Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
Here was Zelensky's scheduled interview after the WH summit:
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
A ceasefire does nothing because all it does is buy time for Russia to rebuilt and attack again.
And war means less atrocities then Russia winning because Russia's goal is genocide.
If EU sends troops we're in an intirely different scenario where NATO now have to envoke some protocols and it gets even messier much more quickly. To be fair, I'm all for it, but for the EU to just unilaterally send troops without US consent is kinda wild. That would be the big middle finger, which I'm not sure the world is ready for, perhaps Xi is, who knows. However, I'm quite sure many Western men are willing to go fight a war, there's this stifled aggression amongst many people (i.e. men) that needs an outlet of some sort and violence seems to be what they need.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
And while I'm not a fan of Trump's approach here, people acting like he's some traitor are probably the same people who think the bureaucracy has a God given right to be an opposition party whenever there is a Republican president. Trump won on this, public sentiment is no longer so lopsided. "The right side of history" people making fools of themselves yet again.
There are many sides to every deal.
Finland and Sweden just recently joined NATO. They have already have what they need to push back a Russian invasion.
The US has been spending way more money on the military than they need to for any plausible scenario. When they have actually used their sledge hammer, the results have been mixed to put it mildly.
Europe has spent less, but the military is the only part of the US public sector which can stand up to comparison to EU countries. If you were the EU, would you think: yeah, let's do that!
Of course the US wants the EU to spend more, but the main motivation is selling expensive weapons they know will never be turned against them.
Russia is weak, and will be in no position to invade anywhere for a long time. Assad folded in days, and Russia could do nothing to keep their trusted and strategically important ally. This is the "threat" we are facing.
As for these negotioations, the US and Russia deliberately exluded Europe from the talks leading up to this disastre. That Trump and Vance are Putin's bitches should be beyond obvious now. You can't cook up any exuses for them.
Hard disagree on Russia not invading anywhere else. Starting some kind of border scuffle with Estonia will be a high prototype because they want to publicly demonstrate that NATO is dead. People can still imagine NATO is alive when nobody is invoking it. They need an actual case to show that the US is now openly rejecting 80 years of alliances.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
I don’t think you know what the words you’re using mean. The EU was created to remove trade barriers between Western Europe, particularly Germany and France, to merge their economies and heavy industry to the point that they couldn’t go to war again. That was the explicit stated purpose of the European coal and steel community. No national trade barriers, free trade between member states, highly integrated economies.
The fact that you’re coming in here and saying “the EU was established for protectionism” just demonstrates that you are not a serious person with serious things to say on any subject.
On March 01 2025 19:35 Uldridge wrote: If EU sends troops we're in an intirely different scenario where NATO now have to envoke some protocols and it gets even messier much more quickly. To be fair, I'm all for it, but for the EU to just unilaterally send troops without US consent is kinda wild. That would be the big middle finger, which I'm not sure the world is ready for, perhaps Xi is, who knows. However, I'm quite sure many Western men are willing to go fight a war, there's this stifled aggression amongst many people (i.e. men) that needs an outlet of some sort and violence seems to be what they need.
The US has already left NATO, its just going to be a bit before they make that clear.
On March 01 2025 19:35 Uldridge wrote: If EU sends troops we're in an intirely different scenario where NATO now have to envoke some protocols and it gets even messier much more quickly. To be fair, I'm all for it, but for the EU to just unilaterally send troops without US consent is kinda wild. That would be the big middle finger, which I'm not sure the world is ready for, perhaps Xi is, who knows. However, I'm quite sure many Western men are willing to go fight a war, there's this stifled aggression amongst many people (i.e. men) that needs an outlet of some sort and violence seems to be what they need.
The US has already left NATO, its just going to be a bit before they make that clear.
The problem is that the rest of NATO will have to be proactive about it. Russia is better off with the US acting as a Trojan horse inside NATO.
The idea that EU is using Ukraine as a proxy war is a mind-numbingly stupid take. You can conceivably make the argument that there were players in the US who wanted the war / wanted to prolong the war because there are scenarios where they benefit from it, but how exactly has EU benefited? This argument is not remotely grounded in reality.
On March 01 2025 20:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: The idea that EU is using Ukraine as a proxy war is a mind-numbingly stupid take. You can conceivably make the argument that there were players in the US who wanted the war / wanted to prolong the war because there are scenarios where they benefit from it, but how exactly has EU benefited? This argument is not remotely grounded in reality.
This isn't even the stupidest take I've heard from a Chinese person gulping Russian propaganda via Chinese media.
A few Chinese colleagues/friends, for example, claimed that NATO started the war by blowing up Nord Stream... which happened half a year after the invasion (and wasn't done by NATO).
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
I mean, Europe and North Korea are incomparable. Kim Jong-Un sent troops to "support" Russia. They lied to the troops and said they'd be in logistical roles far from the front. And saying no to Kim Jong-Un is obviously not an option. Russia lying to troops has been a recurring issue this war. They've been recruiting all over Africa and South/Central Asia as well.
European countries are not going to send their troops to the front line under a false pretext, which means actually sending troops needs the buy-in of the citizens. While we're slowly reaching the point that it is being discussed, it is not surprising that sending EU citizens to go and die in a trench to Russian drones takes a long time to get any kind of traction.
Should Europe have been paying more attention to military for the last 15 years or so? Yes, in hindsight yes. But if you'd asked me 15 years ago, I would've said that the only reason we even need an army is for international peacekeeping missions. Europe was fairly convincingly at peace, and Russia was increasingly integrated in the trade network that "forced" Europe into peaceful conflict resolution rather than the awful military wars that had been the go-to for the previous 20 centuries or so.
2014 should have been a clear warning that Russia didn't really care about their economic integration, but nobody really listened. Clearly European nations made big strategic mistakes.
But that doesn't mean you should cheer on the US torpedoing their own foreign policy of the last 50-ish years. Those are separate issues. And obviously Ukraine is the most obvious victim here, of Europe's complacency and American whatever-the-fuck-this-is.
On March 01 2025 20:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: The idea that EU is using Ukraine as a proxy war is a mind-numbingly stupid take. You can conceivably make the argument that there were players in the US who wanted the war / wanted to prolong the war because there are scenarios where they benefit from it, but how exactly has EU benefited? This argument is not remotely grounded in reality.
Well, look, if you view Russia as an existential adversary, which Europe should now, there's a lot to be gained by having them feed their people and their economy into a meatgrinder indefinitely. Especially if that meatgrinder is some other country that you simply insert coins into every so often to keep it going.
Pouring money into Ukraine is the best geopolitical bang-for-buck that's been offered to the West for a long, long time. If Putler hadn't magically managed to take control of the White House at the same time, attacking Ukraine might have gone down as the stupidest thing Russia's done since Stalin starved half his own empire.
I'm not in any way suggesting that we started it or are intentionally prolonging it, but it's hard to argue that Russia shredding itself on a wall of spikes isn't beneficial. They were eventually going to attack someone and Europe would surely rather it be Ukraine than the Baltics.
On March 01 2025 20:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: The idea that EU is using Ukraine as a proxy war is a mind-numbingly stupid take. You can conceivably make the argument that there were players in the US who wanted the war / wanted to prolong the war because there are scenarios where they benefit from it, but how exactly has EU benefited? This argument is not remotely grounded in reality.
Well, look, if you view Russia as an existential adversary, which Europe should now, there's a lot to be gained by having them feed their people and their economy into a meatgrinder indefinitely. Especially if that meatgrinder is some other country that you simply insert coins into every so often to keep it going.
Pouring money into Ukraine is the best geopolitical bang-for-buck that's been offered to the West for a long, long time. If Putler hadn't magically managed to take control of the White House at the same time, attacking Ukraine might have gone down as the stupidest thing Russia's done since Stalin starved half his own empire.
I'm not in any way suggesting that we started it or are intentionally prolonging it, but it's hard to argue that Russia shredding itself on a wall of spikes isn't beneficial. They were eventually going to attack someone and Europe would surely rather it be Ukraine than the Baltics.
This is utter nonsense. The EU took a massive economic hit from this war. Prolonging this war does not benefit us. You're also ignoring the fact that our societies have accepted millions of Ukrainian refugees, and our politicians have seen the atrocities committed by Russia firsthand. Our politicians may be fallible, naive, stupid or corrupt, but most of them are not some cynical monsters.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
I don’t think you know what the words you’re using mean. The EU was created to remove trade barriers between Western Europe, particularly Germany and France, to merge their economies and heavy industry to the point that they couldn’t go to war again. That was the explicit stated purpose of the European coal and steel community. No national trade barriers, free trade between member states, highly integrated economies.
The fact that you’re coming in here and saying “the EU was established for protectionism” just demonstrates that you are not a serious person with serious things to say on any subject.
Is this the first day you interact with rest of the world? EU has a ton of trade jargon: tariff, quotas, NTB etc
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
I don’t think you know what the words you’re using mean. The EU was created to remove trade barriers between Western Europe, particularly Germany and France, to merge their economies and heavy industry to the point that they couldn’t go to war again. That was the explicit stated purpose of the European coal and steel community. No national trade barriers, free trade between member states, highly integrated economies.
The fact that you’re coming in here and saying “the EU was established for protectionism” just demonstrates that you are not a serious person with serious things to say on any subject.
Is this the first day you interact with rest of the world? EU has a ton of trade jargon: tariff, quotas, NTB etc
That the EU has implemented some protectionist policies (and especially as a response to protectionism from other countries) is wildly different from saying it was established for protectionism. The title of the article you linked to back up your point is 'Brussels Is Ditching Its Free-Trade Gospel' - indicative of the EU having championed free trade in the past.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Have you ever counted how much territory Russia/USSR has gobbled up over the centuries? The big difference is that this is a very real and recent threat in Europe. The US used to resist this from happening, and have fought multiple bloody wars to resist communism and USSR/Russia's sphere of influence.
This behavior marks a completely new direction, and I can't believe conservatives have flipped so quickly to defend their commander.
We knew Russia could not be trusted, but we now know the US can't be trusted either. The US is now a country without direction nor values, just some bullies using the stage of World politics as their own reality show.
Congratulations to the WH, they certainly got the "views" for this one.
On March 01 2025 20:12 Liquid`Drone wrote: The idea that EU is using Ukraine as a proxy war is a mind-numbingly stupid take. You can conceivably make the argument that there were players in the US who wanted the war / wanted to prolong the war because there are scenarios where they benefit from it, but how exactly has EU benefited? This argument is not remotely grounded in reality.
Well, look, if you view Russia as an existential adversary, which Europe should now, there's a lot to be gained by having them feed their people and their economy into a meatgrinder indefinitely. Especially if that meatgrinder is some other country that you simply insert coins into every so often to keep it going.
Pouring money into Ukraine is the best geopolitical bang-for-buck that's been offered to the West for a long, long time. If Putler hadn't magically managed to take control of the White House at the same time, attacking Ukraine might have gone down as the stupidest thing Russia's done since Stalin starved half his own empire.
I'm not in any way suggesting that we started it or are intentionally prolonging it, but it's hard to argue that Russia shredding itself on a wall of spikes isn't beneficial. They were eventually going to attack someone and Europe would surely rather it be Ukraine than the Baltics.
This is utter nonsense. The EU took a massive economic hit from this war. Prolonging this war does not benefit us. You're also ignoring the fact that our societies have accepted millions of Ukrainian refugees, and our politicians have seen the atrocities committed by Russia firsthand. Our politicians may be fallible, naive, stupid or corrupt, but most of them are not some cynical monsters.
A wave of refugees and a spike in energy prices is nothing compared to actually being attacked.
The cost of war in your own borders is so astronomically high that when it's really on the cards, almost anything that hurts your attacker's ability to follow through becomes a good deal. Just look at Ukraine itself. Russia could pull back to 2014 borders tomorrow and Kyiv would still be rebuilding for decades.
I'm quite happy to accept that you don't agree, but you're not being cynical enough. All the atrocities that Putler is committing in Ukraine are atrocities that he would commit in Europe if he could, and allowing him to bleed out over there greatly reduces his ability to do it to you.
The world is increasingly zero-sum. As long as Putin is in charge, Russia's loss is our gain.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
I don’t think you know what the words you’re using mean. The EU was created to remove trade barriers between Western Europe, particularly Germany and France, to merge their economies and heavy industry to the point that they couldn’t go to war again. That was the explicit stated purpose of the European coal and steel community. No national trade barriers, free trade between member states, highly integrated economies.
The fact that you’re coming in here and saying “the EU was established for protectionism” just demonstrates that you are not a serious person with serious things to say on any subject.
Is this the first day you interact with rest of the world? EU has a ton of trade jargon: tariff, quotas, NTB etc
As a reaction to American and Chinese protectionism...
Yes because the whole point of single market, is to have strong bargaining and market power. I.e. stronger tariff, quota, subsidies, admin policies etc free trade between EU nations does not make it not protectionism. Look at their extremely protected agriculture market, and dumping into Africa. Eggs and milk, sugar etc All thanks to massive subsidies.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Have you ever counted how much territory Russia/USSR has gobbled up over the centuries? The big difference is that this is a very real and recent threat in Europe. The US used to resist this from happening, and have fought multiple bloody wars to resist communism and USSR/Russia's sphere of influence.
This behavior marks a completely new direction, and I can't believe conservatives have flipped so quickly to defend their commander.
We knew Russia could not be trusted, but we now know the US can't be trusted either. The US is now a country without direction nor values, just some bullies using the stage of World politics as their own reality show.
Congratulations to the WH, they certainly got the "views" for this one.
What surprises me is republicans used to be tough on Russia during Reagan, they're mere puppets of Russia now.
On March 01 2025 21:23 Legan wrote: Can we get people to ditch suits as a protest? It would be a nice change in our culture and we have good cause for it.
Sadly, i cannot do anything here, because i cannot even remember the last time i wore a suit. Probably at my grandfathers funeral 2 years ago.
EPT
