• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DEFCON Warning System said:
I believe he said it. I don't believe that he will follow through on that when it comes to missiles flying.
Click to expand...
Oh he said it but it was in the context in and reaction to 3 years of Russian collusion accusations. Which as we now known much of it was fabricated by US and western intelligence agency officials.
Not Russia launching a war against the US.

Statements like Trump wouldn’t defend the US from a Russian nuclear launch are so over the top ridiculous. And stand in the face of how he has dealt with those who actually attack Americans. From Solemani, to the Wagner group to now the Houthis.
 
OReid said:
Oh he said it but it was in the context in and reaction to 3 years of Russian collusion accusations. Which as we now known much of it was fabricated by US and western intelligence agency officials.
Click to expand...
Well, he is blatantly ignoring current intel warnings that Russia still wants all of Ukraine - and saying (over and over again) that he believes Putin wants peace. Because Putin told him so. Therefore, it's an ongoing situation and not something that happened once in the past.

OReid said:
Statements like Trump wouldn’t defend the US from a Russian nuclear launch are so over the top ridiculous. And stand in the face of how he has dealt with those who actually attack Americans. From Solemani, to the Wagner group to now the Houthis.
Click to expand...
None of whom presented much real threat to the US. On the other hand, his obsequious urge to appease anyone with a handful of warheads (yes, even comrade Kim) is a constant. But of course I merely presented a hypothetical scenario. Everyone will make up their own opinions.
 
alphaecho said:
News: Zelensky, in response to my question for
@FT
tonight on zoom, said it was NOT all 4 of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants he and Trump were talking about US owning but “the one under temporary [Russian] occupation,” referring to Zaporizhzhia plant, that the US could potentially control if it is able to be “recover[ed].”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1902472107633545296
Click to expand...
Someone's lying here. That power plant is located in Russian-controlled territory, and I see no possible scenario under which Russia withdraws from it (remember they now consider all of Zaporizhia to be part of Russia). There's no way in hell Putin would offer to cede this territory to either Ukraine or the USA - in fact, he's constitutionally barred from doing so. Why Trump would even consider this a talking point is beyond my comprehension.

Unless Zelensky is wrong and Trump actually wants the remaining three Ukraianian NPPs. Note, however, that the US doesn't have the technical means to operate a legacy Soviet NPP (something Trump could be unaware of).
 
Socom7 said:
Well, he is blatantly ignoring current intel warnings that Russia still wants all of Ukraine - and saying (over and over again) that he believes Putin wants peace. Because Putin told him so. Therefore, it's an ongoing situation and not something that happened once in the past.
Click to expand...
The illusion of weakness and unwillingness to act, forces others to act and spend money. America can play the role of the late hero ( like ww1 and ww2 ) And there is no strategy at the current situation that could stop it from happening.
 
Erecon said:
The illusion of weakness and unwillingness to act, forces others to act and spend money. America can play the role of the late hero ( like ww1 and ww2 ) And there is no strategy at the current situation that could stop it from happening.
Click to expand...
Seems groundless to me.

You can either believe Trump is playing 5D chess, or that he's flailing with no real plan at all. My money's firmly on the latter, though - of course - YMMV.
 
The Americans have faith in Trump - flailing around would not have made him the US president. And I dont believe its Trumps strategy, US plans ahead and the president follows somewhat that plan. ( Trump got the guts to see it through, what the Americans wanted for 20 years now - pivot to China )
 
Erecon said:
The Americans have faith in Trump - flailing around would not have made him the US president. And I dont believe its Trumps strategy, US plans ahead and the president follows somewhat that plan. ( Trump got the guts to see it through, what the Americans wanted for 20 years now - pivot to China )
Click to expand...
Eh; let's just agree to disagree. 😅
 
Socom7 said:
Someone's lying here. That power plant is located in Russian-controlled territory, and I see no possible scenario under which Russia withdraws from it (remember they now consider all of Zaporizhia to be part of Russia). There's no way in hell Putin would offer to cede this territory to either Ukraine or the USA - in fact, he's constitutionally barred from doing so. Why Trump would even consider this a talking point is beyond my comprehension.

Unless Zelensky is wrong and Trump actually wants the remaining three Ukraianian NPPs. Note, however, that the US doesn't have the technical means to operate a legacy Soviet NPP (something Trump could be unaware of).
Click to expand...
Maybe not so much as operate but protect.
 
Cilvilt_beredskap said:
Maybe not so much as operate but protect.
Click to expand...
Then what's in it for the US? And also - protect against whom? If Russia takes over Ukraine then those power plants won't need protection from Russia. And even if it doesn't, Russia won't actually attack Ukrainian NPPs; they don't want more Chernobyls in what they consider to be their soon-to-be vassal state.

Honestly, this whole discussion about NPPs makes record amounts of no sense. Even moreso than the "minerals deal".
 
Socom7 said:
Well, he is blatantly ignoring current intel warnings that Russia still wants all of Ukraine - and saying (over and over again) that he believes Putin wants peace. Because Putin told him so.
Click to expand...
The US is worried about triggering a nuclear conflict.

The problem is, capitulating now simply invites a greater challenge in the future.

On the other hand, stand up to Russia now to prevent a clash later? How good of an idea is that?
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
The US is worried about triggering a nuclear conflict.

The problem is, capitulating now simply invites a greater challenge in the future.

On the other hand, stand up to Russia now to prevent a clash later? How good of an idea is that?
Click to expand...
Agreed with your first two Points.

On the last Argument I would say that we just can't afford to get the Russians a Pause. They stock up their piles and play the Aggressor later. And this Time maybe (IMHO shurely) with the EU, which leads to a bigger Conflict.

This is the crux: There are no such things as "good" decisions here, only strategic ones. The first Arguments mean that there will be more destruction, suffering and death in Ukraine, more Campaigns against all Western Countries and no one could foresee how much costs they/ we have to handle.
The second Argument means that all of this costs will payed later, with an uncertain outcoming.
Leads me to another Point: we (on our "Western Side") have nearly no definitions what our Goals are. Every single Country has its own interests here more or less. The EU tries to act as one, which is good for the future and the Unity of the Countries. Between the Letter, every Country will handle it's own interests.

But here's my Point from the Beginning. Where's the Goal and under what Conditions can we accept a Peace? This could be an Disadvantage and this is, how Putin and the Russian System can smart us out. They have Plans and Goals, some are open the Tables, others not.

Here's something to think about. The main Problem is not Putin alone, the System behind him also. Can we change the Russian System and what are the Costs?
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
On the other hand, stand up to Russia now to prevent a clash later? How good of an idea is that?
Click to expand...
This is the point I get stuck on all the time. Let’s say the west goes all in and donates all the weapons in the world to Ukraine and Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the Russian border. Let’s say Russia doesn’t sue for peace and says we’ll be back, continues to militarize builds up its stocks and does the same thing in 5/10 years now we’re right back to square one. The west isn’t going to invade Russia to force regime change or demilitarization so we’re effectively stuck with a perpetual conflict in Ukraine.
 
Snowfall said:
This is the point I get stuck on all the time. Let’s say the west goes all in and donates all the weapons in the world to Ukraine and Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the Russian border. Let’s say Russia doesn’t sue for peace and says we’ll be back, continues to militarize builds up its stocks and does the same thing in 5/10 years now we’re right back to square one. The west isn’t going to invade Russia to force regime change or demilitarization so we’re effectively stuck with a perpetual conflict in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately yes. Short of outright war, there are only two possible resolutions to a conflict of interest between nations:
  • Rules-based order that both sides respect
  • Arms race coupled with military standoff
Europe had had the former for 30 years (roughly since 1991) until Russia destroyed it. Now we're stuck with option #2. From the fact that the West has no intention of marching into Moscow it does not follow that we need to capitulate to Russian demands.

I'm reminded of that quote from Sin City:

We got to kill every last rat bastard one of them; every last one. Not for revenge. Not because they deserve it. Not because it'll make the world a better place. We need a heap of bloody bodies so when the mob boss looks over his charts of profits and losses, he'll see what it cost him to mess with the girls of Old Town.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I believe he said it. I don't believe that he will follow through on that when it comes to missiles flying.
Click to expand...
Another example: according to CIA assessments which have been shared with the WH, Ukrainian troops are not encircled in the Kursk salient (source). Yet Trump continues to insist that they are. Because Putin told him so.

Trump continues to trust Putin over his own agencies (you know, the people with the satellites). The question of how he would react in case of a nuclear attack is therefore perfectly valid - especially in light of what he would be forced to do to his good friend Putin if he did concede the truth.

IMO America is setting itself up for a nuclear Pearl Harbor. The way things are, Russia could smuggle a nuke into New York Harbor and detonate it, leveling the city, completely consequence-free. As long as Putin denies involvement, Trump would never blame him or retaliate against Russia, regardless of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Socom7 said:
Unfortunately yes. Short of outright war, there are only two possible resolutions to a conflict of interest between nations:
  • Rules-based order that both sides respect
  • Arms race coupled with military standoff
Europe had had the former for 30 years (roughly since 1991) until Russia destroyed it. Now we're stuck with option #2. From the fact that the West has no intention of marching into Moscow it does not follow that we need to capitulate to Russian demands.

I'm reminded of that quote from Sin City:

We got to kill every last rat bastard one of them; every last one. Not for revenge. Not because they deserve it. Not because it'll make the world a better place. We need a heap of bloody bodies so when the mob boss looks over his charts of profits and losses, he'll see what it cost him to mess with the girls of Old Town.
Click to expand...
I guess one side never really quit fighting the Cold War it’s time the rest of us caught on
 
Socom7 said:
Another example: according to CIA assessments which have been shared with the WH, Ukrainian troops are not encircled in the Kursk salient (source). Yet Trump continues to insist that they are. Because Putin told him so.

Trump continues to trust Putin over his own agencies (you know, the people with the satellites). The question of how he would react in case of a nuclear attack is therefore perfectly valid - especially in light of what he would be forced to do to his good friend Putin if he did concede the truth.

IMO America is setting itself up for a nuclear Pearl Harbor. The way things are, Russia could smuggle a nuke into New York Harbor and detonate it, leveling the city, completely consequence-free. As long as Putin denies involvement, Trump would never blame him or retaliate against Russia, regardless of evidence.
Click to expand...
Wouldnt it be better to blow up Norfolk instead then?
 
Socom7 said:
Unfortunately yes. Short of outright war, there are only two possible resolutions to a conflict of interest between nations:
  • Rules-based order that both sides respect
  • Arms race coupled with military standoff
Europe had had the former for 30 years (roughly since 1991) until Russia destroyed it. Now we're stuck with option #2. From the fact that the West has no intention of marching into Moscow it does not follow that we need to capitulate to Russian demands.

I'm reminded of that quote from Sin City:

We got to kill every last rat bastard one of them; every last one. Not for revenge. Not because they deserve it. Not because it'll make the world a better place. We need a heap of bloody bodies so when the mob boss looks over his charts of profits and losses, he'll see what it cost him to mess with the girls of Old Town.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with the rules based world order. It’s based upon the UN and all of its subsidiary org. The UN and its subsidiary org have not been consistent or even very successful in maintaining this order.
It has also over time degraded in its effectiveness and maintenance of these said rules.

Where were these rules when the US And Russia where instigating subversion coups and guerrilla was across Africa Latin america and Asia. Where was it when China invaded Vietnam.

It is a very very long list of rules based world order since WW2.
The International Court is used to justify convicting one leader of war crimes and ignored for another.

It’s an illusion, a tool used to justify accusations or accusations of competing nations.


Here is the problem with any “rules based” anything. In the end those rules it has to be known will be enforced.
To be enforced requires willing participation of nations with the ability and willingness to do just that.

So predictably this rules based world order doesn’t really project any actual rules or norms. Save those of those willing and able to enforce said rules.

Which in the end really only means those who are able to exert force are in reality still just enforcing their own will and interest when they believe they are able to do so successfully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom