Russia has invaded Ukraine

[ianch99]

Made me smile when you point out that Trump is visibly betraying his erstwhile allies and taking Putin's side, so much so that the Russians are openly thanking him, the Trump/Putin apologists focus on the semantics of the vocabulary used rather than the reality before them.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Made me smile when you point out that Trump is visibly betraying his erstwhile allies and taking Putin's side, so much so that the Russians are openly thanking him, the Trump/Putin apologists focus on the semantics of the vocabulary used rather than the reality before them.

I’m not sure how pointing out the reality before you makes anyone a Trump and/or Putin apologist. It’s not mere “semantics” to point out Trump pledged - in an election campaign of all places - to end the war quickly as possible. It has ceased to be in American national interest according to those who define the national interest. America has no duty to Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalism, any more than it had to Iraq, Afghanistan or all the other places it has cut and run from.

There’s no “winning” for Ukraine on the table. That’s just a collective delusion. A hangover from the “Russia is on its knees” kool aid.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure how pointing out the reality before you makes anyone a Trump and/or Putin apologist. It’s not mere “semantics” to point out Trump pledged - in an election campaign of all places - to end the war quickly as possible. It has ceased to be in American national interest according to those who define the national interest. America has no duty to Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalism, any more than it had to Iraq, Afghanistan or all the other places it has cut and run from.

There’s no “winning” for Ukraine on the table. That’s just a collective delusion. A hangover from the “Russia is on its knees” kool aid.

Who'd have thought he'd end it by joining the enemy of 70+ years, wonder if it'd have made a difference to the election if he'd outlined his bold strategy before the vote

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure how pointing out the reality before you makes anyone a Trump and/or Putin apologist. It’s not mere “semantics” to point out Trump pledged - in an election campaign of all places - to end the war quickly as possible. It has ceased to be in American national interest according to those who define the national interest. America has no duty to Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalism, any more than it had to Iraq, Afghanistan or all the other places it has cut and run from.

There’s no “winning” for Ukraine on the table. That’s just a collective delusion. A hangover from the “Russia is on its knees” kool aid.

Trusting a politician's pre-election pledges is a one-way ticket to disappointment. Judge politicians by what they do.

In the case of Trump, it's been to throw Ukraine under the bus and repeat Putin's talking points...even when they're wrong.

You only have to look at Trump's support for Israel to see that he is not applying some global disarming strategy across the world to bring peace or has a philosophy around a national interest. He's just doing what Putin (and Netanyahu) hoped he would do to support them...and some!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Who'd have thought he'd end it by joining the enemy of 70+ years, wonder if it'd have made a difference to the election if he'd outlined his bold strategy before the vote

He made it quite clear the plan was to talk to both sides and force a settlement. That might appear alien to anyone bogged down in Cold War rhetoric but to anyone with eyes in October it was obvious Trump was going to end the Biden era pretence that Ukraine were any more than a short term ally for the period American and Ukrainian interests aligned.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:02 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Trusting a politician's pre-election pledges is a one-way ticket to disappointment. Judge politicians by what they do.

In the case of Trump, it's been to throw Ukraine under the bus and repeat Putin's talking points...even when they're wrong.

You only have to look at Trump's support for Israel to see that he is not applying some global disarming strategy across the world to bring peace or has a philosophy around a national interest. He's just doing what Putin (and Netanyahu) hoped he would do to support them...and some!

I don’t really see how Trump’s approach can be a surprise to anyone given he telegraphed it prior to the election. You may consider letting Ukraine down, and I can understand why given the rhetoric the Biden administration and successive UK governments committed themselves to. However it’s a tale as old as time for American foreign policy.

Similarly so is looking the other way while Israel commit some of the worst atrocities on a civilian population since World War 2. I don’t see what that has to do with Ukraine tho - double standards are a staple of American behaviour.

[1andrew1]

Will be interesting to see how Russia reacts now that Ukraine has called its bluff.

Ball in Russia's court after Ukraine accepts proposal for 30-day ceasefire, Rubio says

Following today's talks in Saudi Arabia, US secretary of state Marco Rubio says "the ball is now in Russia's court" after Ukraine said it will accept a US proposal for a 30-day ceasefire...

Meanwhile, Sir Keir Starmer hailed a "remarkable breakthrough" between Kyiv and Washington.

"We now all need to redouble our efforts to get to a lasting and secure peace as soon as possible," he added.

We've also heard from Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who said: "It seems like the Americans and Ukrainians have taken an important step towards peace.

"And Europe stands ready to help reach a just and lasting peace."

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...atest-12541713

And interesting analysis here

A more compelling reason as to why Russia favours a permanent deal over a temporary one is because Ukrainian forces are on the back foot. A pause in the fighting would give them time to regroup, so why would Moscow agree?

It wants to have Kyiv begging for mercy when it comes to the negotiating table, so that a permanent deal would be entirely in Russia's favour.

The problem for Vladimir Putin, though, is that he now has to put his money where his mouth is.

In order to win Donald Trump's favour, the Kremlin has been relentless in trying to cast itself as the peacemaker and Ukraine as the warmonger.

It's worked up until to this point, with America increasingly siding with Russia. But now, all of a sudden, Kyiv is calling Moscow's bluff.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...atest-12541713

We've now received a joint statement from the US and Ukraine after today's meeting in Saudi Arabia which lasted nine hours.

The US says it will immediately lift the pause on intelligence-sharing and will resume its security assistance to Ukraine.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure how pointing out the reality before you makes anyone a Trump and/or Putin apologist. It’s not mere “semantics” to point out Trump pledged - in an election campaign of all places - to end the war quickly as possible. It has ceased to be in American national interest according to those who define the national interest. America has no duty to Ukraine or Ukrainian nationalism, any more than it had to Iraq, Afghanistan or all the other places it has cut and run from.

There’s no “winning” for Ukraine on the table. That’s just a collective delusion. A hangover from the “Russia is on its knees” kool aid.

Indeed, I didn’t hear Ian calling Biden a “traitor” for betraying Afghans, and especially Afghan women, when he decided to stop bankrolling Afghanistan.

But ….you know…..evil Trump. Luxury viewpoints, I’m sure he has all the correct and acceptable viewpoints around the table at dinner parties.

Do you mean the Trump-Taliban deal, that didn’t involve the Afghan Government?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-deal-taliban/

[thenry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Where's the link ?

Originally Posted by thenry

Where's the link ?

In the post above mine…

Here’s a direct link

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...#liveblog-body

[thenry]

Russia should secure itself first and foremost.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you mean the Trump-Taliban deal, that didn’t involve the Afghan Government?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-deal-taliban/

Nice try….and the link is behind a paywall, but I don’t need to read it. In any event Trump wasn’t in power during the withdrawal, so you don’t know how he would have done it, and how it would have gone down with him still as President.

I suspect, a lot better.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Nice try….and the link is behind a paywall, but I don’t need to read it. In any event Trump wasn’t in power during the withdrawal, so you don’t know how he would have done it, and how it would have gone down with him still as President.

I suspect, a lot better.

Non-paywall archive should you want it:

https://archive.ph/UwZn4

Actually, Trump’s plan was to withdraw earlier, but don’t let facts get in the way of your assumptions.

Here’s a gifted/readable link…

https://wapo.st/4iDkKt6

Before the peace talks really got going, Trump had already started withdrawing thousands of troops, and he fired his defense secretary, Esper, after he wrote a memo disagreeing. (Esper later said that Trump’s withdrawing too many troops too soon contributed to what we see now in Afghanistan.)

When Biden took over, there were just 3,500 U.S. troops left in the country (from a high of 100,000 during the Obama years). He pushed back the date of the planned withdrawal from May 1 to four months later, but he kept the deal intact.