Russia invades Ukraine

[Azas]

Zelensky wasn't too eager to talk to Russia all along, but now complains that he's left out. What does he want?

He wants just and lasting peace that would be based on effective security guarantees. Not just another worthless "Minsk" agreement. And how he can be "eager" when russia invaded his country and sooner or later breaks any signed agreements?
I dare you to speak or negotiate with a mad bear. Good enough analogy? All you can do is to contain. To build a fence or to be armed and prepared to shoot it down.

All of the above is only meaningful if USA will stay a relatively good World policeman. If this role will be abandoned, God help some of us.. New World Order is looming.

 

[paedubucher]

What he wants? That the sovereign country of Ukraine isn't invaded and taken ovIer by the imperialist regime of Russia. It's really not that complicated. Turns out people aren't fans of foreign countries annexing their own country.

This is as relevant to the point I made as saying "at the end of the day, everybody wants to be happy". He ruled out negotiations, but is now disappointed that the negotiations will take place without him.

 

[paedubucher]

He wants just and lasting peace that would be based on effective security guarantees. Not just another worthless "Minsk" agreement.

First, who can give Ukraine effective security guarantees? And second, Ukraine signed both Minsk agreements (which were only guaranteed for by Germany to win time) but didn't implement them. Now Zelesnky complains that he could not rely on an agreement with Russia.

 

[Spaldy]

I'll never cease to be amazed at the mental gymnastics the pro-Putin crowd will pull to convince themselves that Russia invading Ukraine was somehow Ukraine's fault. Or that Zelenskyy is to blame for not negotiating with his mad-dog invader (and his puppets in Washington).

 

[Azas]

First, who can give Ukraine effective security guarantees? And second, Ukraine signed both Minsk agreements (which were only guaranteed for by Germany to win time) but didn't implement them. Now Zelesnky complains that he could not rely on an agreement with Russia.

USA certainly has the power to give such guarantees. But with Trump, they may don't want to.

 

[Cosmiceddie]

Trump is a moron and Putin is splitting his sides laughing about what's going on.

 

[Yax]

USA certainly has the power to give such guarantees. But with Trump, they may don't want to.

USA already did give them guarantees, which is why Ukraine relinquished their nukes and got here in the first place when it was not honored to the full extent. The US is going back on its word and are betraying Ukraine. If they had kept their nukes, this would never have happened.

 

[Azas]

USA already did give them guarantees, which is why Ukraine relinquished their nukes and got here in the first place when it was not honored to the full extent. The US is going back on its word and are betraying Ukraine. If they had kept their nukes, this would never have happened.

True. Nonetheless, USA has the real power to contain putin. Whether they have the will to do so is another question.

 

[Vaenyr]

This is as relevant to the point I made as saying "at the end of the day, everybody wants to be happy". He ruled out negotiations, but is now disappointed that the negotiations will take place without him.

You know what, I'm not taking the bait this time. Enjoy your stay on the forum I guess.

 

[Azas]

To me this looks little bit like damage control, or he is just being professional?

 

[Yax]

It's damage control (and it sounds like it was written by somebody else), because on the other hand he is avoiding to agree to actual security guarantees like he'd avoid the plague (or, well, in the days of RFK, the US aren't avoiding any diseases). But yes, he wants to make it sound like no matter how things turn out, he's a stable genius that will get the nobel peace prize.

 

[paedubucher]

I'll never cease to be amazed at the mental gymnastics the pro-Putin crowd will pull to convince themselves that Russia invading Ukraine was somehow Ukraine's fault. Or that Zelenskyy is to blame for not negotiating with his mad-dog invader (and his puppets in Washington).

Once again, not a single counterargument to be heard in this echo chamber. Just designate factual arguments as "mental gymnastics" and declare the other party as the "pro-Putin crowd" instead of engaging it with real arguments. Zelensky ruled out negotiations and now complains that he is left out of negotiations. Pick a lane.

USA certainly has the power to give such guarantees. But with Trump, they may don't want to.

Why should they deploy a substantial force, which would be needed to face Russia, to Ukraine? What's in for the USA? Certainly, the military-industrial complex would make some good (tax-payer) money.

You know what, I'm not taking the bait this time. Enjoy your stay on the forum I guess.

Which bait? I made a point, you responded with empty rhetoric.

Trump is a moron and Putin is splitting his sides laughing about what's going on.

Yeah, such a moron, who manages to become a billionaire, gets elected as US president twice, and manages to attract a hot wife. Everybody in this forum is so much smarter than him. And talking about splitting sides: That was Boris Johnson's role when he prevented the Istanbul deal back in 2022, backing it with some empty "security guarantees" he was in no position to deliver.

There's absolutely no serious argument going on in this thread. It's mostly name-calling and Trump bashing.

 

[Yax]

If the U.S. wasn't being serious about providing security guarantees in exchange of Ukraine relinquishing their nukes, they shouldn't have convinced Ukraine to hand their nukes over to Russia. The U.S. made that happen. They pushed for it, and promised through a memorandum, they, with their military, would make sure Ukraine's borders were respected. The USA lied and by extention got Ukraine into this mess.

(Oh, and regarding Trump: If he had saved the "small" 10 million dollar loan he got from Fred Trump way back in the early 80's and invested it in an index fund, he would have been richer than he was a year ago. For crying out loud, he managed to bankrupt a casino in Vegas when the other casinos were thriving in Vegas).

 

[paedubucher]

If the U.S. wasn't being serious about providing security guarantees in exchange of Ukraine relinquishing their nukes, they shouldn't have convinced Ukraine to hand their nukes over to Russia. The U.S. made that happen. They pushed for it, and promised through a memorandum, they, with their military, would make sure Ukraine's borders were respected. The USA lied and by extention got Ukraine into this mess.

On the other hand, the world wouldn't have been a safer place with Ukraine as a nuclear power, considering the instability of the country way before the war with coups in 2004 and 2014.

(Oh, and regarding Trump: If he had saved the "small" 10 million dollar loan he got from Fred Trump way back in the early 80's and invested it in an index fund, he would have been richer than he was a year ago. For crying out loud, he managed to bankrupt a casino in Vegas when the other casinos were thriving in Vegas).

Trump certainly got a head-start in an era where it wasn't difficult to turn money into even more money. But he always managed to get back on his feet, which certainly is a quality.

 

[Azas]

Why should they deploy a substantial force, which would be needed to face Russia, to Ukraine? What's in for the USA? Certainly, the military-industrial complex would make some good (tax-payer) money.

They don't need to deploy boots on the ground, imo. Lots of various weapons would be enough, imo. "What's in for the USA?" Until recently, USA had and fulfilled obligations to its partners. Stability and security in Europe is also in US's interests and beneficial to them*. Now it almost looks like they want to abandon all and to build new world order.

*there's no denying that Europe must wake up and to start take things seriously. "To grow fangs and claws." And not be fully dependent on America.

 

[paedubucher]

They don't need to deploy boots on the ground, imo. Lots of various weapons would be enough, imo.

What kinds of weapons could guarantee Ukraine's security?

"What's in for the USA?" Until recently, USA had and fulfilled obligations to its partners. Stability and security in Europe is also in US's interests and beneficial to them*. Now it almost looks like they want to abandon all and to build new world order.

*there's no denying that Europe must wake up and to start take things seriously. "To grow fangs and claws." And not be fully dependent on America.

Where do these obligations come from? Those were promises made by the Biden administration. Now that the people voted differently, those obligations are re-considered. Maybe the support for Ukraine was one of the reasons the majority of the US electorate voted for Trump, even if only a minor reason.
If the USA wanted stability in Europe, they wouldn't have supported two coups within 10 years to overthrow the Ukrainian government. And a peace deal guaranteed for by the US is probably more conducive to stability in Europe than deploying more weapons to Ukraine.

 

[Azas]

What kinds of weapons could guarantee Ukraine's security?

Where do these obligations come from? Those were promises made by the Biden administration. Now that the people voted differently, those obligations are re-considered. Maybe the support for Ukraine was one of the reasons the majority of the US electorate voted for Trump, even if only a minor reason.
If the USA wanted stability in Europe, they wouldn't have supported two coups within 10 years to overthrow the Ukrainian government. And a peace deal guaranteed for by the US is probably more conducive to stability in Europe than deploying more weapons to Ukraine.

I see, for you it's just a business.
"If the USA wanted stability in Europe, they wouldn't have supported two coups within 10 years to overthrow the Ukrainian government"
After you wrote this, I see no point to continue to engage with You any further. To me it reeks pro russian agenda. Good luck.

 

[paedubucher]

I see, for you it's just a business.

It's not business, it's politics. And it doesn't matter at all what it is for me. Zelensky got a new boss appointed, now he has to adjust. And one part is to drop the silly war attire on official visits and follow the protocols.

After you wrote this, I see no point to continue to engage with You any further. To me it reeks pro russian agenda. Good luck.

Yes, because you have no arguments. Even US-hawks like George Friedman share my view, and he certainly has no pro-Russian agenda.

It's about acknowledging the facts, not about any agenda.

But it's quite telling to see how two guys already backed out of the discussion within a couple of posts that contained some counter-arguments instead of the usual name-calling that takes place in this thread. Good luck indeed, when you have to face real debate in the future.

The user Yax at least seems knowledgeable and capable of arguing.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

But he always managed to get back on his feet, which certainly is a quality

Criminals often do that.

 

[paedubucher]

Criminals often do that.

And so do business people, athletes, and even toddlers.