them no favor by only showing their true side and it certainly is not American but the exact opposite.

Couple of points:

• The notion that the other side is "secretly ashamed of itself", while alluring, is false - at least in my experience. I've spoken to many people from the other side of the barricade (in fact, I continue to do so), and I have no reason to believe they harbor any sort of shame about their views. More broadly, the capability to feel shame is somewhat uncommon among humans, and cannot be expected from your interlocutor - especially when there are no outward signs of it.
• There is no such thing as "American" or "un-American" behavior. It's just a cultural trope; always has been. As America evolves (in this case - in the direction of a fascist dictatorship), the concept of what it means to act in an "American" way evolves as well. What used to be regarded as anathema becomes mainstream - and the other way around. Nations are always evolving; there's never a fixed point of reference that you could invoke and say "that's what being American should look like!"

 

[Publius]

Do you both believe that Trump would have gotten the same welcome if he were to arrive in Moscow, with Russian soldiers rolling out a red carpet for him, and Putin allowing him to verbally dress down Russia's efforts in Ukraine, all before Putin is able to speak? I do doubt whether the Russians would be so gracious of hosts. And I'm wondering why we gave Russia the time of day in the first place, nonetheless rolling out the red carpet for him, when he had already made clear that he had no interest in true diplomacy with Ukraine. Spin it as normal or procedural all you want but at the end of the day Putin isn't quite the same as any other world leader. He is a war criminal actively engaged in an illegal invasion that hasn't been seen in scale since WW2. So I ask again like I did before, how is this any different from Chamberlains meetings with Hitler? In the sense of allowing your adversary to take control of diplomatic processions?

Oh FFS like when we label groups and individuals terrorist and fly predator drones over sovereign nations launching hellfire missiles. Or overturned Libya with weapons and air attacks. I simply can’t understand this level of naïveté

 

[NuclearID]

Darknoon offers legitimate criticism and commentary on this topic why the abrasiveness?

Because they have no defense beyond bluster they retreat to personal attacks the moment they are challenged.

They know they can't justify their morally bankrupt positions so they lash out instead of debating substance. Desperation is transparent and it exposes them more than anything I could say.

Their responses is weakness laid bare. Every time they dodge, deflect, or sneer, they prove they have no argument, only noise an doing so they reveal the ugly truth defending what Trump did is morally bankrupt, repugnant, and honestly frightening some Americans okay with this.

 

[Deleted account]

And the president stated that if this is the case they will get hit again.

They'll just dig deeper and eventually all those bombs will be capable of achieving is disfiguring some countryside - without causing any damage to the critical facilities. Iran knows that; surely someone at DoD knows that as well. I'm prepared to believe they do not realize that at the WH (again, due to headless chicken syndrome).

American tanks could be in Tehran inside a week, and they know it. Hell, the Israelis go do it on their own.

Ladies and gentlemen - behold the in-depth strategic insight coming from a DWS Member of the Year.

Yes you can. America has the ability to bomb iran back to the stone age if we choose to do so.

No. Iran is a huge country with a population of over 90 million (10 times larger than Israel; 3 times larger than Ukraine - and not far below Russia). You obviously cannot "bomb it into the stone age" (whatever does this even mean...?), at least not with conventional weapons.

 

[Publius]

Couple of points:

• The notion that the other side is "secretly ashamed of itself", while alluring, is false - at least in my experience. I've spoken to many people from the other side of the barricade (in fact, I continue to do so), and I have no reason to believe they harbor any sort of shame about their views. More broadly, the capability to feel shame is somewhat uncommon among humans, and cannot be expected from your interlocutor - especially when there are no outward signs of it.
• There is no such thing as "American" or "un-American" behavior. It's just a cultural trope; always has been. As America evolves (in this case - in the direction of a fascist dictatorship), the concept of what it means to act in an "American" way evolves as well. What used to be regarded as anathema becomes mainstream - and the other way around. Nations are always evolving; there's never a fixed point of reference that you could invoke and say "that's what being American should look like!"

Well given that you both did such a through and pointed criticism of conservatives. Many of whom are members here.
Let me just say you’re both daft and have no comprehension of who those you seek to slander actually are or what they believe.

 

[Deleted account]

What is most remarkable for me is the willful ignorance to first ignore that almost all initial diplomatic meets as one such this seldom produce groundbreaking announcements.

...and this is precisely why you don't organize major summits on a whim. The result is plain for all to see: instead of any productive outcome you ended up with a dick-wagging contest - and pretty much all observers came away with the impression that Putin's is much longer.

In a parallel world where countries are run by actual adults, you first discuss these matters in private - often through intermediaries. You gauge whether there's any space for an agreement, and if so - what exactly is to be agreed on. Then you call the summit where your head honchos sign on the dotted line. Key point: the summit itself is just media circus for the masses; everything of substance gets decided long before any government planes take off.

Clearly nobody told Trump.

Some in the west seem hell bent for war and destruction of Putin. Just as long as it can be done without involving western troops or casualties.
How’s that worked out.
When all of Ukraine falls to Russia I hope you enjoy the memory of the smug indifference felt with the no compromise approach to Ukraines future.

Yeah, I agree. Many in the west are still deluded into believing we won't actually end up in a hot war with Russia. I can sort of see why that's the case - it's certainly a bitter pill to swallow. But this does not excuse any leaders who are doing their utmost to follow in the footsteps of one Neville Chamberlain.

 

[Deleted account]

Well given that you both did such a through and pointed criticism of conservatives. Many of whom are members here.
Let me just say you’re both daft and have no comprehension of who those you seek to slander actually are or what they believe.

I don't presume to have precise comprehension of who my adversaries are, or what they believe. None of us do. I'm merely explaining what it looks like on the outside.

In fact, I don't even mind the personal attack - clearly this is a heated discussion, so allowances must be made.

 

[william]

With this you have realized more than most, Now you know how some of us on the left felt towards Biden with the weapon restrictions and lackluster responses... The best thing that could happen right now is for Trump's supporters to convey subtlety or not, how Trump mishandled the situation.

How so? Meeting to discuss peace I would not call mishandling wither it succeeded or not. I'll take that any day.

Sure the demonstration of force can be argued, but how does any of that hold meaning while we simultaneously show that we treat our adversaries better than our allies?

Oh I don't know, maybe the "Satan II ICBM" might have something to do with it.

It should be commonly agreed upon that the dressing down of Zelensky and the shameful, 'Why aren't you wearing a suit?' comment, was an awful way to show strength.

Wasn't it Zelensky that called out POTUS on national TV. Why didn't he wear a suit? I would if I was invited to the WH. Putin wore one to the summit, it's the only respectful thing to do.

It's sad to see the parallels being drawn so fast but when Trump so blatantly offers the comparison, why wouldn't we point it out? Optics are important, not just pertaining to military strength but also TACT and faculties of the mind, which Trump seems to be EXTREMELY lacking in.

I dunno, I think the optics of not taking any questions, cancelling the luncheon and returning to the WH was pretty powerful.

 

[Peter Griffin]

How so? Meeting to discuss peace I would not call mishandling wither it succeeded or not. I'll take that any day.


Oh I don't know, maybe the "Satan II ICBM" might have something to do with it.

Wasn't it Zelensky that called out POTUS on national TV. Why didn't he wear a suit? I would if I was invited to the WH. Putin wore one to the summit, it's the only respectful thing to do.

I dunno, I think the optics of not taking any questions, cancelling the luncheon and returning to the WH was pretty powerful.

So under that rationale we should be making as many concessions to Putin as possible because of their stockpile of nuclear weapons? We should go against what is right because they have nuclear weapons? How on Earth does that do anything but embolden Putin to make more and more nuclear threats and sabre rattling? You all can't simultaneously be okay with Trump and Medvedev playing nuclear hot potato with 8 billion lives and a couple extremely well armed submarines, and also against holding Putin accountable in the face of his bellicose threats. It's either one or the other, Peace through strength, or Peace through submission.

If you had actually read the statement released by Zelensky's office months prior to the meeting, or had just been been monitoring the UA administration at even the lowest capacity, then you would have known that he does not wear a suit, in HONOR OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN. Don't know why respecting the fallen defenders is such an odd concept to grasp for some on the right. Honoring those who defend your freedom comes tenfold above honoring a man who has earned nothing in his life, and instead act's like the world needs to earn the right to have HIM. I'm sorry I've tried to be as cordial as possible but if you can't take the small amount of time to fact check yourself on the substance that you are writing than I feel this discussion is completely useless.

 

[Deleted account]

Oh I don't know, maybe the "Satan II ICBM" might have something to do with it.

You should have never let Russia grab you by the proverbial balls like that.

Now you're just going to keep retreating until there's nowhere to retreat to. An ironic twist of fate for a nation that prides itself on the defense of the Alamo...

 

[Deleted account]

So under that rationale we should be making as many concessions to Putin as possible because of their stockpile of nuclear weapons? We should go against what is right because they have nuclear weapons? How on Earth does that do anything but embolden Putin to make more and more nuclear threats and sabre rattling?

Of course that's what they're gonna do, and I've been saying it for years (including right here, on DWS). Trump lost this game of chicken the moment he publicly admitted how scared he is of nuclear war. This was a catastrophic mistake. Now Putin (and Xi, and comrade Kim, and anyone else who doesn't like the US) know they can press their advantage. And you better believe they will.

Biden - for all his shortcomings - at least understood how this game is played: you hand your opponent a piece of sandpaper and keep silent as they vigorously massage their own undercarriage (to quote Yahtzee Croshaw).

 

[william]

They'll just dig deeper and eventually all those bombs will be capable of achieving is disfiguring some countryside - without causing any damage to the critical facilities. Iran knows that; surely someone at DoD knows that as well. I'm prepared to believe they do not realize that at the WH (again, due to headless chicken syndrome).

Then the number of bombs going down the same hole one after the other will just increase completely destroying whatever is in there.

Ladies and gentlemen - behold the in-depth strategic insight coming from a DWS Member of the Year.

Not from me. Fact from history. "Three weeks into the invasion of Iraq, Coalition Forces Land Component Command elements, led by the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division, captured Baghdad. The invasion of the city commenced three days after Allied forces led by Major General Buford Blount and the 3rd Infantry Division had secured the Baghdad airport.

US officials said that their forces fought skirmishes there with the Iraqi Special Republican Guard, with two task forces going up to the Tigris river from the southern outskirts of the city before moving west towards the airport. Major General Victor Renuart said the intention was to indicate to the Iraqi leader that coalition forces could move in and out of Baghdad whenever they wished. US forces occupied two "presidential palaces." The Army also surrounded the Information Ministry and other key government installations.

Battle of Baghdad (2003) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No. Iran is a huge country with a population of over 90 million (10 times larger than Israel; 3 times larger than Ukraine - and not far below Russia). You obviously cannot "bomb it into the stone age" (whatever does this even mean...?), at least not with conventional weapons.

Yes you can. Look at gaza or allot of cities in Ukraine. Or how about Germany or Japan in WWII. The US had to literally save cites in Japan from complete destruction so we could test the bomb.

 

[Deleted account]

Then the number of bombs going down the same hole one after the other will just increase completely destroying whatever is in there.

No. That's not how bombs work. It is my personal and subjective opinion that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes you can. Look at gaza or allot of cities in Ukraine.

I do, actually, look at the cities in Ukraine - and your statement makes me think you don't. In Kyiv it's actually (mostly) business as usual - public transit operates, garbage gets collected, cafes are full of people - other than the occasional air raid and the ubiqitous sightings of military vehicles and people in uniform, you'd hardly know there's a war going on at all. Same goes for most other Ukrainian cities, TBH.

Or how about Germany or Japan in WWII. The US had to literally save cites in Japan from complete destruction so we could test the bomb.

This is because most of the public infrastructure in Japanese cities was made of wood, which made it very susceptible to carpet bombing using incendiary munitions. None of which is true in the case of Iran (and besides, carpet bombing is not a thing anymore).

Saying "that's what happened in WW2 in Japan, so therefore that's what's gonna hapen now in Iran" is utterly ludicrous.

 

[william]

Of course that's what they're gonna do, and I've been saying it for years (including right here, on DWS). Trump lost this game of chicken the moment he publicly admitted how scared he is of nuclear war.

They are just as scared of nuclear war as we are. As everyone should be.

This was a catastrophic mistake. Now Putin (and Xi, and comrade Kim, and anyone else who doesn't like the US) know they can press their advantage. And you better believe they will.

Biden - for all his shortcomings - at least understood how this game is played: you hand your opponent a piece of sandpaper and keep silent as they vigorously massage their own undercarriage (to quote Yahtzee Croshaw).

 

[Deleted account]

They are just as scared of nuclear war as we are. As everyone should be.

No, not anymore. Now they know there will be no retaliation coming, at least not from the US.

I've already suggested this - and I know it's a bit of a wild scenario - but it occurs to me that Russia could actually launch a surprise first strike against the US right now, and count on Trump not retaliating, because surely his good friend Putin would never do that to him - so, therefore, the generals must be lying about all those incoming Russian missiles. IT'S ALL FAKE NEWS!

 

[Publius]

He's not going to stand up to China either.

The man has been throwing people under the bus to save himself all his life. You think he's not gonna upgrade to throwing countries under the bus - now that he has the power to do so?

An army of sheep led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by a sheep.
- Alexander the Great

Yeah and Alexander the Great empire dissolved at his death.

 

[Deleted account]

Yeah and Alexander the Great empire dissolved at his death.

Nothing lasts forever. But what a great empire it was while he remained in charge...

 

[Publius]

So under that rationale we should be making as many concessions to Putin as possible because of their stockpile of nuclear weapons? We should go against what is right because they have nuclear weapons? How on Earth does that do anything but embolden Putin to make more and more nuclear threats and sabre rattling? You all can't simultaneously be okay with Trump and Medvedev playing nuclear hot potato with 8 billion lives and a couple extremely well armed submarines, and also against holding Putin accountable in the face of his bellicose threats. It's either one or the other, Peace through strength, or Peace through submission.

If you had actually read the statement released by Zelensky's office months prior to the meeting, or had just been been monitoring the UA administration at even the lowest capacity, then you would have known that he does not wear a suit, in HONOR OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN. Don't know why respecting the fallen defenders is such an odd concept to grasp for some on the right. Honoring those who defend your freedom comes tenfold above honoring a man who has earned nothing in his life, and instead act's like the world needs to earn the right to have HIM. I'm sorry I've tried to be as cordial as possible but if you can't take the small amount of time to fact check yourself on the substance that you are writing than I feel this discussion is completely useless.

Seems the British PM doesn’t agree with you. And he’s actually willing to put boots on the ground after a ceasefire.

And what concessions has Trump made? He has been clear that any final settlement will have to be agreed to by Ukraine.
This is just the mediation stage and if one was looking for some concrete plan to be fleshed out from this meeting. Your not paying attention or listening to to much TDS media.