UA-RU-NATO War & Ukraine Peace Talks | DISCUSSIONS

[Snowfall]

"Sign this ceasefire that doesn't benefit you at all, and we'll make sure there's a loaded gun to your head for the next few years to keep you in line."

Something tells me this isn't going to pan out given that Russia is not exactly fighting a losing battle right now. Unless I guess the consequences for not signing are much worse, but I expect Russia would simply take that kind of coercion as an act of aggression, that's their playbook lol.

I read the AP article it sounds like they’re were talking about a hypothetical peace deal not the proposed 30 day ceasefire.

 

[Gargolu]

Of course people were concerned, but wipe out Ukraine? Hypersonics feel like they should be saved for actual military targets, moreso with tactical warheads. Just showing them off like that doesn't change anything, it's kind of the equivalent of shooting ducks with a bazooka. Will it do the trick and scare off birds? Yep. Expensive and not really worth it? Yep.

well to be technical the British did use the punt gun to wipe out flocks of birds so they can eat not bazzzzzzzzukas.

 

[william]

Putin would only attack NATO if it were undermined, looked weak, or lacked unity which is exactly what Trump is doing to NATO by weakening alliances and casting doubt on U.S. commitments. Undermining NATO doesn't prevent war, it invites it.

There are other ways to address funding issues without acting like a 12-year-old child throwing a fit and burning bridges like malevolent children which are unlikely ever to be mended, even after Trump.

Other ways, what other ways and how have they worked out since the end of WWII to get Europe's defense spending up? One of the greatest powers of the oval is the bully pulpit and Trump is using it. The US wants to focus on the far east and is dragging Europe kicking and screaming to pony up for their collective defense. IMO

 

[william]

A costly pointless move meant to scare and manipulate gullable people in the west into not supporting Ukraine. Still empty threats.

Also real world testing value was probably great for Russia as it's a new missile. Probably main reason it was used. Besides to scare gullable westerners. Two birds one stone?

Empty threats until they aren't.

 

[william]

You like to use this line a lot, but without much substance at all.
There is reasoning, and there is also not really much of a specific claim to source, as it is obviously a reasoned observation.
If you'd like, point out what specific claim you need a source for, and I will provide it.
Hell, perhaps point out which claims are made without any reasoning, and I'll provide it, but as far as I can see, the entire post is reasoning for one claim that is made as an observation: that the GOP functions like a cult based on faith, and that the users here flipping like a dime fluidly based on whatever the rhetoric is as reflective of this as anyone else being able to fluidly shift their worldview based on what their leader says.
Otherwise, this is nonsense. It's simply being used as a thought terminating cliche, repeated like a broken record but with no actual productive direction to take the conversation, only to end it.

Lots of people like to do this "SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE?" stuff without ever specifying what they are looking to source when they disagree with someone, but then conveniently never do when they agree: because it's not about the source, or making sure the information on the table is backed up and accurate, but about shutting up the "enemy" and "winning".
Intellectual honesty is what I care about and tbh this seems to not be a place where it is common. There is a reason nobody conducts debates like this, because it is completely unproductive not conducive in the slightest to effective flow of conversation & 99% of the time the person will only look at the headline anyway, and now take into account that it's more casual than that.
Again - be specific and commit to good-faith discussion of the sources and I will happily take the time to provide them, though in this case, please be specific about what you need me to source.

I can say the same about the dems. I remember years ago my wife was thinking about switching sides because the GOP was weak and spineless, letting the left walk all over them and she wanted to be with a winner. Remember "we must pass this legislation so we can find out what's in it." She was pretty P.O. that the GOP wouldn't stand up and fight. My how times have changed.

 

[Yingyang]

Empty threats until they aren't.

Each to their own.
Some while dieing of the effects of nuclear weapons can still brag to their last breathe how they won a nuclear exchange.

 

[Winnitude]

I can say the same about the dems. I remember years ago my wife was thinking about switching sides because the GOP was weak and spineless, letting the left walk all over them and she wanted to be with a winner. Remember "we must pass this legislation so we can find out what's in it." She was pretty P.O. that the GOP wouldn't stand up and fight. My how times have changed.

To preface my reply: this now at this point has very little to do with Ukraine lol. If mods want to move this to politics I would totally see why. I am only responding to the point made.

I would agree when it comes to the dems. In the original post that staff deleted, I call out the dems too, mentioning that they're simply not the topic at hand or in power, but exhibit the same tendencies, albeit has not gotten nearly to the same point. I believe OReid quoted this reply at some point here so the text should still be available.

I don't understand this kind of "Well what about the dems! They're just as bad!" type stuff, it's only whataboutism that serves to muffle thought on one topic by saying "No look over here!" at the other, and usually is quite partisan in nature.

When the dems are next the topic of conversation, let alone in power, I will absolutely continue to criticize them as I always have, and if they do the same level of cult-like behavior, I will call it out the same way, rest assured. Partisanship is ridiculous - policy can only be measured by its outcomes and goals and not which color tie is worn by the person who submitted it. I don't buy that kind of nonsense. If the GOP has a position I think based on the information I know and the data I'm aware of will lead to better material conditions for people, I'll support it, and if it looks like it'll lead to worse, I'll be against it. Same with the dems. (It tends to play out that the GOP has more policy that will make life worse for the average person, so I am more against them, but the democratic party establishment are spineless cowards who also serve nobody but their donors while paying lip service to progressive causes, competent in terms of keeping the lights on for the most part and statistically better for the economy regardless of narratives, so I am at least against them up until the point of believing in voting for harm reduction if the other option will cause worse outcomes).

It does tend to be lesser I find at least in broad strokes though, at least in current year - Anecdotally, most dems I know are "Yeah I fucking despise this useless, spineless, center party that won't do anything but sit around and keep the lights on but it's about preventing the harm the other guy'll do", which, broadly is much more objective of a position than most republicans I know, it seems to be like a 20% concentration for lefties in my circles to be culty and closer to 60% for the right, which generally lines up with existing studies that poll for the prevalence of extremely fringe beliefs in the parties, but of course this is only anecdotal and is not meant to be figures to base a conclusion about the entire political spectrum about obviously, but, as human beings, we do draw at least some of our understandings from our life experiences.

And as a side tangent,
I do think it's a big part of why Kamala failed, you can't run an uncharismatic, weak candidate for a party that has to sell itself to its base all over again because it has a fundamental distaste for its base and drops their interests like a sack of bricks after every election, especially when that base holds such distinct and opposing views, ie. dems basically split in half on issues like Gaza, rather than being more unified behind a particular policy package or figure.
Perhaps if this was coming right off the Obama years, she did run a better campaign than Hillary (as low a bar as that is) and maybe that momentum could have helped her. But not coming off Biden's shit-show (even if he objectively had one of the best economic recoveries in recent history under his policy, the PR shit-show was just way too much damage).

 

[Yingyang]

Can someone please separate the political discussions that don't mention the thread title subject please. And those wrapped up in political issues refrain from continuously talking general political issues in threads that are designed for other discussion points. This issue is rife in many threads nowadays not solely related to the title topics.

 

[Winnitude]

Can someone please separate the political discussions that don't mention the thread title subject please. And those wrapped up in political issues refrain from continuously talking general political issues in threads that are designed for other discussion points. This issue is rife in many threads nowadays not solely related to the title topics.

Agreed - to quote my reply : To preface my reply: this now at this point has very little to do with Ukraine lol. If mods want to move this to politics I would totally see why. I am only responding to the point made.

 

[Yingyang]

Agreed - to quote my reply : To preface my reply: this now at this point has very little to do with Ukraine lol. If mods want to move this to politics I would totally see why. I am only responding to the point made.

Wasn't solely targeting you as several members have been doing this alot lately in threads-sections not suitable as it moves away from original topic.
Politics should remain in politics section. Should politics be part of another topic than it should be referred to in politics section.
Thankyou for your understanding.

 

[RiffRaff]

To preface my reply: this now at this point has very little to do with Ukraine lol. If mods want to move this to politics I would totally see why. I am only responding to the point made.

Please respond to it by creating a new discussion thread in Politics, and then linking to it in this thread.

 

[DarkNoon]

Post in thread '**Domestic Politics** in Military & Geopolitical Subsections'

Mar 13, 2025

Unfortunately you cannot remove politics from somthing like this as it is politics that is driving it. Try as you might, but politics is 110% involved in Russias unprovoked, illegal, genocidal, full scale invasion of Ukraine.

It's politics that gets aid to Ukraine, it is politics that determines any peace deal, politics determines this whole fucking situation. In fact war is just another means/form of politics or at least when diplomacy/politics fails.

Just because it is uncomfortable for some doesn't mean you should remove it. But do as you wish. War has ALWAYS involved politics...

• DarkNoon

• 

 

[Winnitude]

deleted

 

[Unidentified]

To be clear: Putin has not 'agreed' to the U.S. proposal for a 30 day ceasefire. His proposal is entirely different and contains multiple additional conditions that Ukraine will almost certainly never agree to.It's incredibly important media communicates this accurately.

Putin is trying to obfuscate his refusal of the American proposal - by trying to add additional conditions he knows Ukraine will never accept - whilst outwardly giving the impression he is accepting the agreement.

And this is exactly the wrong way to report it. Putin hasn't agreed to the American proposal. He's attempting to propose his own ceasefire agreement.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1900216980788892115

So he is nogtiating. The Art of Negotiating.

Staff Edit: Please keep personal political commentary out of discussion threads.

 

[OReid]

So he is nogtiating. The Art of Negotiating.

Staff Edit: Removed deleted portion of quoted post.

So extrapolate that out to simply refusing to negotiate with the Russian gov in its current form.
That leaves us with continuing this war till their “criminal gov” capitulates or falls.
I’m prepared to support that if all of nato is as well. Not just weapons but troop. Up to and including peace keepers, to nato forces entering the fight now, to giving Ukraine nuclear weapons.
That also must include a complete cut off of all hydrocarbons to Europe and Canada from Russia. The blacklisting of freighters via Loyd’s of London reinsurance of ocean freighters which convey Russian oil to third parties and all western banks that facilitate business payments with Russia.
Does anyone think any of that will happen?

I’m not prepared to endlessly support Ukraine in a conflict they very well might lose in the long run.
That is the one victory we should fear most. Not a negotiated settlement.

Fight it to win or negotiate to end it.
That’s not abandoning allies or bootlicking.
It is a rational approach to this war and its risk and cost.

 

[DarkNoon]

(@staff attacking the argument not him, just felt the need to clarify with the heavy moderation lattly...)

Fight it to win or negotiate to end it.
That’s not abandoning allies or bootlicking.
It is a rational approach to this war and its risk and cost.

No it's not. Giving Putin everything he wants to end the war is not the right choice no matter how you put it or whatever lame excuse is being thown at the wall to apease a genocidal, land-grabby, dictator, and hoping it sticks to the American people without looking spineless from not standing up to Putin and bowing to his nuclear threats.

No one is saying fight the war forever either which isn't right too.

Not sure why it has to be one extreme or the other extreme as if there are only two choice to make whenever Trump or his Reps. talk about a peace deal in Ukraine. Just blows my mind.

There are more then two choice to make and purposely presenting only two options is intentionally creating red herrings and is entirely incorrect manufacturered statement meant to purposely mislead people into thinking those are the only two choice. Which they are not.

 

[RiffRaff]

(@staff attacking the argument not him, just felt the need to clarify with the heavy moderation lattly...)

No it's not. Giving Putin everything he wants to end the war is not the right choice no matter how you put it or whatever lame excuse is being thown at the wall to apease a genocidal, land-grabby, dictator, and hoping it sticks to the American people without looking spineless from not standing up to Putin and bowing to his nuclear threats.

No one is saying fight the war forever either which isn't right too.

Not sure why it has to be one extreme or the other extreme as if there are only two choice to make whenever Trump or his Reps. talk about a peace deal in Ukraine. Just blows my mind.

There are more then two choice to make and purposely presenting only two options is intentionally creating red herrings and is entirely incorrect manufacturered statement meant to purposely mislead people into thinking those are the only two choice. Which they are not.

I would have phrased this a little differently, but I do agree with multiple solutions being available, IF people would pursue them. Very rarely is war or politics binary in nature.

 

[OReid]

(@staff attacking the argument not him, just felt the need to clarify with the heavy moderation lattly...)

No it's not. Giving Putin everything he wants to end the war is not the right choice no matter how you put it or whatever lame excuse is being thown at the wall to apease a genocidal, land-grabby, dictator, and hoping it sticks to the American people without looking spineless from not standing up to Putin and bowing to his nuclear threats.

No one is saying fight the war forever either which isn't right too.

Not sure why it has to be one extreme or the other extreme as if there are only two choice to make whenever Trump or his Reps. talk about a peace deal in Ukraine. Just blows my mind.

There are more then two choice to make and purposely presenting only two options is intentionally creating red herrings and is entirely incorrect manufacturered statement meant to purposely mislead people into thinking those are the only two choice. Which they are not.

So aside from the fact you don’t like how Trump is approaching this.

Exactly what is the long term outcome for the war. It’s fairly evident that the combined war effort of Ukraine and nato’s support is not pushing Russia to capitulate.
So how long should this effort be continued and what are the real world outcome of this war continuing. Do you have a plausible plan on how it might conclude favorably?

Or do we just continue it out of some principled hubris. Telling ourselves we are the righteous and this righteousness will validate any outcome. Be that another 100,000 dead, Ukraine falling, or greater war across Europe and Russia with all of the possible consequences there.

Im not proposing red herrings, they are real world potential outcomes.

I agree with you we cannot capitulate to Russia’s ridiculous demands. I disagree that this is what Trump has done or is heading for.
It’s a process that is all I’m saying.
I argue the either or because in the end this is what it comes down to.

 

[OReid]

I would have phrased this a little differently, but I do agree with multiple solutions being available, IF people would pursue them. Very rarely is war or politics binary in nature.

I haven’t argued a binary solution. There are multiple ways it could play out.
We can continue on as we have done unabated supplying Ukraine with weapons.
In doing this Russia might capitulate eventually.
We can demand Ukraine has nato troops for security.
We could give Ukraine nukes, highly unlikely.
We can continue on supporting Ukraine until their government falls.
We can send troops in now.
We can employ diplomacy to try and start talks now. Rather than continuing on with our ongoing support for Ukraine.

It is true there is many outcomes in war. Public support for the war in nato nations could flip even more and all military aid is suspended.

As far as ending the war with force I only see nato entering the fight to win the fight or cause Russia to stand down.

I cannot see endless military support for Ukraine bringing the war to a palatable outcome for Ukraine or nato.

So in ending the war quickly I only see negotiations or threat of force by nato to accomplish this.

 

[DarkNoon]

I would have phrased this a little differently

Trust me I am trying...