| UA-RU WAR | NATO Crisis | ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

[Snowfall]

Zelenskyy "When our strikes reached Yandex’s data centers, it suddenly became a little easier to breathe on many social media platforms. A lot of people noticed it. There was less hate, less division, and fewer provocations. Because there were fewer bots. It’s pretty clear where those bots were"

https://twitter.com/x/status/2109602415397749044

Probably the best thing to come out of this war

 

[GBS61]

The US attitude reminds me of Turkey's:
Purges in the US military
At times pro-Russian

Don't count on this country to stop the Russians.

 

[teekay99]

Trump on Ukraine War:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2110891939314688415

Are we left to infer that Trump thinks Russia should be appeased simply because it is larger? Bullying and aggression is to be rewarded or if ignored simply because the aggressor is larger? Imagine if David was of the same opinion when it came to fighting Goliath....

I made a sight modification to this quote below, using a historical reference, which sheds a different light on the inference of Trump's quote...

Germany is a massive country. Germany can lose a million men, and they have lots of other millions of men. Poland (or heck, Czechoslovakia) doesn't have that kind of manpower.

 

[Publius]

Are we left to infer that Trump thinks Russia should be appeased simply because it is larger? Bullying and aggression is to be rewarded or if ignored simply because the aggressor is larger? Imagine if David was of the same opinion when it came to fighting Goliath....

I made a sight modification to this quote below, using a historical reference, which sheds a different light on the inference of Trump's quote...

Germany is a massive country. Germany can lose a million men, and they have lots of other millions of men. Poland (or heck, Czechoslovakia) doesn't have that kind of manpower.

It’s true and this is not a reason to make final foreign policy decisions. However purely as a brass tacks tactical advantage of manpower it is a real advantage.

As far as Germany being able to lose. Million men. Technically that might be true. Now factor in the reality of would the German population tolerate losing a million men in a war with Russia under the current international relations realities.
Of course if Germany was viciously and repeatedly attacked they very well might be willing to suffer those looses. But today as the status of the war is?

After all the current realities, battle lines, financial impacts, and lastly military readiness. Not hypothetical ones are what nations make policy decisions on and commitments of troops to war.

Stating that Russia is able and willing to withstand losses of a million men. Is less of a statement of support than it is a statement of fact.

Take it as plausible fact. If Russia is willing to suffer immense losses regarding the conflict in Ukraine and NATO is not. All While Ukraine does have a population constraint and lower limit of losses they can tolerate.

That’s just a statement of fact, just because some don’t like hearing it does not make it a statement of support for Russia.
Unless someone knows something I don’t and European NATO’s is spooling up to engage Russia in the military defense of Ukraine.

Are we going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine and F___ S___ up? Or are we still holding on to the vanishing thin hope that a continued war of attrition with Russia will eventually prompt them to withdraw and surrender.

 

[teekay99]

It’s true and this is not a reason to make final foreign policy decisions. However purely as a brass tacks tactical advantage of manpower it is a real advantage.

As far as Germany being able to lose. Million men. Technically that might be true. Now factor in the reality of would the German population tolerate losing a million men in a war with Russia under the current international relations realities.
Of course if Germany was viciously and repeatedly attacked they very well might be willing to suffer those looses. But today as the status of the war is?

After all the current realities, battle lines, financial impacts, and lastly military readiness. Not hypothetical ones are what nations make policy decisions on and commitments of troops to war.

Stating that Russia is able and willing to withstand losses of a million men. Is less of a statement of support than it is a statement of fact.

Take it as plausible fact. If Russia is willing to suffer immense losses regarding the conflict in Ukraine and NATO is not. All While Ukraine does have a population constraint and lower limit of losses they can tolerate.

That’s just a statement of fact, just because some don’t like hearing it does not make it a statement of support for Russia.
Unless someone knows something I don’t and European NATO’s is spooling up to engage Russia in the military defense of Ukraine.

Are we going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine and F___ S___ up? Or are we still holding on to the vanishing thin hope that a continued war of attrition with Russia will eventually prompt them to withdraw and surrender.

I agree. It is a fact that Russia is larger in size and population. It has definitely been shown Russia is willing to absorb substantial manpower losses in Ukraine.

President Trump's manner of speaking generally relies on implication or listener/reader inferences to fill in gaps or arrive at full meaning/context. To me, based on his general manner of speaking, I feel that there is more to this statement than an utterance of mere fact most of the media and public already understand....

 

[Publius]

I agree. It is a fact that Russia is larger in size and population. It has definitely been shown Russia is willing to absorb substantial manpower losses in Ukraine.

President Trump's manner of speaking generally relies on implication or listener/reader inferences to fill in gaps or arrive at full meaning/context. To me, based on his general manner of speaking, I feel that there is more to this statement than an utterance of mere fact most of the media and public already understand....

You very well could be correct about that.

And “to me” this constant harping about Trump this or that, while few will admit that in order for Russia to be forced to withdraw it is going to take more than just sanctions and another four years of weapons sent to Ukraine.
If a person believes it is still the moral thing to help Ukraine win. Then we first at least have to be honest about what it might take to see that happen.
Then we should be shocked and appalled about Trump statements. Does his statements help to force a win, no absolutely not. They’re designed to force negotiations. We can keep doing the same old failed policies in Ukraine, we could escalate in a number of ways, or we can press for a settlement.

 

[teekay99]

And “to me” this constant harping about Trump this or that,

I'm not harping. I asked a question about where Trump's statement is leading us. It seems to support aggression because one side is bigger than the other.

If a person believes it is still the moral thing to help Ukraine win

I don't know if it's moral to help Ukraine win. But I do believe it is unjust to help Russia win. Diesel deals and statements that *might* seemingly at the very least recognize Russia's ability to be a regional bully appear to support Russia's aggression in some fashion.

Does his statements help to force a win, no absolutely not. They’re designed to force negotiations.

I'm not sure this tactic is working anymore (if it ever worked). It seems to be emboldening Russia.

We can keep doing the same old failed policies in Ukraine, we could escalate in a number of ways, or we can press for a settlement

True. Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The West appeased a European aggressor in 1938 and that aggressor broke the agreement. War broke out anyway. So maybe we don't appease the current aggressor in Europe.

But I get your point. The US does not have the will to escalate against Russia based on how things are progressing in Iran. A negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia is probably the quickest feasible course of action currently. I just don't think seemingly siding with Russia is the right thing to do here...

 

[Sentry]

I have to push back on Mr. Zelensky a bit.

Being invaded by Russia is valid grounds for martial law. How do you propose free & fair elections are held where everyone gets the opportunity to cast their vote while bombs are falling and 20% of the country is under the control of an enemy power? Holding elections under such circumstances not only exposes voters to danger as Russia might target the polling booths but also is not "free & fair". This is why there are no elections in Ukraine.

Zelensky's replacement would be more hardline & go tougher on Russia. If you were to replace him he'd only be replaced by someone who would be even less inclined to make a deal than him.

Every single president has immunity -- I could make the same argument for Trump who also shares this same immunity from civil & criminal prosecution -- this is a poor argument.

The "journalist" you're quoting (Diana Panchenko) is a known Russian propagandist, blames Ukraine for the war & all its consequences, spreads Kremlin-backed disinformation and twists facts to conform to the Russian government's narrative. She is a known Kremlin agent & her posts should be seen with extreme suspicion as such. Ukraine's SBU is currently investigating her for high treason.

80% of his predecessors being prosecuted does not mean he will be. It isn't valid reasoning to form such a conclusion.

I do not blame him at all for being honest & candid. Just to be clear about what happened this week:
- Trump cut a deal with Putin that will route ~$4B of American dollars to Russia. That money will be used to fund the war.
- Trump announced an "energy ceasefire" that was probably Putin's idea, that nobody except him knew about, surprised the Ukrainians, is structured to benefit Russia, and was immediately broken by the Russian military.
- When Zelensky spoke candidly about these terrible deals, the US cut off Starlink access in ways that made it harder for Ukraine to intercept Russian drones, and withheld intel about ballistic missile attacks that directly resulted in the death of Ukrainian children.
- Last week alone, Russia killed more than 150 civilians in Ukraine, including 33 in one strike on a bus stop.
America is de facto asking an ally being invaded by Russia to surrender. Of course they'd be upset!

 

[william]

Being invaded by Russia is valid grounds for martial law. How do you propose free & fair elections are held where everyone gets the opportunity to cast their vote while bombs are falling and 20% of the country is under the control of an enemy power? Holding elections under such circumstances not only exposes voters to danger as Russia might target the polling booths but also is not "free & fair". This is why there are no elections in Ukraine.

Zelensky's replacement would be more hardline & go tougher on Russia. If you were to replace him he'd only be replaced by someone who would be even less inclined to make a deal than him.

Every single president has immunity -- I could make the same argument for Trump who also shares this same immunity from civil & criminal prosecution -- this is a poor argument.

The "journalist" you're quoting (Diana Panchenko) is a known Russian propagandist, blames Ukraine for the war & all its consequences, spreads Kremlin-backed disinformation and twists facts to conform to the Russian government's narrative. She is a known Kremlin agent & her posts should be seen with extreme suspicion as such. Ukraine's SBU is currently investigating her for high treason.

80% of his predecessors being prosecuted does not mean he will be. It isn't valid reasoning to form such a conclusion.

I do not blame him at all for being honest & candid. Just to be clear about what happened this week:
- Trump cut a deal with Putin that will route ~$4B of American dollars to Russia. That money will be used to fund the war.
- Trump announced an "energy ceasefire" that was probably Putin's idea, that nobody except him knew about, surprised the Ukrainians, is structured to benefit Russia, and was immediately broken by the Russian military.
- When Zelensky spoke candidly about these terrible deals, the US cut off Starlink access in ways that made it harder for Ukraine to intercept Russian drones, and withheld intel about ballistic missile attacks that directly resulted in the death of Ukrainian children.
- Last week alone, Russia killed more than 150 civilians in Ukraine, including 33 in one strike on a bus stop.
America is de facto asking an ally being invaded by Russia to surrender. Of course they'd be upset!

It will all come out in the wash. As long as we still have a free press.

 

[alphaecho]

US lawmakers and President Zelensky are reportedly pitching a one-sided energy ceasefire in which Ukraine would stop striking refineries for 100 days, in exchange for Starlink coverage inside Russia to hunt Russian missile launchers.Sens. Wicker and Cramer are in Kyiv today.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2111119047030894773

 

[Publius]

I'm not harping. I asked a question about where Trump's statement is leading us. It seems to support aggression because one side is bigger than the other.


I don't know if it's moral to help Ukraine win. But I do believe it is unjust to help Russia win. Diesel deals and statements that *might* seemingly at the very least recognize Russia's ability to be a regional bully appear to support Russia's aggression in some fashion.

I'm not sure this tactic is working anymore (if it ever worked). It seems to be emboldening Russia.


True. Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The West appeased a European aggressor in 1938 and that aggressor broke the agreement. War broke out anyway. So maybe we don't appease the current aggressor in Europe.

But I get your point. The US does not have the will to escalate against Russia based on how things are progressing in Iran. A negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia is probably the quickest feasible course of action currently. I just don't think seemingly siding with Russia is the right thing to do here...

Fair enough on most points, I would not point out that no other European nation wants to escalate either.
I honesty don’t know if it is helping Putin. Certainly could be construed that way.
Do you believe Ukraine is listening and responding to the concerns of its allies. Again they don’t have to, but it’s not unrealistic that allies should be able to expect some cooperation.
If we are wanting a definitive win for Ukraine then is going to take more than sanctions and arms.

So if we can’t answer that issue and concern, what are we doing.

 

[Publius]

Being invaded by Russia is valid grounds for martial law. How do you propose free & fair elections are held where everyone gets the opportunity to cast their vote while bombs are falling and 20% of the country is under the control of an enemy power? Holding elections under such circumstances not only exposes voters to danger as Russia might target the polling booths but also is not "free & fair". This is why there are no elections in Ukraine.

Zelensky's replacement would be more hardline & go tougher on Russia. If you were to replace him he'd only be replaced by someone who would be even less inclined to make a deal than him.

Every single president has immunity -- I could make the same argument for Trump who also shares this same immunity from civil & criminal prosecution -- this is a poor argument.

The "journalist" you're quoting (Diana Panchenko) is a known Russian propagandist, blames Ukraine for the war & all its consequences, spreads Kremlin-backed disinformation and twists facts to conform to the Russian government's narrative. She is a known Kremlin agent & her posts should be seen with extreme suspicion as such. Ukraine's SBU is currently investigating her for high treason.

80% of his predecessors being prosecuted does not mean he will be. It isn't valid reasoning to form such a conclusion.

I do not blame him at all for being honest & candid. Just to be clear about what happened this week:
- Trump cut a deal with Putin that will route ~$4B of American dollars to Russia. That money will be used to fund the war.
- Trump announced an "energy ceasefire" that was probably Putin's idea, that nobody except him knew about, surprised the Ukrainians, is structured to benefit Russia, and was immediately broken by the Russian military.
- When Zelensky spoke candidly about these terrible deals, the US cut off Starlink access in ways that made it harder for Ukraine to intercept Russian drones, and withheld intel about ballistic missile attacks that directly resulted in the death of Ukrainian children.
- Last week alone, Russia killed more than 150 civilians in Ukraine, including 33 in one strike on a bus stop.
America is de facto asking an ally being invaded by Russia to surrender. Of course they'd be upset!

In 2025 European nato nations imported roughly 6 billion in Russian sourced crude products. Delivering 4 Billion in revenue last year alone to Russia.
Indian and Turkey refineries are the chief importers of refined Russian crude to Europe.
So maybe we should focus on what India and Turkey are doing to enable Russia. Remember last year when India was screaming bloody murder about expectations India limit their crud purchases from Russia.

July 2026 — Monthly analysis of Russian fossil fuel exports and sanctions – Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air

energyandcleanair.org

Europe India and Turkey are still importing refining and purchasing Russia crude LNG, and refined products
India reports July 2026 was the second highest volume of Russian oil imports on record.
This is why I’m cynical about wailings over the evil Intentions and betrayal of Trump and support of the tyrant Putin.

I have not said the track Trump is taking currently will be successful alone. In fact I believe it is going to require more strategic and tactical force to move the needle with Russia.
But looking for peaceful solutions by temporarily lifting diesel sanctions on Russia is no more betrayal or meant for evil than India importing record Russian crude or Europe still importing the majority of its LNG from Russia.
So all of this angst about Trumps betrayal or duplicity isn’t even thinly veiled hypocrisy.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

US lawmakers and President Zelensky are reportedly pitching a one-sided energy ceasefire in which Ukraine would stop striking refineries for 100 days, in exchange for Starlink coverage inside Russia to hunt Russian missile launchers.Sens. Wicker and Cramer are in Kyiv today.

Shortsighted and self-serving. Ukraine gets virtually no benefit from a one-sided cease-fire.

Russia can always make more missile launchers. Harder to make more refineries.