EPTSeems Ukraine doesn't even have to decline the deal, EU is doing it for them. Pretty good play to not give Trump another excuse to blame Ukraine for not accepting his own shitty deals
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 885
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8246 Posts
Seems Ukraine doesn't even have to decline the deal, EU is doing it for them. Pretty good play to not give Trump another excuse to blame Ukraine for not accepting his own shitty deals | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17707 Posts
The point about EU jets being stationed in Poland is very curious. Some people are speculating that's to prevent NATO fighters being stationed in the Baltics, Finland etc. Also, the point about sanctions being put back on if Russia attacks Ukraine again. But no mention of sanctions if Russia attacks the Baltics for example. I really don't know what goes through the minds of people who drafted this deal. Do they really think it's acceptable to anyone except the US and Russia? Do they also think that US and Russia can just dictate whatever they want to everyone else? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26496 Posts
It’s pretty obvious you can’t make negotiations that depend on third parties to uphold conditions without including said parties. | ||
Simberto
Germany11787 Posts
On November 21 2025 23:47 Manit0u wrote: The point about EU jets being stationed in Poland is very curious. Some people are speculating that's to prevent NATO fighters being stationed in the Baltics, Finland etc. That is pretty weird. Especially considering that there are already EU jets stationed in Poland. Poland is in the EU. They have jets. The EU itself doesn't have a military beyond that of its member states. On November 21 2025 23:49 WombaT wrote: What’s the US’ endgame with these various proposals? It’s pretty obvious you can’t make negotiations that depend on third parties to uphold conditions without including said parties. I think it is not the US that has any relevant game here, just Trump and his MAGAts. No idea what they are playing at, but Trump has made it very clear that he is only ever acting in the interest of Trump, not in that of the US. It is also quite possible that he thinks he can just state this, and then people will go along with it, or be forced to go along with it because he is so powerful and such an amazing dealmaker. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9288 Posts
On November 21 2025 22:31 Excludos wrote: There's a few laughable gems in there, such as No actual agreement, just an expectation.. so Poland will now be allowed to park their own jets in their own country..? But on a more serious note, a security agree from US without troops stationed on the ground and consitutional ban from joining Nato is a genuine no-go. The US can not be trusted. Even if Trump somehow intended to follow through on it, you're never more than 4 years away from someone who can just decide they don't want to. And lastly This is just greed on another level, and genuine mafia behaviour. Point 14 is one of my favorites. They want to take Russian money, demand additional 100 bilion USD from Europe, invest all of that in Ukraine according to their preferences and get 50% from the profits (not sure if it includes profits from European investments but anything is possible with this administration). How do you even rebuild your credibility as a reliable partner after tabling such proposals? Biden did an okay job at mending the transatlantic relations after Trump's first term but this is going to make everyone distrust the US for years. | ||
KwarK
United States43799 Posts
On November 21 2025 19:49 spets1 wrote: 5. Invading isn’t a better offer “International politics is not a dating service. Great powers use coercion when vital interests are at stake. The United States invaded Iraq, bombed Serbia, droned Libya – all to prevent unfavourable outcomes. Russia is doing the same. You may hate the means, but pretending great-power politics runs on kindness is liberal delusion.” 6. Sovereignty and “it’s not up to Putin” “Sovereignty exists only to the extent it can be defended. Tiny countries next to great powers do not have unrestricted Westbindung rights when the great power says its survival is at stake. Ask Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine is not Switzerland floating in the middle of nowhere; it is the most geopolitically sensitive piece of real estate in Eurasia. Great powers decide the security architecture in their backyard – always have, always will.” I enjoy this response because you're just agreeing with me. My argument is that Russia doesn't understand sovereignty. Russia believes it is an empire without borders, that it has a sphere which it is entitled to control that extends far beyond Russia. Russians believe that they, not Ukrainians, have the right to decide the fate of Ukraine. Your argument is that I'm completely right. That freedom is a lie, that tiny countries don't have freedom, that the strong are entitled to rule the weak by virtue of their strength. You make the comparisons with other Russian invasions like the invasion of Finland. Unfortunately for you, and over a million Russians at this point, it seems that the Ukrainians disagree. They seem to think that they have freedom. And, under the terms of your argument, they're actually right. Per your argument a country cannot be free if a nearby great power can simply roll over them the way that the United States did in Desert Storm. A country that can be rolled over in a week long campaign is not a free country. It deserves to be under the thrall of a great power. Ukraine is successfully defending itself. Therefore Ukraine is free. Russia is incapable of rolling its neighbours. Therefore Russia is not a great power. Your argument, not mine. If you believe that the great deserve to rule the weak then Russia does not deserve to rule Ukraine. You're also completely destroying all of your other talking points about Russian speakers or only wanting the Donbas or how Russia can be relied upon not to simply annex the rest of Ukraine if Ukraine were to abandon their defensive positions in the Donbas and disarm. Ukrainians believe that the Russian demands are made in bad faith as a way of weakening Ukraine and that Russia's desire is for total political control over Ukraine. Whereas you're coming in here and telling us that Russia requires total political control over Ukraine, won't settle for anything less, and can only be stopped through force of arms. That if Ukraine is weak enough then Russia deserves to control it. What you're saying about Russia's motives and the bad faith embedded within all of Russia's proposed agreements is exactly what the pro-Ukrainians are saying about it. You're agreeing with all of our talking points. Additionally it's weird that you're still insisting that Ukraine was seduced and corrupted away from Russia, not pushed, in the middle of an argument that also insists that Russia maintains the absolute right to dominate Ukraine. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5770 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2381 Posts
On November 21 2025 23:49 WombaT wrote: What’s the US’ endgame with these various proposals? Trump gets to say he ended a war that Biden couldn't and deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He's either unaware or doesn't care that he looks like a sniveling, weak fool that keeps getting played by Putin over and over again. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5770 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43799 Posts
He doesn’t understand why Ukraine doesn’t see that Russia is entitled to their land. Russia wants it and Russia is powerful and so Russia deserves it, why can Ukraine not see that. He would take Ukraine in their place, just like he’d take Canada and Greenland if he had the political dominance Putin had. It’s not strategic. It’s not a move. It’s the rapist inside him looking at Russia and going “game recognizes game”. | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
“If China or Russia built a military alliance and moved to include Mexico and Canada, the United States would never accept it – Monroe Doctrine 101. We are doing precisely what we would never tolerate in our own hemisphere. The fact that Canada is already in NATO is irrelevant; NATO was built when the only threat was the Soviet Union and the U.S. was the overwhelmingly dominant power. Try to add Mexico to a Chinese-led military alliance today and watch what happens.” 5. Invading isn’t a better offer “International politics is not a dating service. Great powers use coercion when vital interests are at stake. The United States invaded Iraq, bombed Serbia, droned Libya – all to prevent unfavourable outcomes. Russia is doing the same. You may hate the means, but pretending great-power politics runs on kindness is liberal delusion.” 6. Sovereignty and “it’s not up to Putin” “Sovereignty exists only to the extent it can be defended. Tiny countries next to great powers do not have unrestricted Westbindung rights when the great power says its survival is at stake. Ask Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine is not Switzerland floating in the middle of nowhere; it is the most geopolitically sensitive piece of real estate in Eurasia. Great powers decide the security architecture in their backyard – always have, always will.” So just to be clear, you're saying that Russia invading Ukraine was justified? ...or are you just saying its "realpolitik"? | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17707 Posts
On November 22 2025 01:54 KwarK wrote: Trump is a fascist and adjudicated rapist which basically makes him a Russian. And like many Russians he can’t understand consent and respect. It’s not geopolitics or strategic realignment or isolationism, he just agrees with their premise. He doesn’t understand why Ukraine doesn’t see that Russia is entitled to their land. Russia wants it and Russia is powerful and so Russia deserves it, why can Ukraine not see that. He would take Ukraine in their place, just like he’d take Canada and Greenland if he had the political dominance Putin had. It’s not strategic. It’s not a move. It’s the rapist inside him looking at Russia and going “game recognizes game”. There's that but also I think that picking someone from the "elites" (ie: top 5% earners or something) to lead a country is absolutely stupid. Those people are completely removed from the reality of any ordinary people (even people who are well off) so they have absolutely no idea why their insane ramblings get rejected as they're used to talking to pundits and other people like them in their small circle where everyone is completely amoral and only thinks in terms of profits. The elites are basically a bunch of sociopaths, completely unqualified to lead or represent anything, let alone a country. Just look at the speeches they make. Thiel, Zuckerberk, Musk etc. it's fucking downright chilling to the bone and terrifying what they're saying sometimes and they're absolutely clueless that they're doing anything wrong. They simply can't comprehend that people might suffer based on the decisions they make. Normal human emotions and relations are completely alien concepts to them. The only positive that comes out of it right now is that the EU is making moves to untangle itself with such a close relationship with the US and over-reliance on them for military strength. The big negative though is that I think in this situation the biggest winner is China. Regardless if Russia wins or loses they're bound to gain on this because if Russia is weakened/exhausted after the war it'll be easier to exert power over them and if Russia falls completely there's no-one to stop them from just taking their lands. All the while they're also making bank on much cheaper Russian fuel, selling tech and arms to both sides of the conflict etc. The divide between the US and the rest of the West also plays nicely into the Chinese hands as separately we're weaker than together. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43799 Posts
China took HK without a shot being fired (except by China against the people of HK when they asked about the democracy they were promised). I think they’d have quite liked to have taken Taiwan the same way by being the ones to engage in brinksmanship in a world not used to it. That is no longer possible. | ||
hexhaven
Finland963 Posts
| ||
|
RenSC2
United States1083 Posts
On November 22 2025 05:59 hexhaven wrote: Personally I like the post where Finland is simultaneously a red herring because it has forests and doesn't have a lot of people, but also an existential threat. Fucking tree ents man. Army of those crossing the border would give me an existential crisis too. | ||
|
ETisME
12702 Posts
even the japanese press is behaving like western ones, saying the new gov is xenophobic and got shut down hard by the tourism minister. The only thing that can deter China is either a nuclear deterrence or they can't bully Taiwan out with economic ties. The former it seems Takaichi is considering, the latter is "don't be like Europe". China is one of those "power only understands power" and that includes both economic and military. And the entire western alliance is far weaker than ever thanks to Europe. And it's not like some European nations don't want to bring up national security interest, they just can't afford to when China retaliate. Dutch government suspends intervention into chipmaker Nexperia - BBC News https://share.google/qJmyJEV3Lkc8vKyYc Starmer to approve controversial Chinese Embassy in London, Sky News understands | Politics News | Sky News https://share.google/TBjGQ4g9gwnUlIioE Unless there's a hard right turn, and its people actually care about national security more than PR, and be more like Japan and Taiwan, actually take on the heat. I don't see Europe being to tighten up relationship anytime soon. Also remember when trump pressured Europe not to use huawei for 5g? Now Europe is finally getting it. Hooray Europe considers cutting out Huawei and China for good – DW – 11/19/2025 https://share.google/FzjF2zQLZhheRyYNP | ||
|
KwarK
United States43799 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9288 Posts
There are many areas where Europe fell behind China but none of the things you mentioned are a result of fearing the Chinese retaliation. | ||
|
Legan
Finland577 Posts
The most surprising part to me is probably the total lack of competence among the old national security wing of Republicans. Every diplomatic action seems very poorly implemented. It is not that surprising that the deal is bad or has some hard-to-accept points. However, the way the proposal has been made, while ignoring the EU and Ukraine, and how completely it fails to make any demands on Russia, just makes the USA look weak and disinterested in its long-time allies. Working with Europe and Ukraine could help develop a framework for actions that soften the worst aspects of any peace deal. At the same time, the isolationists still seem to demand that others just do as the USA demands. None of them seems to connect listening to allies and having allies act in a favourable way. This should probably be taken as a serious sign that demands for Greenland and Canada will be a real threat in the future. There seems to be an entitlement mentality among Republicans. | ||
|
spets1
133 Posts
On November 22 2025 01:00 KwarK wrote: I enjoy this response because you're just agreeing with me. My argument is that Russia doesn't understand sovereignty. Russia believes it is an empire without borders, that it has a sphere which it is entitled to control that extends far beyond Russia. Russians believe that they, not Ukrainians, have the right to decide the fate of Ukraine. Your argument is that I'm completely right. That freedom is a lie, that tiny countries don't have freedom, that the strong are entitled to rule the weak by virtue of their strength. You make the comparisons with other Russian invasions like the invasion of Finland. Unfortunately for you, and over a million Russians at this point, it seems that the Ukrainians disagree. They seem to think that they have freedom. And, under the terms of your argument, they're actually right. Per your argument a country cannot be free if a nearby great power can simply roll over them the way that the United States did in Desert Storm. A country that can be rolled over in a week long campaign is not a free country. It deserves to be under the thrall of a great power. Ukraine is successfully defending itself. Therefore Ukraine is free. Russia is incapable of rolling its neighbours. Therefore Russia is not a great power. Your argument, not mine. If you believe that the great deserve to rule the weak then Russia does not deserve to rule Ukraine. You're also completely destroying all of your other talking points about Russian speakers or only wanting the Donbas or how Russia can be relied upon not to simply annex the rest of Ukraine if Ukraine were to abandon their defensive positions in the Donbas and disarm. Ukrainians believe that the Russian demands are made in bad faith as a way of weakening Ukraine and that Russia's desire is for total political control over Ukraine. Whereas you're coming in here and telling us that Russia requires total political control over Ukraine, won't settle for anything less, and can only be stopped through force of arms. That if Ukraine is weak enough then Russia deserves to control it. What you're saying about Russia's motives and the bad faith embedded within all of Russia's proposed agreements is exactly what the pro-Ukrainians are saying about it. You're agreeing with all of our talking points. Additionally it's weird that you're still insisting that Ukraine was seduced and corrupted away from Russia, not pushed, in the middle of an argument that also insists that Russia maintains the absolute right to dominate Ukraine. Glad we agree 👍 just one addition, Russia requires control over Ukraine because US/west has invested over 4 billion to make Ukraine hostile to Russia (Victoria Nuland stated these numbers) | ||
| ||
