The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Humiliating for Every American"
Guest post from John Taylor, Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles
If anyone cares to defend yesterday's disgraceful display by our Mafioso-in-Chief, be my guest, in the comments below. Surely this crosses the line, even for the diehards. I've asked a thousand times on this blog: what can this guy do that would make his supporters disavow and disown him? [the "Murder on 5th Avenue in Broad Daylight" question] Perhaps this was it? Are there really no Republicans out there who have the courage to stand up and say: "All Americans should be deeply ashamed of what he has done in our name, and deeply ashamed of how he did it." No?
The text is by John Taylor, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles [and, interestingly, the former director of the Nixon Presidential Library]. Emphases are mine. /DP
#AmericanCoup Seeing Putin's boys bully a besieged freedom fighter in the Oval Office was humiliating for every American. Since there is no presidential precedent for the public brutalizing of an ally, we reach for fiction and Mayor Carmine DePasto, from the comedy "Animal House," and his summit with the dean of Faber College. "If you want this year's homecoming parade in my town," he says, "you have to pay." When the dean accuses him of extortion, the mayor replies, "Look, these parades are very expensive. You're using my police, my sanitation people, my three Oldsmobiles. So if you mention extortion again, I'll have your legs broken."
Musk can fire the White House speechwriters, too, because there's the Trump Doctrine for you. If Ukraine wants to be part of negotiations to end Russia's criminal war, it has to pay in the form of a share of its mineral rights. Since President Zelensky was allegedly rude today, Trump has threatened to cut off military aid and let more Ukrainians die.
Yet large as it was, today's incident was far more than it appeared. Trump and his mini-me Vance wrote the latest chapter in the biography of the United States as a world power. Periodically we have to decide what values we think our country should uphold in the world. We have arrived at another such moment. Everyone must ask themselves what kind of global citizen their country should be. It is work we must all do in the days and weeks ahead it we are to do our part to keep the American dream from entering a death spiral.
Readers should not assume that everyone disagrees with Trump. Millions of Americans opposed the U.S. entering World War II to help Europe against Hitler, history's greatest evildoer. Some were Nazi sympathizers. Others just thought it was none of our business. Most leaders were internationalists in the Cold War, and Americans by and large went along. We rebuilt Japan and Germany and avoided war with the Soviets. We also bred cynicism by leaving bloody footprints from Chile to Vietnam, sometimes meaning well, sometimes not. George W. Bush's massive overreaction to the Sept. 11 attacks, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan without making the U.S. safer, gave foreign policy itself a bad name, enabling Trump to sound like a peacenik by attacking our endless wars.
Making our way through the shadow of disgrace Trump casts requires us to think carefully and humbly. Notwithstanding the heretical teachings of Christian nationalists and apostolic reformists, God doesn't love us more than other people. We're not chosen or anointed. We've had moments of glory and deep disgrace. It has taken more than a quarter of a millennium to come anywhere near letting freedom ring for everyone.
A decent and indeed a Christian foreign policy would look out for our interests while promoting global security, encouraging economic and political liberalism where we can, addressing suffering through a generous foreign aid budget befitting the richest nation in the world, and leading on climate change mitigation and innovation. This is how a good nation counts its blessings. That's how we say thank you to God and sorry to those we hurt along the way.
Some argue that the U.S. always acts on behalf of its strategic and economic interests while just claiming we're for justice and democracy. I must disagree. Too many Americans have died fighting for other nations' freedom and sovereignty. But Trump has swept those values aside in favor of pure self-interest. Those who insist the U.S. has always been out for number one are carefully watching us every one during Trump's days of shame. We're finding out how much sadism and cruelty the American people will tolerate — and so far, we've tolerated quite a bit.
Trump is obviously paying Zelensky back for refusing to cooperate with dirty tricks against Joe Biden in the 2016 election. That is as deep as this individual's strategic vision goes. The rest of his foreign policy is equally thoughtless and toxic. Besides selling out Ukraine, his most significant move was depriving sick, starving people of foreign aid. Journalists such as Nicholas Kristof who are covering Trump's war on USAID can show you exactly where in the developing world Trump is likely to kill those in need. Yet he is doing it without significant public outcry. We know he doesn't care. The question is if the rest of us do — and how the rest of the world reacts.
Zelensky's first calls after his Trump beat down were to European leaders. One possible future is western Europe supporting Ukraine and deterring Russian conventional aggression on its own. Should that happen, Trump would say it was his idea all along. But China would reckon it as an invitation to conquer Taiwan. Its people deserve to be free, but according to Trump's rulebook, if they can't defend themselves, they're out of luck.
The alliances Trump is ripping apart like an angry kindergartner help keep the peace and limit the spread of the most dangerous weapons. Without them, aggressors will gobble up weaker nations. Non-nuclear powers will join the club faster than you can say enriched uranium. If the American people acquiesce in Trump's disgraceful behavior, his abandonment of the weakest among us, our country will end up as exactly what its harshest critics have always said: Out just for itself and its economic interests, or in this case Trump's. The Trump Doctrine will go on to light up a hundred wars. If the U.S. ever needs its friends again, no one will answer the phone. We'll be as lonely as Trump when he turns out the lights.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It shows, at bottom, insecure masculinity. This is a man who evaded military service, talking tough about a war. This is a man who never had to face a tough decision in his life, or even do a day's honest work, lecturing a man whose country is fighting for his life and who has seen many of his friends die violent deaths. This is a man living in a fantasy world, trying to humiliate a man who every day faces the most horrible of realities happening to his countrymen and feels a deep responsibility to them.
Enough about Zelenski
+1
An interesting perspective from David P. Goldman, one the TDS afflicted clowns commenting here have not bothered to consider and probably still won't :
Friday’s brawl at the Oval Office was the single best moment in the whole sorry history of diplomacy. “Wars break out because diplomats lie to journalists, and then believe what they read in the newspapers,” quipped the Viennese wit Karl Kraus a century ago. Not any more: President Donald Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance mopped the floor with the hapless Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky in the full view of the American public, to the horror of the diplomats who have lied about the Ukraine war from the outset.
It was a moment worthy of the American movie classics of the 1930s, reminiscent of the wonderful moment in “The Wizard of Oz” when the Wizard begs Dorothy and her companions, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Trump has done something no American president, indeed no world leader, has done: He exposed the whole sordid business of arranging war and peace among contending states to the full view of the public. And he told the American people that it was good for them to see what was happening with their own eyes.
Bravo!
And look at all the Trump haters, who cling to their irrational hatred like it was their lifeblood, never realizing for one moment that most people who voted for Trump didn't care a whit for him when he first announced his bid in 2016.
I know I didn't.
But soon afterward, when it became painfully obvious that the media had essentially guaranteed him the nomination with free air time I just had to wonder why. Could it be they were certain he was the only person who could lose to HRC? I found it very telling that she herself declared that September with palpable indignation that she "should have been fifty points ahead!"
Well, anyway, his getting the nomination secured my vote; there was no way in hell I was going to vote for the most corrupt woman in the history of the world (my apologies to runners up Victoria Nuland and Nancy Pelosi).
And in the time since his victory he has withstood a fanatically orchestrated, criminal fury unparalleled in human history. And prevailed! I cannot imagine how someone could endure the abuse he has and still pursue his vision for his country. How will we honestly measure what he has learned from the experience?
Some day perhaps we'll appreciate in full what this all means. Someone will write volumes about it. As for the little puppet Zelensky? Not very much.
And it further illustrates the nauseating hypocrisy of these clowns. They try to label President Trump as a "dictator" or "imperial" president even when he brings the American people to the table and shows them what the elites would prefer to be kept hidden.
Trump is a multi-millionaire and the president of the United States. He is the elites, you fucking imbecile.
Incoherent. Do you actually have an argument to make?
Riva: "to the horror of the diplomats who have lied about the Ukraine war from the outset."
What, exactly, are you talking about. What are the lies you're referring to? That Russia started the war - is that one of the "lies" the diplomats have been spreading? That Russia kills innocent civilians as part of its war strategy? Lie?
What lies? Well just offhand (and I of course don't speak for Goldman), we could start with the BS nonsense that Putin's war strategy is to extend a new Russian empire to Germany and beyond in some Hitleresque European conquest. As unsavory as Putin is and as unquestionable harsh his tactics may be, such hyperbole is ridiculous. He of course will defend what he believes are Russian security interest at his border, and Russian has many strategic interests, geographically and culturally in and around Ukraine. I don't think it's difficult to understand that Ukraine in NATO might be perceived as a threat. I also note there are not a few profiting from this war, both politically and financially, and inside and outside Ukraine, who might not welcome peace.
Trump's childish meltdown in the Oval Office -- including his ranting like a lunatic about Hunter Biden -- should be all anyone needs to conclude that Trump is delusional and mentally unstable. It's scary to realize that he thinks Ukraine started the war and that he instructed the U.S. delegation to side with Russia, North Korea, Hungary, Syria, etc. last week when the U.N. voted on a resolution to condemn Russia as the aggressor in that war. What does Putin have on Trump?
A better question would be what Zelensky has on the Biden Crime Family. Our coup installed the minor comedian (why?), and there was no more investigating of Burisma.
There was little I agreed with Obama on, but Ukraine and Russia not really being our concern was one thing he was absolutely right about.
So, that begs the question of why Biden was so delighted to fling billions at a little tin pot dictator (Putin is a dictator, but not a cut-rate one) who jails opponents (of course Biden tried that), shuts down media, and cancels elections, with no oversight or accountability.
There was no coup, it wasn't ours, and it didn't install Zelensky. Zelensky was elected in a free election in 2019, five years after the thing that only Russian propagandists and/or really gullible people call a 'coup' happened.
I feel sorry for what your news has done to you.
The real lie is that Biden or Europe ever intended to give Ukraine what or needed to recover it's occupied territory. If they had, this ear world already be won.
Europe still has not seized Russia's frozen assets and they have spent more on buying energy from Russia than on supporting Ukraine.
The real lie is that Biden or Europe ever intended to give Ukraine what or needed to recover it's occupied territory. If they had, this ear world already be won.
That's a nice tautological argument.
Europe still has not seized Russia's frozen assets
I thought you guys were all in favour of sovereign immunity these days? Or does that only count for the US and its (other) allies?
they have spent more on buying energy from Russia than on supporting Ukraine.
Have they?
Since when did sovereign immunity prevent countries from seizing an enemy's assets? Certainly didn't stop us in WWII.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-more-russian-oil-gas-than-financial-aid-ukraine-report
It (arguably) doesn't, but European countries are not at war with Russia.
And there you go.
As long as not being at war with Russia is more important than Ukraine winning, Europe will not give Ukraine what it needs to win.
Bingo!
And many other points could be raised regarding the stupidly self-damaging economic sanctions and Zelensky. Didn't he once call for a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia? Yeah no threat of escalations leading to WWIII here. And not like troops from other countries like N. Korea are becoming involved. That's crazy talk.
But the current sabotage of something that could have started a real peace process also brings to mind April 2022. How many of the same parties involved in sabotaging that potential deal played a role in current events? Almost like some parties would like a perpetual conflict. Weird.
No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
I guess some repulsive trolls might excuse Zelensky's comments that NATO should preemptively eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons. That's what repulsive trolls do. I have not doubt they don't shower regularly either.
But I'd still like to know more about the democrat sleaze who instigated the little man to sabotage a deal that would have in practice created the security he says he wants. Likely many of same ones who exploited the war for the last three years and sabotaged the first potential deal in 2022.
I challenge you to provide a cite to your claim that zelensky advocated a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia. I think you are lying.
"What are the lies you're referring to"
That the Ukraine is somehow better than Russia -- it isn't.
In which the hard right discovers moral relativism in order to excuse communist expansion.
Who would've thunk it.
He clearly is an expert on the region. From wikipedia:
Retard opines.
Watch the whole 30 minute video, not the clip. That's the typical answer to media spin.
The talk was arranged by Rubio for Zelensky who claimed he would sign a deal. The talk went okay for 40 minutes (aside from Zelensky repeatedly trying to open a debate on what was supposed to be a done deal photo op) but then Zelensky decided to try to put Vance on the spot after a comment that was directed at Biden and not him and that is what sparked the blowup. Most media outlets cut directly to Trump or Vance yelling at Zelensky to give the false impression that they ambushed him and started it.
Exactly right. The transcript is especially revealing.
I agree there was no ambush. Zelensky stupidly chose to litigate differences in front of the public (Zelensky needs a seasoned diplomat to assist him). But, Vance then acted like a total dick in response to Zelensky's truths, egging Trump on.
I'm a bit more hawkish than Trump but if you get 100-350 billion and are coming to ask for more you have to accept that you're the junior party at the table. Even if you think you're right now is not the time for morally grandstanding against your host with the purse strings. Grin and bear Trump and Vances speeches and take the win and the aid package you came for.
He should also realize in addition that Trump is not on the same wavelength as Europe/Biden Admin and his overall goal is to court Russia as an long term ally against China, not utterly destroy them. He'll get nowhere appealing just to simple moral outrage when he can't understand Trump's overarching geopolitical goals.
Europe for its part if it thinks funding Ukraine against Russia is so critical, needs to put up or shut up. If you think its so serious open your own wallets a bit more rather than conspire with Zelensky to try to humiliate the US on a live youtube stream into paying for you.
Europe has opened its wallets more than the U.S. has.
Not only that, but the US has not spent anything close to $350 billion, despite Trump's rants.
He's lying about that - big surprise.
When heads of state speak in front of the camera, their remarks are agreed upon in advance precisely so this sort of thing doesn't happen. Negotiations and disagreements are handled privately, so no one gets embarrassed in public.
This was amateur hour.
Or it was a deliberate ploy for Trump's domestic political audience, in which case it is even more clownish.
Yeah Trump and Vance zapped poor Zelensky with a mind control ray and forced him to continually interject how he was going to remain on the warpath and attack them on what was supposed to be a photo op where he'd smile and take the aid and go.
Sometimes I wonder if the Democrat narrative writers just make up the most ridiculous things so they can laugh their guts out as the footsoldiers swallow it and take it world wide.
There shouldn't have been reason for him to interject at all.
The American and Ukrainian diplomats should have ironed out exactly what Trump and Zelensky were going to say in front of the cameras, because that is how adults do diplomacy.
Might take from watching the press conference is that Trump started to ad lib about sending less aid to Ukraine, and Zelensky responded, but even if Zelensky was the one to deviate from the script, that means that you quickly and politely terminate the press conference and iron out any disagreements in private. You do not get into a shouting match in front of the press.
That is amateur hour.
This wasn't a good outcome for Trump you know. He needs this deal too. He could've defused the situation. But he wasn't able to resist the bait and the opportuniry for "good television" and escalated with his Putinesque talking points.
Trump was wrong that Zelenskyy has no cards. He has the Trump card! Everyone knows that Trump promised the war would end before the inauguration even. The longer it drags on, the more ineffectual he looks.
Zelenskyy has more to gain by prolonging the war than either Trump or Putin. Trump failed to get his deal done, period.
President Trump is talking tough about peace, you deranged doofus.
"Peace" does not include kneeling weakly to an advancing dictator.
Sometimes you have to man up and stand up to the dictator and stop him.
"No American troops...!" That doesn't apply here.
"Uhhh, American money!" Yes, and that's worth it. How shameful you are.
"Uhhh, lives lost!"
Ukraine is fighting for their freedom. How shameful for you to give up their freedom on their behalf.
"Uhhh, Russian lives!" How shameful you are concerned for Russian lives, when Hitler himself is not.
"They owe us!" Sure, maybe, but you address that later, unless you are shameless. Also, there's $350 billion in seized Russian oligarch money that can be used to fund this. Unless you are shamelessly in favor of Hitler, then you make the incredulous, shameful claim Ukraine started it, a talking point Hitler gave you, as it's required to justify returning the oligarch money, the shameful thing a shameful Friend of Hitler would listen to.
You're all warhawk in favor of Israel, none of this makes sense. Unless you are shameful with Ukraine behaviors for a reason that dare not be mentioned.
Fuck off you shameless warmonger. The lives that Zelensky has wasted at Biden's direction are enough; the graft and corruption of our Treasury is enough. You may want this war to continue to prove your righteousness but you should get on a plane and risk your own life and funds to do so.
Whatever, traitor.
David, he grew up with Soviet textbooks and he is using the model of how the North Vietnamese won that war, and he's already gotten Trump impeached once.
His model is quite simple -- either intimidate Trump into doing what he wants, or neuter Trump and get the Congress to fund his largess in spite of Trump.
Not only did it work the last time, it is how the NVA won -- they got rid of Nixon via impeachment (Nixon resigned first) and then Saigon fell in 1975 because the Dem majority in the new Congress wouldn't let Ford continue to send arms to South Vietnam.
The model is the same here -- ignore the unpopular Republican President, neuter him and use the media to get the US Left to get the US to do what you want.
Zelensky grew up in the Soviet Union, you honestly don't expect him to think like a Soviet?
You have that backwards (probably because the parties switched).
Putin is the one following the NVA playbook. He's the one who invaded his neighbor. He's the one who waited out the unpopular incumbent, and now the Republicans are gearing up to give him whatever he wants.
Thise who protested the Vietnam War argued that the North Vietnamese were freedom fighters.
Were the protesters wrong?
The US Constitution was written in 1787 and not 1777.
Look up who the Committees of Public Safety were, the origin of "Lynch Law."
Ask the boat people who fled into the South Pacific on rafts rather than be "liberated."
Ask all 800,000 of them.
Ask the North Vietnamese tanks that rolled into Saigon barely 2 years after signing a peace treaty promising they would respect South Vietnam's autonomy.
There is a reason Lennon called communism's western supporters "useful idiots."
But what did Ringo say about it?
and who ended up winning? another Own Goal.
North Vietnam won because we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam. (Even air cover would have been enough to repel the invasion) This was in large part because a significant fraction of the American electorate had (stupid, blinkered) sympathy for the communists.
Now, we are about to abandon our allies in the Ukraine because a significant fraction of the American electorate has (stupid, blinkered) sympathy for Putin.
The outcome will be the same, and yes, it will be an own goal.
Opposition to the Vietnam War was not driven by communist sympathizers. That's just trashy redbaiting.
Even the Johnson admin knew the war was unwinnable after the Tet offensive.
Lololol. Yet I'm sure you'll defend FDR's alliance with the 2nd worst dictator in human history. As well as Nixon peeling off the worst dictator in human history as an ally against the USSR.
Let me know when you have donated every spare dime you have to the Ukranian defense effort. Until then you can fuck right off with that bullshit.
Someone compared it to a scene from Deliverance. I think Vance was just relieved not to be in the Ned Beatty role for a change.
"Lotso"???
delete
I'd point out that, true to form, trump lied to The United States Selective Service, a crime.
He is a convicted felon, and also a convicted sexual abuser. In any other state he would be a convicted rapist.
It is now abundantly clear that the trump/vance junta planned a mugging: from deliberately excluding President Zelensky from negotiations ABOUT THE DEFENSE THEY HAVE MOUNTED AGAINST PUTIN/RUSSIA'S ILLEGAL WAR. As a longtime Russian asset, trump has worked to gain access to "deals" that make it money. See how it intervened in the Israel/Gaza conflict, where its' "big idea" is to ethnically cleanse Gaza and gin up some casinos and ancillary hotels. Imagine.
The mugging even included margory taylor greeney's cross-dressing boyfriend to taunt The President of Ukraine with sneering questions about his not wearing a suit. Thankfully, President Zelensky riposted to devastating effect that after the Russia war, he'd get a nicer suit than the cross-dresser and thus a better costume! BURN!!
No, the world, and crucially, those U.S. voters who now deeply regret voting for the convicted felon, saw the true nature of a rapidly decompensating old man, purple in the face with rage at President Zelensky not falling for the trap. The sidekick bootlicker vance, without the slightest trace of reason or nuance, demanded fealty and immediate kowtowing to the would-be king. Incredible!
Yes, and they kidnapped Zelensky and dragged him into the White House.
Damn fool ought to have made Trump meet him on neutral ground somewhere in Europe.
Convicted felon just like Nelson Mandela.
I feel sorry for what your news has done to you. I hope you will someday overcome the damage its done to you.
You, too, are not immune from propaganda.
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1390917993.3917/raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.jpg
So quit acting like you are.
I do not recall you criticizing FJB or Hillary Clinton for evading military service.
Hillary's problem was she only tried the Army and Marines, with those Cankles she'd have been a great Navy Nurse
The author of this piece and most on the left do not care about tens of thousands of dead people, don’t care about destroying a countries infrastructure and history and culture, don’t care that over 100B was stolen, and don’t care how many of our weapons, just like in Afghanistan, were sold to our enemies.
These people are monsters and the American left is defending it and wants you to pay for it.
I am a combat veteran and Christian. The clearly right thing to do it stop the killing.
Also, people who has no idea what masculinity is should not spout off about it. You sound like a 16 year old lying about not being a virgin. Tell me about bags of sand.
Just say it. We should have let Hitler keep Europe because Jesus wants us to save Nazi troops instead of killing them back.
The French and Polish didn't care enough to defend their countries, why should we?
This used to be a good legal site. Now, it's just a Huffington Post mirror.
"insecure masculinity"
You brag like a high school kid about your sexual history so you should know!
That's OK, Russia is America's friend now.
https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-stand-down-russia-planning
What does this imply? That they are purposely opening up US defenses and offenses for attack?
They wouldn’t see it as an “attack”.
Remember when Trump, standing next to Putin and denying any Russian interference in the 2016 election, suggested a joint U.S.-Russia cyber security force?
The old Russian Collusion chestnut. It was correct all along...and then some!
Seen my Stolen Valor?
No, hobie, that they will stop planning TO attack. But...
"the full scope of Hegseth’s directive to the command remains unclear"
I imagine their actual instructions are highly classified, and may be to simply ignore this. It wouldn't be the first time.
And remember two things: (a) Zelensky apparently campaigned for Harris in Pennsylvania, which was stupid on his part, and (b) we don't know *how* crooked Zelensky is, *how much* he bribed the Bidens.
How was it stupid? Any fool could see Trump was a Russian asset. He took a chance on the candidate most interested in the Ukrainians. And he lost. Now he has to deal with the consequences.
Well, like the Indians in 1812, he bet on the wrong side.
And will suffer the consequences. Bleep him.
After what the left has done to him, Trump SHOULD BE a Russian asset -- and isn't....
Just like if Charles Lindburgh or Henry Ford won the election in WWII, screw Eurooe yay Hitler!
But is it just asinine contrarianism like you suggest, or something deeper?
"Apparently." Which is Dr. Ed for "didn't happen, but I'm obligated to say so because MAGA told me to." Zelensky did not appear with Harris in Pennsylvania. Zelensky did not go to a Harris campaign event in Pennsylvania. Zelensky did not even mention Harris's name when he was in Pennsylvania. He visited a munitions plant that was making munitions for Ukraine and thanked the workers.
But I don't want a denial to distract from how awful this lie — and that's what it is, a lie — is: even if Zelensky had campaigned for Harris, so what? The White House is not an arm of the presidential campaign; Trump is President of the United States, not the President of Trump Supporters. It is utterly corrupt to suggest that American policy should be based on whether someone supported the president's campaign. (Especially foreign policy, but also domestic: the FEMA employee who told workers to skip MAGA homes was appropriately fired for so doing.)
Oh, we do know: zero. The ways this claim is retarded are myriad:
1. We know that zero money went to Joe Biden. Comer desperately looked for it everywhere he could and found none.
2. Even if one wants to pretend that Hunter Biden's job at Burisma was some sort of bribe, that would have been Burisma, not Zelensky. Just because two things are in the same country does not make them the same thing.
3. Even if one wants to pretend that Burisma and Ukraine are the same thing, that would have been Poroshenko, not Zelensky. Zelensky was an actor on a TV show at the time Hunter Biden was on Burisma's board of directors.
You don't think its prudent when you are planning to open ceasefire negotiations to make sure that nobody does something stupid and ruins them?
I will also point out cyber defense is generally effective against all bad actors whether NORKs, criminals, Chinese, etc, but offensive cyber attacks are only directed against one adversary.
"stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions,"
The military has all kinds of scenarios on what to do for any occasion, even extremely unlikely ones.
The time to develop them is not when they are needed.
Is he setting up America to be weak so Putin can re-invade later?
I dunno. I wonder if somebody's working a scenario based on that.
I noted last week on sketchier web sites the floating of trial balloons of not fighting back if Russia uses nukes. What the hell fire are you playing with?
If Russia uses nukes here, we could use nukes to save Taiwan.
Since you're so concerned about "planning" being turned into "action" without authorization and somehow offending our new ally, should we also stand down in making plans to defend Europe from Russia? Perhaps even ourselves?
After all, we want to "make sure that nobody does something stupid and ruins" it.
You're a dumb fuck who will excuse anything.
Not just friends, but allies. Those for isolationism have got it now, because being among the very short list of nations that comprise the axis of evil is quite isolating.
Posted this in the open thread, but here is a better place:
Talk to someone from Europe. Or check out European media.
The specific diplomatic dramas are neither here nor there. What is important is that an 80 year edifice of trust and mutual security has been brough down. No longer just tacitly assuming our presence and support, Europe now knows they can no longer count on the US - that we are one election away from fucking them over.
They will act accordingly.
If you're in Europe, in the long term that might be good.
But I am not one of those liberals who thinks Europe is better than America. I trusted modern America as a good, if not perfect steward of the world with out not-an-empire-but-fill-that-vacuum-so -there-wont-be-another style.
Our military umbrella is not something I'm against, even if the Pentagon budget is bloated.
It's boosted our economy in every state. And it's given us no shortage of soft power to influence people and nations. Natural resources, people, global commons in science and markets.
Now that's gone.
Now Europe's going to go it's own way, and project it's own authority to make things happen in it's own style. And be worse at it.
The same people that are American nationalists, often to the point of chauvinism. Who have had contempt for Europe in one flavor or another for generations. You now join the ant-American left in cheering this kinda thing on.
Meanwhile, our domestic economy has some storm clouds too:
https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow
Way to go MAGA.
Jeezus, Brevity man, Brevity, I could discuss the functions of every Cranial Nerve(Oh Oh Oh to touch and feel a girls vagina and hymen/so heavenly(regional variations) with less key strokes
Illiterates like brevity.
And Trump!
Brevity is the Soul’s wit, “Hey-Zeus wept” improve on that
Simpsons did it!
At a Reader's Digest convention, a banner: "Brevity is...wit."
"No longer just tacitly assuming our presence and support"
Why the fuck should they? I am asking this earnestly: WHY?
Because they had it for 80 years.
Because America understood that such a structure, with America at the top, was hugely valuable to America and American values.
"Because they had it for 80 years."
It left them utterly paralyzed and completely ineffectual in the face of an aggressive Putin. Europe had a year to prepare as Putin biult up his troops on the border. Putin bet Europe and the US wouldn't do shit to stop him. Oh, we levied sanctions. Why didn't Europe send German, French, Italian, British etc. tanks and planes into Ukraine? They twiddled their thumbs and made stupid demands; "Putin, you better not invade or we will...we will...we will hit you with more sanctions."
Europe fucked up and once again want US treasure to clean up the mess.
Oh, what did Biden pulling out of Afghanistan without prior notice to allies do for international diplomacy?
You know Biden was executing Trump’s surrender, right?
The MAGAs have completely written out of their history that Trump negotiated the withdraw from Afghanistan by negotiating with the Taliban and sidelined the Afghanistan government.
The MAGAs have completely written out of their history that Trump negotiated the withdraw from Afghanistan by negotiating with the Taliban and sidelined the Afghanistan government.
This is exactly correct. That is why no one on the right has even thought to question whether it was a good idea for the U.S. to sit down and "negotiate" with Russia without Ukraine's involvement. I mean, when has that kind of diplomacy ever turned out badly?
The withdrawal Biden executed wasn't the one Trump negotiated, so it's weird to try and blame it on Trump.
Trump negotiated the withdrawal, and that’s on him. Biden planned and undertook its execution, and that’s on him.
That is a bald faced lie you disingenuous rancid sack of cat shit. Biden canceled Trumps plan for withdrawal with conditions and specific metrics, including keeping Bagram airfield, and then unilaterally draws out without so much as a by your leave 6 months later without any plans for removing equipment or destroying it in place.
Let's see your source for that paragraph of nonsense. You're a Trump supporting assclown, so everyone pretty well assumes that you're the liar until you prove otherwise.
Yeah, that's all more propaganda. Trump negotiated a surrender to the Taliban — without including the Afghan government (sound familiar?) — that gave them everything they wanted and then ignored all the "conditions and metrics," pulling out most troops before Biden took office, leaving the U.S. position utterly untenable. The U.S. had no way to hold Bagram without putting a lot more troops in the country at the very time it was trying to pull troops out of the country.
Biden's mistake — or the CIA's, or whomever's — was mistakenly thinking the Afghan government could hold out longer than it could, and thus not being prepared for such a chaotic withdrawal.
And the equipment that was left wasn't ours. It was what we had provided the Afghan government. It's bad enough we were abandoning them to certain defeat, but you wanted to attack them?
Wrong. Biden didn't know when he shat his pants
In the build up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Europe did basically the same as the US. It may have been the wrong approach, but it was not uniquely European.
Except for the US it wasn't occurring on our doorstep. Does Europe not have more of a responsibility to defend Europe than the US?
The only "European" Troops worth anything are the British, who don't consider themselves "European" and are too smart to get in (another) War with Roosha
"Because they had it for 80 years"
And we could have had similar stability in the Middle East if we chose to leave a large number of troops there over a period of 80 years. Instead, we chose to end the Pax Americana, and this is what it got us.
I don't think that's right at all. Our foreverwars over there did not bring stability.
Europe and the Middle East: very different places!
So are Europe and Japan, Korea, etc.
When did we have enough troops in the Middle East to have a Pax Americana there? Even after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of troops we had there was no where near sufficient to enforce stability, as we learned in a painful, 20 year lesson.
It probably would require about 50 years. But as is evident here, our enemies realize that all they have to do is wait us out and we will get sick of foreign involvement. Whatever lesson you think should be learned from our middle east involvement, Trump appears to have learned it.
Very much begging the question. Sucking up to Russia and betraying NATO (or threatening to) are the lessons you apparently learned from our Middle East involvement. Not the lessons I took away.
Sigh. Not what I said. I don't think we should have left.
TwelveInch — Our Middle East adventures brought us early oil concessions, puppet regimes which enraged their own peoples, and Bin Laden.
Hundreds of billions of my dollars going to Europe so Europeans can kill other Europeans is not "valuable [...] to my values." If it is to yours, well, that's not something to be proud of.
You would have done famously in 1930s Germany. Or in America, arguing against involvement in the fight against Hitler. We certainly had many such Americans, and that's rightfully an enduring stain on every single one of their legacies.
And no longer serves American strategic interests at all. We needed Europe to stand in alliance against the Soviets. One might note that the USSR has not existed for almost 35 years now. Russia is nowhere near the threat that the Soviets were. Europe is out of its everloving mind to depend on a security arrangement that has been irrelevant for over 3 decades.
You think NATO was only a Cold War thing? You think our only enemy was the USSR and now freedom is safe and we can relax?
That's dumb.
I don't personally care about whether Europe was wise or not; it helped America and our values and we just wrecked it for no reason.
"we just wrecked it "
Not much of an alliance if one dispute can wreck it.
"Way to go MAGA."
Lol. This started in 2014.
I don't recall you supporting decisive intervention in 2014, although maybe you did.
You supported the policies that led to the situation, like signaling weakness by withdrawing from Afghanistan (a joint Trump-Biden fiasco) and the failure to provide a non-fly zone over Ukraine or any level of support that might make Putin mad.
What outcome did you think that level of inaction was going to lead to?
Stop your incel whining about 2014. You live in 2025.
What do you think of Trump and Vance yesterday?
"Stop whining about Obama fellating Putin! I want you to whine about Trump fellating Putin!"
Deflection is all you got, I see.
"What do you think of Trump and Vance yesterday?"
I think they were being Trump and Vance. They're dicks, but Trump still gave Ukraine lethal aid when Obama wouldn't, and made it through a term without Ukraine losing any territory.
I don’t think anyone should vote for Obama over Trump.
Oh, heys Trump is the current President and you concede he was a dick yesterday.
So, maybe shut up with your whataboutism 2014?
Just say Trump was wrong now. That’s how you get him to change.
"Oh, heys Trump is the current President and you concede he was a dick yesterday."
And the day before that, and the day before that...
"So, maybe shut up with your whataboutism 2014?"
Why?
No. He. Didn't. Congress did. Trump illegally withheld that aid, leading to his impeachment.
If you're going to speak like an 8 yr old black child, at least get the diction correct, it's
"No He Dint-int!
This is just wrong. Congress didn't require that Ukraine be provided with lethal aid. Obama chose to provide non-lethal aid. Trump provided Javelins, sniper rifles and such.
"withheld that aid"
Delayed is not withheld.
Sometimes delayed is withheld.
And Mike Johnson also delayed aid. Biden's fault, of course.
Hamas didn't withhold any hostages. It just delayed returning them.
Decisive intervention is creating quite a false choice, TiP.
Trump is the one that led to this situation, and it's almost insulting you'd think you could state otherwise and anyone would believe you.
"Decisive intervention is creating quite a false choice, TiP."
Huh? As I said, we can choose to intervene undecisively, which allows us to say we're intervening without taking any risk or getting the outcome we want, but that leads people to wonder why we're intervening, which lead to what we saw yesterday.
"Trump is the one that led to this situation"
This situation has been going on since 2014.
You're saying that if one cannot be against the current situation without being in favor of decisive intervention in 2014.
That's a false choice.
And ridiculous, as I said.
Trump's actions here are not required by anything in 2014. He sucks at foreign policy all on his own.
"You're saying that if one cannot be against the current situation without being in favor of decisive intervention in 2014."
Huh? No I'm not. You can certainly support dicking around for 11 years and then shitting your pants when people get sick of dicking around. You shouldn't support that strategy, but you can.
But you should recognize that the 11 year dicking around is what led to the current situation.
Trump is responsible for the thing Trump and Vance just did.
Universally, and always, withdrawing from Afghanistan shows wisdom, not weakness.
The situation between the US in Europe is like an the parent who has a 40 year old child living in their basement unwilling to assume their adult responsibilities, and resentful when finally forced to do so.
Decade after decade the US has spent at least 3.5% of GDP and as high as 6.5% during the Reagan years when the rest of NATO has been plodding along at less than half that, and wealthy countries like the Netherlands and Germany have been spending < 1.5%.
And like now that they are being told the rent is due, and they need to start shouldering their adult responsibilities they feel betrayed.
Making a fairness case in foreign policy is a great sign you're not here to actually think about foreign policy.
We paid in a lot more than everyone else, sure. But we got more than what we paid for by being the military umbrella everyone relied on.
Not anymore. Now we're faithless and untrustworthy. Yay, Europe will pay the right amount, and we'll lose a shitload of soft power!
"But we got more than what we paid for by being the military umbrella everyone relied on."
"we got"?
I think they got a lot more out of it than we did.
And the least of that was reduced defense spending. They also avoided the tanks that rolled through Prague and Budapest.
I encourage you to read my OP. It lays out what we got from being where we were until quite recently.
And it's going to get worse before it gets better. Defensive crouch nationalism of the sort MAGA and Trump are into will end badly for everyone.
Yes, "we got." Sure, our allies benefitted greatly from our military support. But so did we. Soviet tanks in Bonn or Paris would have been catastrophic for us, as well. Contrary to MAGA thinking, it's not zero sum. When our allies are strong and successful and secure, that's good for us.
Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russian tanks are never going to be in Bonn or Paris except as war trophies.
I can certainly agreed we benefited, as well as them.
But the real point is that the relative level of contribution between US and our European partners in NATO that was appropriate in 1960, and appropriate after say 1980 is very different.
The US is in 2nd place in % of GDP spending at 3.49%, behind only Poland, and only in the last year.
Germany is in about 20th place at 1.57%, UK is 10th at 2.07%, Netherlands is 1.7%.
That is the point.
To hell with Europe -- they can deal with Putin themselves.
Russia-bot is arguing for American withdrawal from NATO, and from American involvement in Europe. Quelle surprise!!!
Dr. Ed is an extremely misogynist racist and serial fabricator (who also gets lots of things wrong by accident), but he is not a Russia-bot. That's Riva.
If Europe wants to start pulling its own weight to defend itself and leftoids think its going to be some big own to America that we're no longer spending hundreds of billions/trillions of dollars to defend them against a country a fraction of their size and power than thats fine with me and probably Trump too. I'm all for it. Everybody wins.
I don't think you've thought through what happens when we fall on the global stage to the level of, say, Brazil. Are you ready for that?
The nominal interest rate in Brazil is 13.25%. On the street it's over 35%. Inflation is generally around double what it is here.
That'll be us once the world stops using dollars and buying treasuries. We export something like $1 trillion of intangibles a year, things like financial services and intellectual property. Those markets depend on a globalist legal regime in order to function. China famously doesn't pay for software licenses, for example. Why would anyone, once we're isolated and powerless? Who needs American financial services if you're not using any dollars?
All this whining about how hard it is being the sole superpower on earth is pretty fucking embarrassing.
Europe can deal with UKR. Best of luck.
Zelenskyy was a complete idiot, and the reaction of the UKR ambassador to America told the story.
You can't have it both ways. If you want foreign leaders to come to the US to kiss the ring, you have to put yourself in a position of leadership. If you tell foreign leaders to fuck off, they'll tell you to fuck off too.
78 years of propping up Europe is enough. When are they going to stand on their own? Equals help each other, they don't demand a whole generation's lifetime of protection.
78 years of supporting the US when it wants to invade some country or another is enough. When is it going to start respecting other countries' sovereignty and obeying international law? Equals help each other, they don't demand a whole generation's free pass with respect to the norms that bind all other countries.
"When is it going to start respecting other countries' sovereignty and obeying international law? "
When someone is big or tough enough to make us.
Another issue you don't address is European nationalism and militarism. Those things which precipitated both world wars. The USA being largely responsible for European security and military spending is expensive for us, certainly, but it's cheaper than 400,000 US military casualties in WW2. Money well-spent. Trump may be unleashing forces that no one will be able to control in Europe.
What complete garbage. The little man came there to disrupt mouthing talking points on security guarantees that oddly mirror comments later made by Susan Rice (gee wonder why?) for about 40 minutes and then lecturing the US. He wanted to sabotage any deal. President Trump realized that and tossed his ass out of the WH. I couldn't be more proud.
What?
The man came there to save his country, you mindless asswipe
Russia is bombing his people
you bitch about talking points
If anything, Ukraine now embodies the principles we once had. They're brave. They fight. They stand against Russia. They deserve our support more than a nation of Riva's does
Beta-cucks like Riva and dami don’t know what honor is.
None of MAGA do. Look at the most common rant about Zelensky — he "disrespected" Trump/Vance. What are these people, 15 years old?
He tried to bully Trump and that was stupid.
The same people saying its juvenile to complain about Zelensky disrespecting Trump are also the same people losing their mind and complaining that Trump disrespected Zelensky. Says a lot about where your loyalties lie.
people losing their mind and complaining that Trump disrespected Zelensky
Reading the OP and the comments, everyone here is is talking about what this means happens next.
i.e. US stopping it's support for Ukraine.
The fact that it was done in this truly juvenile way is more salt in the wound than the actual issue.
Sure: with the United States, not with Trump.
Zelenskyy tried changing the deal after it was negotiated, and then litigate it in front of the press, in the Oval Office.
David, that was just stupid.
The Faith is strong in this one...
Zelenskyy asked a question - a quite reasonable one - and Trump had no answer other than to claim that Putin would never break the cease-fire while was President. IOW, no answer at all, just loud boastful BS.
And Trump followed it up by yelling about Hunter Biden, lying about $350B, blaming everything on Biden, shouting some more, and generally acting like a jackass.
Now you’re stealing You-Crane Valor?
That little man came here to sabotage a peace deal and perpetuate a war that some have profited over greatly and that keeps him in power. I would say further investigation is needed into who instigated this. The Obama/Biden DOJ/FBI loved making use of the Logan Act. Let's see how much democrats like it now. I would suggest Susan Rice lawyer up. Wouldn't advise using Covington. They have problems of their own.
perpetuate a war?
russian bot piece of garbage
Russia can end the war any day they want
ANY FOOKIN DAY
Just pick up and go home
Ukraine is not and never has been a danger to Russia
The Russian bot insult, yeah that's original. The little man from Ukraine could have started the process to end the war yesterday. President Trump wants peace. Some others, with shall we say democrat leanings, do not. If they want the US endlessly committed to this war, that's politically misguided. And if they want more Ukrainian bodies thrown into the meat grinder, that's their view and that's on them too. But if someone instigated this, worked with the little man on his "security guarantee" talking points and encouraged him on this path of disruption, well that's a different and potentially criminal matter that might bear further examination.
Bot programmed to be angry at little man.
Use bot’s reasoning on Israel.
The destruction of the Hamas animals is neither the incorrect strategic path nor is it politically misguided. And it would be doing the world a favor. So would some drastic reforms in Gaza. Perhaps time to end this generational refugee status and explore relocation. Past time more accurately.
Riva-bot is well programmed.
No money for Ukraine, lots of money for Israel!
If you mean I wholeheartedly support Israel and the elimination of the vile baby killing Hamas animals, well you've got me.
Riva's blaming the Jews for the Holocaust here.
Well it wouldn't have happened without us, we're the life of the Pogrom!
Frank "Ain't no Genocide like a Jew Genocide!"
I have no idea what you two idiots are talking about and I don't care.
Could you and that repulsive troll crazy Dave go corrupt someone else's comment chain?
Clearly, these are paid russbots, ginning up desperate KGB talking points after almost a million dead Russians & N. Koreans, massive sanctions, the destruction of 2/3 of its' tanks and the forever BURN for 'the little guy' McGivering cheap drones that are wreaking literal havoc on the war criminal.
The convicted felon with the rage-purple faced stroke magnet recreated the infamous Sarah Palin moment when she asked "Can I call you Joe? I've got a thing I want to do later..." The punk didn't want to cop to calling President Zelensky "a dictator", and in case it slipped the MAGAT hive mind: President Zelensky was there at dotard's invitation.
Umm, well maybe YOU'RE the paid "Bot", shilling for some shithole former Soviet Republic most Congressmen still probably couldn't find on a map.
You're a disgusting excuse for a human being.
Whoever that is, I’m glad I muted him/her.
Riva the traitor
Well, that's original, at least. More applicable to other disruptive actions that may be going on with the encouragement of certain democrat leaning actors though. Like I've said before, democrats always project. it's an immutable political law.
Russian cuck-bot.
If you had any ability to self-reflect, you might be embarrassed by such crap after the Russian collusion hoax was exposed, or is that hoaxes if we include the laptop lies?
Exposed as being true, the bot means.
I could grant you that, and it still has nothing to do with Ukraine.
Russian bot denies Russian interference!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
Is "Russian interference" what is meant when one refers to the Russian Collusion hoaxes you gaslighting clown? No not really. It was the manufactured lies surrounding some fake conspiracy between Donald Trump/Trump campaign and Russia originally manufactured by Hillary and the democrats and funneled to the FBI through her law firm cutouts, and also the lies from the intel hacks in a letter orchestrated by the Biden campaign. But you know all this already, because as noted above you're just a gaslighting clown.
I guess it could be clarified that the laptop letter lies was not strictly a "collusion" hoax, although there were asinine implications of Russian allegiance if one referred to the Big Guy. Whatever. The point is that both the original Russian collusion nonsense and the lie of a Russian manufactured laptop and its content were all hoaxes, and a result of the machinations of democrats and their paid agents, ironically some foreign paid agents.
In sum and to dumb it down for the gaslighting clowns, a lot of countries "interfere" to some degree in foreign elections, ask USAID. But the Russian collusion fraud hoax and laptop letter lies are not synonymous with Russian interference. They refer to the democrats' manufactured lies.
Oh, Mute, where is thy Sting?
The man's country ain't our concern and he has basically no negotiating power at this point. He should be glad the money has not been cut off yet.
Expecting some form of reimbursement for the way too much money we funneled there is more than reasonable. Also gives us a reason to give a damn one way or the other.
That’s not what is happening.
The goal is for us to recoup some losses. If Zelensky refuses, we can easily and painlessly walk away.
We've flushed billions down a toilet for one of the most corrupt governments in history as a payback for them employing the former President's useless crack addicted son in a job he did not remotely qualify for.
We are broke. And it seems the Left opposes cutting, well, ANYTHING.
We are broke.
You came in with this in the Friday Open Thread. Got pretty well shown you were full of it.
But lesson learning doesn't seem part of your deal, eh?
We have a $37T debt. It's going up $1-2T a year.
I do not know what YOU call broke, but we are there.
What I call broke is not being able to borrow any more money. Do you know what will do wonders for the US government's credit rating and bond yields?
So how much in debt are you? I know a guy.
Billions of what, exactly? Bullets?
Damiksec for cutting Israel aid?
No, damiksec hypocrite.
Never said I oppose it. But continue flailing on the strawman in your head.
Say it now, beta-cuck.
Oppose your alpha.
Do you fuck your mom with that mouth?
Like most people I fuck your mom with that mouth, beta-cuck.
Pretend I’m Russian and get on your knees.
Impressive. She's been dead for a while, so knowing you're into necrophilia is not a huge shock.
On your knees?
Pretend I’ve orange hair and you’ll like it.
The goal is for us to recoup some losses.
Not until the job is done and Russia kicked out, or at least some negotiated ending not pushed by someone buying into Hitler's line that Checkoslovakia caused the threats.
The goal is for us to recoup some losses
Losses? Ukraine has seriously degraded the Russian military. They're drafting 50-year-olds to fight. That's worth a lot to us.
And Trump wants to back away, to join Putin, when he should be doubling down. But he's too fucking stupid, too fucking greedy, too fucking incompetent, too fucking dishonorable.
Without security guarantees any "deal" results in the end of Ukraine.
Without a willingness to take on the Russians there are no security guarantees.
That's a very pinched understanding of power projection.
Sure. The correct way to project power is to dick around for 11 years, then blame Trump.
Fucking incredible.
Trump did this. Not 11 years ago not starting a war.
Do even you believe that rot?
"Trump did this. Not 11 years ago not starting a war."
What the fuck are you talking about? Russia started this war 11 years ago, remember? A Trump presidency was a joke 11 years ago.
Can you say "Chechnya"?
I'll bet Putin can...
You don't know that, Josh R. And we don't know what a security guarantee looks like, either.
I agree we don't know what a security guarantee looks like. That's why it has to be part of the deal. Trump wants the deal first thinking a security guarantee will be easy after that (he trusts Putin). That's a recipe for the end of Ukraine.
I've never blocked anyone here. You might be the first. Being pro-Putin, an enemy of America, is a bridge too far. Go to Breitbart, traitor
all trump voters are anti American pro Putin pieces of crap
vote for a traitor, you are a traitor
trumpski is not the problem, his voters are
The country is diminished because it deserves to be
+1
Your next intelligent post will be your first.
There is some truth to this. Trump is, and always was, Trump. But he used to be "unelectable". Now he's been elected--twice. That's entirely not his fault...
Please do little Hobbit Your idiotic projection is giving me a headache.
Zelenskyy was used to dealing with Biden (whom his country bought and paid for) and those assorted clowns and is not used to somebody telling him no on anything.
Ukraine is not our concern. Hate to break it to people, but if Russia overruns Kyiv tomorrow, our lives here will be unchanged.
Zelensky is not overly interested in peace. I get it, Russia did him wrong. Absolutely.
We are past that now. He can continue to fight all he wants --- but the US has done far more than enough and we will not bankroll it. The EU cannot do so.
A real friend of Jews, you are.
Because Germany killed a ton of Jews, the US is required to fund the losing side of a pointless war in perpetuity?
This is your argument?
It's not losing and it's not perpetuity. It's craven subservience to Hitler.
And the amounts are worth it to stop dictatorial aggression in Europe.
Backing down from 80 years of consistency is...something else.
We backed down in Vietnam.
Backed down in Iraq.
Backed down in Afghanistan.
This is not the first. Nor will it be the last. Idiotic wars with no point and no end goal tend to cause such things.
Guess what Ukraine is?
Last I checked, it was Trudeau and Zelensky that feted a member of the Ukranian SS, not Trump.
What happens when Putin moves on to the Baltic states?
There has been no evidence he has any desire to do so. If he does, that will be dealt with at that point.
I also oppose invading China because they might attack Taiwan. I have a consistent "not sending troops overseas on theoretical possibilities" mindset.
Sure: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/estonia-protests-russia-over-airspace-violation-baltic-tensions-rise-2022-06-21/
China has done the same to Taiwanese airspace.
We still should not do anything until an invasion happens.
I do not know where your war boner is originating from, but you might want to get it under control.
An invasion of Ukraine has happened, beta-cuck
And it is not our concern. If China invades Taiwan, while MORE our concern than Ukraine, it is ALSO not really our concern. The US needs to really investigate what is and what is not our concern.
I assume you're posting from Ukraine fighting the war, oh mighty keyboard warrior. Give 'em hell, tough guy.
Beta-cuck says”I sit back while strong men bang my girl, why shouldn’t everyone?”
Who told you dictators rampaging militarily across the Earth was "not your concern"?
Don't you like to croak the lines that end "...and then finally, they came for me. But there was nobody left to defend me."
See, during the Cold War, which had deep buy in from both parties for decades, merely stopping the dictatorial empire of the Soviet Union from acquiring more economic oomph was seen as a strong value, even independent of freedom.
Who told you any of what you spout was suddenly a value? Leftover Hitler-friendly America Firsters from before World War II?
"Who told you dictators rampaging militarily across the Earth was "not your concern"?"
It is not.
Plenty of very bad stuff happens globally. Countries invade other countries.
It's not our job to fix the world's problems. They have said, repeatedly, they do not want us to do so and I am more than happy to not do so. There are dozens of conflicts all over the Earth. None of them are our direct concern. We have gone above and beyond when it comes to Ukraine.
Putin is no more a threat to us than Hussein was.
"See, during the Cold War, which had deep buy in from both parties for decades, merely stopping the dictatorial empire of the Soviet Union from acquiring more economic oomph was seen as a strong value, even independent of freedom."
It hardly had deep buy in from both parties. Ted Kennedy reached out to the Soviets to have the Soviets help defeat Reagan. It was not a universal belief.
And times have changed. We are basically having to serve as the world's policeman to extreme expense to us and with no benefit.
"Who told you any of what you spout was suddenly a value? Leftover Hitler-friendly America Firsters from before World War II?"
Keep forgetting that Bush's foreign policy was NOT a fucking disaster. It was what America is obligated to do.
Another loony lie.
Stupid people are stupid.
It's the same benefit as before: protecting the liberal international order, which has been of massive benefit to the U.S.
"It hardly had deep buy in from both parties. Ted Kennedy reached out to the Soviets to have the Soviets help defeat Reagan. It was not a universal belief.
Another loony lie."
KGB internal files said it happened. They have a reason to lie about something that only the Soviets would see.
"It's the same benefit as before: protecting the liberal international order, which has been of massive benefit to the U.S."
Not really, no. It is patently insane that the US has to shoulder the burden almost exclusively. We get less out of it than everybody else since we have to bankroll it in the first place.
Let the world carry its own weight for a while.
I am aware of the Tunney allegation; it's obviously a fabrication, because it's written by someone who knows nothing about the U.S. The offer was supposedly that in exchange for — whatever, that wasn't clear — that Kennedy would arrange for Andropov to be interviewed on American tv. That's the sort of thing a Russian might think plausible, because of course that's the way it would work in the Soviet Union: a government official would have to make arrangements for such an interview. But here in the real world, we know that every major news outlet in the U.S. would have leapt at the chance to score an interview with Andropov in 1983, and that Ted Kennedy was neither necessary nor sufficient to make that happen.
You sound like Neville Chamberlain.
No one is proposing to have us invade anybody.
So you support cutting funding from the Ukraine war debacle? Welcome aboard.
Of course not (only Chamberlains would do so). Our support (not involving invading anybody) is needed to keep Putin one step away from the Baltics. That being said, I would love to see a peace deal that had real security guarantees to insure Putin will not attack Ukraine again.
Putin is not attacking the Baltics.
I assume you ALSO are posting from Ukraine, fighting those evil Russkies! Be tough, tough guy!
Because it's really easy to be cavalier about things when they don't harm you. It's easy to say "Hey, let's fund this" when it ain't your money.
He wasn't going to attack Ukraine either.
I guess Churchill was one of those chickenhawks prior to WWII?
Beta-cuck wants to surrender because that’s what his wife/girlfriend expects of him.
Hard to surrender when you're not actually a combatant, much as chicken hawk necrophiliacs like you wish we were.
He’s all for sending troops to make Gaza a resort.
Idiot or traitor?
Actually, I'm all for stepping back and telling Israel to do whatever they want and selling arms to whatever side wants to pay for them.
So Dear Leader is an idiot for his stupid Gaza comments?
Say it, Beta-Cuck. He can’t hurt you here.
*yawn*
He can’t say it. Beta-cuck knows his place!
"What happens when Putin moves on to the Baltic states?"
You tell me. We have been unwilling to take on Putin over this situation. Do you think we'll grow a pair if Estonia is threatened?
Where unwilling means sending gobs of resources to their opponent. Beta-cuck wants to not even do that? Lay on your back and expose your belly for Putin like you do your girlfriend’s lover?*
*twelveinch of course has no girlfriend, outside of Canada
"Where unwilling means sending gobs of resources to their opponent. "
As long as their opponent didn't use them in a way that make Putin mad. I see you like to shake your fist at your girlfriend's lover as you fellate him.
"Beta-cuck wants to not even do that?"
As I've been saying since 2014, and re-iterating since 2022, we should be more active in expelling Ukraine, including direct military action against Russia. IIRC you were one of the cadre that was claiming that that was too much for your tiny little balls.
Look at this cuck.
Look, Trump can’t hurt you here, beta.
Just say it: Trump, the current President of the US, was wrong.
No need for whataboutism.’
Just say it.
Why can’t you?
"Look at this cuck...Just say it: Trump, the current President of the US, was wrong."
Wft? Did your wife's lover's spooge rot your brain? I've repeated said that Trump, and Biden, and Obama, should all have done what is necessary to remove Russia from Ukraine. I said that Trump and Vance were dicks. I get that your brain can't conceive of "dick" and "wrong" in the same thought, but come on.
I also get that you're sitting in a corner masturbating while watching some dude fucking your wife, but at least try to devote some of your attention to the comments you're responding to.
Trump would rather not.
He's wrong. Just like the people, including Trump, who refused to respond effectively to the Ukraine situation are wrong.
We have been unwilling to take on Putin over this situation. Do you think we'll grow a pair if Estonia is threatened?
Foreign affairs is really about perception.
Europe trusted us up until the last couple of weeks.
No amount of hypotheticals or false choices or blaming Obama will change why that's different now, or who is to blame.
You got your work cut out for you. Start those sealioning engines!
"Foreign affairs is really about perception."
Yup. That's why Biden created the perception that we were helping Ukraine without effectively doing so.
But it's unlikely Putin was fooled, and eventually people would have perceived Russian tanks in Estonia.
And no amount of whining about Trump being a dick will change the fact that we got to this point by ignoring the initial invasion.
That's why Biden created the perception that we were helping Ukraine without effectively doing so.
So the Trumpist complaint is twofold:
1. We spent too much helping Ukraine.
2. We didn't help Ukraine enough.
Do you guys think at all, or just parrot Trump, who spouts this kind of idiocy daily?
It's been 3 fucking years, TiP.
The idea that Biden and the EU haven't been effective re: Ukraine is contrary to reality.
You seem to be of the 'we invade acquisitive countries or let them get whatever they want' opinion
Which is a pretty dumb opinion, but supporting Trump requires taking on a lot of believing the ridiculous.
"It's been 3 fucking years, TiP."
You suck at math. It's been 11 years.
"You seem to be of the 'we invade acquisitive countries or let them get whatever they want' opinion"
What are you talking about? Our current strategy, for 11 years, has allowed the Russians to get what they want. I'm against that.
If the Baltic states are worried about a Russian invasion they should do two things immediately
1) Form an alliance with each other and any other willing parties.
2) Begin buying the weapons that they believe that they will need for their defense.
The Baltic states are in NATO, and US troops (a heavy brigade) are stationed in Estonia. The US has been crystal clear....not one inch of NATO soil will be breached.
That has been the case for 3 years now.
Tell that to the Romanians. The "for now" in this headline speaks volumes.
https://www.romania-insider.com/romania-usa-nato-russia-february-2025
Yes, under Biden. But now we have a new president, and Trump has been crystal clear: he doesn't value NATO and does not want to be a part of it, and will do nothing to defend any inch of NATO soil.
Why should anybody value NATO?
The other countries refuse to honor their commitments. Have not done so in many years now. Why should they get the benefits when they have actively been in violation of the agreement terms? They should be required to meet their military spending obligations AND backpay for all of the years they missed.
NATO is a gift for Europe. It does nothing for the US. Its utility ended when the USSR ended.
And Biden was never President. He was a husk who was incapable of managing a bowel movement without significant chemical interference.
He will honor the treaty because, unlike the other countries, the US does honor agreements. Shame Europe will not do so.
Yet another Trump/Putin lie. Their commitment is to come to the aid of each other if attacked. The one time that happened and Article 5 was invoked, the other NATO members lived up to that commitment.
There. Is. Nothing. In. The. NATO. Treaty. About. Spending. Levels.
NATO doesn't seem to value the USA except as a piggy bank otherwise the other NATO members would consistently hold up to their financial obligations.
NATO doesn't seem to value the USA
What does valuing NATO other than as a piggy bank look like?
Our leadership of NATO provided both soft power and military power projection, defined as we wanted it to be defined.
This whole zero sum thinking is childlike.
There are no "financial obligations."
Umm, he wins
Ukraine "bought and paid for" Joe Biden?
Are you okay?
That's the only way Trumpists can justify to themselves that they voted for Trump: Claim that all politicians take bribes just like he does.
Not all. But the Biden family? Hell, yes.
Did he operate a Bidencoin enterprise where donors could funnel millions and millions of dollars to him anonymously? Admit it, you don't give a shit about corruption.
Biden pardoned his family for years for selling his influence globally.
James Comer investigated Biden for years and found no evidence of anything illegal, other than that Hunter Biden didn't pay some taxes. (Which I don't mean to suggest that Comer himself actually uncovered. DOJ did.)
He has quite explicitly stated otherwise.
He says lots of things… in tweets, or on OAN. In terms of the actual committee work, he tried to trumpet a couple of non-findings (Hunter Biden paid Joe back three monthly installments of $1,400 for a truck!), got laughed at, and slunk away. Which is why, while the House GOP did a performative impeachment of Mayorkas, they didn't even try against Biden.
Crimea Riva in full flow.
You go, girl!
Bots don’t have gender.
Nor do you.
Look at this lil’ beta cuck trying to weakly assert some measure of masculinity!
Tell him you’re Russian and he’ll happily turn over and ask you to scratch his belly while you bone (any woman who would associate with this loser).
Will somebody help Mr. Edge Lord here? He wants attention, like the necro puppy he is.
OK, I'm seeing this 20 hrs later, but Malika just got a Hot (redacted) Facial
Trump stated off the visit by criticizing Zelenskyy's outfit and telling him that he should not hate Putin so much. Could you imagine Roosevelt telling the French resistance that they should think better of Hitler?
Also Trump's demand for Ukrainian resources is exploitative.
Ah, so you did not watch it. The whole thing was televised. You clearly did not see it or else you'd know what you're saying is laughably wrong.
No, we did watch the whole damned sordid thing. Trump couldn't even answer the question about what happens if Putin re-invades anyway.
Threats of toughness of hypotheticals: tons!
Actual oportunities to support:
1. We're abandoning you. Be thankful and give us money.
2. "Thanks, Gramps!" from Russian state media, to Republicans fearful of Trump, before he was even re-elected, cutting funds.
3. "Thanks, Gramps!" 2.0 some months later as Republicans cut another support plan.
So many of you mocked woke people punching idiot neo-Nazis in the US in idiotic afternoon-out-then-let's-lunch-somewhere demonstrations. But when it came time to stand up to real dictators, with real armies advancing and killing, you fall back, cowards, saying nunmy bizzness.
This us u!
"No, we did watch the whole damned sordid thing. Trump couldn't even answer the question about what happens if Putin re-invades anyway."
Answering hypotheticals is asinine and a waste of time. As it stands, there is no deal to end this at all. That sounds so much better.
"Actual oportunities to support:
1. We're abandoning you. Be thankful and give us money.
2. "Thanks, Gramps!" from Russian state media, to Republicans fearful of Trump, before he was even re-elected, cutting funds.
3. "Thanks, Gramps!" 2.0 some months later as Republicans cut another support plan."
Thank you, George W. Bush, for showing us that nation building is always a good idea and never EVER a really stupid idea.
"So many of you mocked woke people punching idiot neo-Nazis in the US in idiotic afternoon-out-then-let's-lunch-somewhere demonstrations. But when it came time to stand up to real dictators, with real armies advancing and killing, you fall back, cowards, saying nunmy bizzness."
Hey, you're free to volunteer and go there.
Iraq showed what a fucking horrible idea your policy preference is. I kinda wish you learned from the past, but you have not.
What did the 1930's teach us about not caring about European ultra-nationalism and expansionism? Your preaching about learning from the past seems kinda selective.
We would have been wise to arm both the Soviets and the Nazis and encourage the two sides to slaughter one another en masse. Both sides were evil.
And it is not our job to prevent Europe from reverting to their usual fascist tendencies. Hell, people bitched when Vance called them out on doing precisely that.
Europe is not something we should be attached to. Until they decide to regain any semblance of fondness for free speech and open elections, they are little more than a cancer.
Yes, MAGA is a cancer.
MAGA is not about silencing all opposition.
Biden, however, seemed QUITE fond of it. Most of the Left does as well.
And basically all of Western Europe does.
Tell it to the Associated Press.
The same person who pretends that the reason he wants to end this war is because of all the killing.
I'd rather not see Ukrainians dying en masse.
Nazis killing Communists and Communists killing Nazis? Yes, let's ramp that up.
If two evil sides wish to fight, the best move is sit back and allow them. Help them kill each more efficiently if one wishes.
damikesc you completely miss my point. It is very much in our own self-interest to have the European powers getting along with each other and not spending huge amounts of their GDP on the military. We should be involved with Europe to the extent that we are able to help prevent ultranationalism from rising again there. That way leads to disaster, as has been amply demonstrated.
AS far as crossing the line even for the diehards
Laughable
Next to the Republican's trying to steal the election on Jan6, this has to be the worst political moment I have ever seen in my entire life. Can we even recover from this?
We survived having a husk with no brain for the last four years and came out OK. We will come out ahead here.
You’re an idiot. Muted.
Oh no. How will I ever survive?
Mute! where is thy sting?
Capt Graybar.
a husk with no brain for the last four years
Trump lost, dude.
You can stop the act. Even Jake Tapper is admitting Biden was cognitively compromised during his term.
Of course, he angrily defended Biden when somebody pointed it out at the time, but even somebody as dim as Tapper recognizes it.
Is it sad to be dimmer than Jake Tapper?
You and Riva trashing America all the time is tolerable because it is as much your country as it is mine. But capitulating to our sworn enemy...you traitors can fuck right off
Your blindingly stupid projection is really quite amazing, even by democrat standards little Hobbit.
Could've sworn his hero said his thinking was 1980's policy.
Putin is "evil" for 2 reasons:
The main one is that Hillary lost and needed a scapegoat. He was it.
And two, he did not allow access of the woke BS into Russia. For all of his litany of faults, he is no worse than other European powers. He just did not allow that nonsense to corrode his country.
These people hate gays more than they like the U.S.
Not sure why you assume I think about gays. I do not. I pity trannies and loathe people like you who lead them to suicide.
Well I for one, had been really waiting for the opinion of John Taylor, Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles, in regards to the conversation between Zelensky and President Trump and VP Vance.
Wait. Could someone remind me exactly why his opinion is so important?
He speaks for Jesus Christ
An EPISCOPAL bishop? He barely speaks for himself.
What a laughable congregation the Anglicans/Episcopalians are.
You and your ilk didn't seem to like it when it was the Pope either.
https://apnews.com/article/pope-trump-migration-09a89091f8e7dc3270099f0947d04e90
The Pope is a joke. Funny seeing the Pope decry walls when Vatican City is surrounded by them and is notoriously unfriendly towards anybody who does not "belong" there being there.
Forget who the Idiot "Conspirator" was who said he went to the Vatican and didn't see any Wall, probably went to the Grand Canyon and didn't see a mile deep umm, Canyon, went to DC and didn't see the giant Phallic symbol south of the White House, went to a Solar Eclipse and wondered why it got dark all of a sudden, this is fun, join in!
"Wait. Could someone remind me exactly why his opinion is so important?"
Guessing it's because Mr. Post agrees with it?
I would, but I am preoccupied with hanging on the every word of CindyF, the Oracle of Volokh.
Least I heard of her before today.
Taylor speaks for a church that used to be Christian, but now devotes much of its energy to promoting LGBTQ+ causes.
Unable to rebut the message, attack the messenger. Please show us on the doll where John Taylor touched you.
"Could someone remind me exactly why his opinion is so important?"
Its not even an original opinion
Frank Drackman here used the Animal House quote a week or so back.
It was beautiful! Greatest show on Earth! Your attitude is laughable.
"Are there really no Republicans out there who have the courage to stand up and say: "All Americans should be deeply ashamed of what he has done in our name, and deeply ashamed of how he did it." No?"
No. They are gone. Their party has gone toxic and it will consume every single one of them before MAGA runs its course.
This will all blow up in time. A whole generation of Republican politicians will be left with no defense other than, "I was afraid for my job." Which is as bad as saying, "Sometimes I feel like I might get brainwashed" for a politician's career.
Are you afraid he'll order a Republican challenger to you at midterms? Think a bit further ahead.
Grow some balls. Today. Or it's all over for you in 4 to 6 years. This stupidity, too, will pass. Then what?
I do not get your hard-on for Bush foreign policy.
That is your hang up here. We won't simply waste trillions on a war that cannot end.
"All Americans should be deeply ashamed" of what, exactly? That there were testy words exchanged on television? Oh my, the horror!
Get a grip, people. Hundreds of thousands of young men are dead in a senseless proxy war, with more dying by the day. An ex-comedian and an ex-reality TV star crossed horns in public. Big deal.
What matters is what will happen now. Either Europe will decide to stand up and fight (doubtful), or everyone is going to live with a US-mediated peace.
If this was just Trump being a dick for a bit, no one would care.
There is of course an internet conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian asset. I tend not to believe that. However this does beg the question: Why is Trump acting like a Russian asset?
Not fellating Zelensky is not loving Putin, Tony.
Trump has called Zelensky a dictator and blamed Ukraine for Russia invading it. Stop fellating Trump to excuse his bullshit.
"Canceling elections doesn't make you a dictator" is a weird mindset to be pushing on Trump.
Zelenskyy was actually following his constitution. That's the weird mindset Trump can't seem to get.
"Trump has called Zelensky a dictator"
Putin being a dictator does not disqualify Zelensky from being one as well. We allied with Stalin to fight Hitler. I bet Stalin was not a dictator or anything, right?
"Stop fellating Trump to excuse his bullshit."
Just because a country bought off a corrupt, decrepit President through his son does not mean we must follow that asinine policy forever.
Zelensky is worse than Putin. Trump is not siding with either one.
Schlafly hates Zelensky because he's Jewish. (Zelensky, not Schlafly, that is.)
So why don't I like him? I'm Jewish (Spoiler Alert, he never wears a Suit, and it's corollary, he goes around like Fidel Castro although he's never served a day in the military )
That's right. Some Republicans said he disrespected the White House and should have shown up in a suit. But wearing military garb while your country is at war is standard. It's a puzzling attack against him.
It's really very much not. Churchill wore plenty of suits at the appropriate functions during WWII, while wearing military garb at other functions. Moreover, with all the millions Zelensky has corruptly squirreled away at his French villa, it's not like he's hurting for cash.
with all the millions Zelensky has corruptly squirreled away at his French villa, it's not like he's hurting for cash.</i.
Pretty serious accusation there, ravenshrike. Got evidence? And no, an article on Breitbart or the like doesn't count.
"wearing military garb while your country is at war is standard"
I vividly recall both George Bush's routine wearing of "military garb". LBJ too!
The one time GWB wore "military garb" [flight suit], libs all over had strokes. Note he changed to a suit for his speech.
Hasn't our Jew-Loving Elon been walking around the Oval Office in a tee shirt, Frankie?
Is he begging for cash? Or is he looking to cut spending?
How so?
Zelensky is a warmonger and a tyrant. He has refused peace deals and jailed his enemies. He has taken many billions in USA aid, and he still has the nerve to demand NATO membership, which essentially means that American soldiers will have to fight the next war he starts.
At this point in the horror movie, an innocent driver, being harrassed by the rotten sheriff, sees the monster quietly rise up behind the sheriff, and bite off the top of his body.
The audience gets a cathartic thrill.
Your barferation is straight out of Putin's talking points. We could assume the worst of Z., and he's still miles behind Putin.
This ignores stopping expansion of a dictatorial empire is a sufficient reason by itself.
You do know that Ukraine was invaded and all the "peace deals" were "give Russia everything they want". Zelensky can't agree to any deal that does not ensure Ukraine won't be attacked again. NATO membership would achieve that.
Ukraine was only invaded after provoking Russia. Zelensky is not in a position to make those demands.
There is no provocation short of an act of war that would justify Russia invading Ukraine. Ukraine wanting to join NATO is not justification at all.
Molly, you're going to have to start numbering your Russian collusion fraud hoaxes. I'm starting to lose count. Just like Hollywood, you clowns never know when to stop with bad sequels.
This is not a "Russian collusion fraud hoax". It is an observation that every indicator points to Trump being Russian asset, and has been for a very long time. It is the theory that fits all the facts.
The only reason that I doubt that theory is that if Trump really was a Russian asset the intelligence and law enforcement community would have successfully sabotaged his candidacy a long time ago.
Tony, we know you're a blithering idiot. You do not need to CONTINUE proving it.
Rebuke me. Trump went to Russia in 1987 and then paid $100k to run a full page pro-Russian ad in the New York times.
Trump spoke to Putin alone, with no US translator during a meeting.
Trump has consistently made pro-Russian and pro-Putin comments.
Russia helped Trump in 2016 (this is a fact, I am not saying that the Trump campaign was involved)
Trump has lied about Russia invading Ukraine.
The Trump DoD told it's Cyber Command to stand down in regards to Russia. And there are more.
Ya, this looks a hell of a lot like Trump is a Russian asset.
"Rebuke me. Trump went to Russia in 1987 and then paid $100k to run a full page pro-Russian ad in the New York times."
The 1987 criticized policy towards Japan and other countries, Had literally nothing to do with the USSR at all.
"Trump spoke to Putin alone, with no US translator during a meeting."
The US has exceptionally unreliable government employees. He would have been wise to freeze out ALL US government employees during his first term and used private people instead.
"Trump has consistently made pro-Russian and pro-Putin comments."
False.
And I am do not know how you expect to engage in diplomacy by insulting somebody you're trying to negotiate with. Seems like an asinine way to go.
"Russia helped Trump in 2016 (this is a fact, I am not saying that the Trump campaign was involved)"
Factually not accurate. They had pro-Hillary and pro-Trump ads. And the evidence that anybody even SAW the ads, much less that they had any impact on the voters, is non-existent.
"Trump has lied about Russia invading Ukraine."
Yes, he made an asinine comment.
"The Trump DoD told it's Cyber Command to stand down in regards to Russia. And there are more."
Would love to see any evidence of this claim.
I note that insulting America and America's president was quite a thing until Jan 20th
I have not accused anybody criticizing Trump of trying to overthrow the government. You can make any asinine comments about Trump you wish.
It had everything to do with the USSR. Just like he's been doing in this millennium, Trump attacked our allies and tried to split us from them. Cui bono? The Soviet Union.
No, it did not. You are able to criticize one thing and not say you support literally everything else.
What kind of asinine nonsense is that?
Do you think your take here is wise?
You forgot the laundering of Russian mafia money through Trump's casino.
Oh, you mean your fantasy? Got it. He is hella guilty if one goes with your fervent imagination.
In the REAL world, however...
Ha ha okay then. You might want to do a little research into Trump's Atlantic City Casino.
I do not have access to your imagination (thank God).
Just google it, dimwit. It's not that hard to find.
If it doesn't involve watching a Rumble video these people don't do research.
Whatever you think about yesterday, the whole scene shouldn't have been necessary. The whole issue should have been dealt with in 2014, when Russia first invaded and started the situation. But we decided not to honor our obligations under the treaty where Russia gave up its nuclear weapons, or the UN's general rule against gaining territory through force. Instead, Obama chose to fellate Putin, as he had promised to do after his re-election.
Obama and Trump in his first term had 8 years to deal with the situation until inevitable result of their inaction (and the withdrawal from Afghanistan) yielded the inevitable results: Further invasion.
We had another chance to deal with it in 2022: Zelenskyy begged us to provide a no fly-zone, but Biden felt that that would interfere with his fellatio of Putin. Instead he gave Ukraine $350B in arms, but literally let Putin dictate their targeting. The US and the West has plenty of ability to eject Russia from Ukraine, and we could probably do it without Western ground troops or even Western troops. We just don't have the balls.
So sure, Trump is to be criticized for failing to do what is necessary to handle the Ukrainian situation. But there is plenty of blame to go around.
Counterfactual your way into Trump blamelessness!
Whatever you think about yesterday, the whole scene shouldn't have been necessary.
Stop time traveling.
What do you think about yesterday?
Why can’t you say it? Are you afraid? Are you a hack?
Just be a man and say it.
Whew! So we won't be seeing 'Obama' or 'Biden' out of you moving forward?
That is wrong. Setting aside the nomenclature of calling it a treaty, the U.S. had no obligations to defend Ukraine under the Budapest memorandum. Our obligation was to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity ourselves.
Arguing that the U.S. should've shot down Russian aircraft is certainly a take.
Fictional numbers remain fictional.
"Literally!"
"Arguing that the U.S. should've shot down Russian aircraft is certainly a take."
And people wonder if we'll honor Article 5 in places like Estonia.
Apparently arguing that we should give Ukraine weapons that they can use before Russian troops cross the border was also a take at one time.
We have a legal obligation to defend Estonia. Not so for Ukraine. (If you're arguing that we should've admitted Ukraine to NATO, I don't disagree.)
"Biden felt that that would interfere with his fellatio of Putin. Instead he gave Ukraine $350B in arms"
You can support Ukraine without being a lying shit, you know.
The US has not given Ukraine $350 billion in arms.
Fair enough, but whatever. Notice I'm not claiming that the US did to much. On the contrary.
On that, we agree. They should've had F-16s and more supplies far earlier, and should not have been forbidden to target inside Russia with them.
I apologize for the vulgarity. I'm tired of Trump's lies.
It was entertaining, but not as much as these two questions:
1) "Why don’t you wear a suit? You’re in the highest level of this country’s office, and you refuse to wear a suit? I just want to see, do you own a suit?" - Brian Glenn of Real America's Voice (and Marjorie Taylor Greene's; boyfriend).
2) "You had Hilary McCrory and Keir Starmer at the White House this past week, both of whom praised your courage and conviction to lead the pathway towards peace. Part of that involved, though, reengaging in Russia and diplomatic relations, something that previous leaders lacked—the conviction to do so. What gave you the moral courage and conviction to step forward and lead that?." - someone from One America News.
When you kick out the AP, you end up with shit like this.
These were said in the Oval Office or AF1? Because that is the extent of what the AP has been "kicked out of".
They were questions in the Oval Office yesterday.
So, it's better than normal. Terrific.
Any of you fucks been in a actual Wah you wouldn’t be so eager to send other peoples kids to one
They're crying over the lost profits of the MIC.
They don't care how many American sons, husbands, and fathers need to be sacrificed for Forever War (tm).
No American sons, husbands, or fathers have been sacrificed in Ukraine.
From "Task & Purpose" 2-8-2024
"At least 50 American citizens have died in Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022, according to a list compiled by Task & Purpose from public sources. Of those 50, the vast majority served at least briefly in the U.S. military, some for long careers.
Most Americans killed in Ukraine went to join the fighting. Others worked to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need while others documented the war. Many were killed in direct fighting with Russian forces or in attacks that struck behind the front lines while others died outside combat, such as in car crashes."
Humanitarian volunteers and those who ran off to join the foreign legion are not the Americans you're looking for.
You're talking of the sort "We will not send your boys off to fight and die in an foreign wars!"
This is a valid thing, of course. But nobody is talking that, just sending supplies, and quite effectively at that.
You probably supported the US sending arms to various resistance groups in decades past.
Frankie knows what he himself means. He's just run out of rhetorical justifications so he's throwing his brethren under the bus
Frankie 'Wounded Warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, try and think of the conundrum the Ukrainians face. Imagine if Hamas hadn't kidnapped 200 people but rather 20,000 Jewish children. Held them for three years while slowly deprogramming them to be Hamas. I'll bet you would scorch the earth to get them back instead of leaving their fate to a fat orange liar that values Neodymium more than their lives
Oh, because I'm Jewish I only care about Jews?, I don't see Israel getting $300,000,000,000, or Net n' Yahoo coming to the White House in a Turtleneck, you should stick to stealing Veterans Valor, your Anti-Semite skills need work.
What does that have to do with 20,000 child hostages........Frankie?
"Surely this crosses the line, even for the diehards."
as soon as I read this I knew you were wrong. To be so sure about this is a mistake the Trump opposition has made, every single step along the way.
Yes. We've constantly underestimated the ability of the MAGA ecosystem to rationalize anything and everything Trump does. What we really need to do is this:
Forget trying to speak to MAGA directly. They will only see Trump and Trumpists for what they are if they want to. Nothing we can say or show them will ever make the slightest dent.
Instead, we need to make sure that we are speaking to those people that look at Republicans as a viable alternative to Democrats, but that aren't under Trump's spell. We need to be arguing publicly with the Republican politicians and right-wing pundits that want some of Trump's policies (and oppose just about anything a Democrat supports) about whether Trump is really working in their best interests. Confront them with these kinds of things that Trump does and ask them if lower corporate and capital gains taxes, drastically reduced federal spending on virtually everything besides the military in order to keep that lost revenue from exploding the debt even more, is worth the damage that Trump is doing to our geopolitical standing.
But we do have to be careful, since the Trump playbook, as articulated by Steve Bannon more than once between 2016 and the end of Trump's first term, is to "flood the zone with shit" to keep his opponents off balance and overwhelmed. We can't let that tactic work. We have to focus in on a few of the most damning acts and policies that Trump is pursuing and not let his defenders deflect and switch to something else to avoid answering. Whether Trump really is smart enough to be doing this on purpose or not, the point of his constant barrage of WTF is that nothing sticks when the next jaw-dropping moment is just a day away, if not sooner.
I'll respect this opinion when you go to the frontlines.
Did you vote for Captain Bone Spurs? Or maybe you won't have anything to say about supporting Israel until after you've gone to Gaza to hunt down Hamas.
An opinion I can't respect is one that isn't even an opinion at all, but is just a red herring.
Did you vote for Captain Bone Spurs?
Twice, this is what I voted for.
Or maybe you won't have anything to say about supporting Israel until after you've gone to Gaza to hunt down Hamas.
They aren't my problem, and Trump agrees.
I'll respect this opinion when you go to the frontlines.
I don't need respect from anyone.
Least of all, the chickenhawks.
Wait, who do you think is a chickenhawk?
Anyone who wants the war to continue, but refuses to actively fight it.
I have the utmost respect for the Ukrainians who chose to do so.
Their problem is that they could never win. If they were smart, they'd cut their losses. Now.
Not our war.
Is this just jealousy when the charge was legitimately leveled at neocons back in the day and you're trying to get that square peg into this round hole?
It isn't realists (or isolationists) who want the war to continue until "victory".
The Ukrainian people have agency.
I haven't denied that they can fight.
Only that their fight is pointless.
1. So then who are the chickenhawks, of those fighting in the war have free choice?
2. Russian tools predicted the war would last a week. Turns out these things are hard to predict.
And here you are, predicting it. On behalf of a bunch of other people.
1 I will repeat myself only once: Anyone who wants the war to continue, but refuses to actively fight it.
Go enlist if it's that important to you.
2 Well then excellent news, the EU plans on replacing the US role in funding the war. When the nukes fly, it will be on the hands of those who wanted to escalate.
You think implications of cowardice from behind a pseudonym have capacity to impress anyone? Stupid.
Like Stephen Latherup is your real name
To be fair, a lot of folks here think that profanity and name calling might impress someone...
The fuck you say!
"I don't need respect from anyone.
Least of all, the chickenhawks."
They are brave enough to fight to the last of somebody else's kids, aren't they?
Your leader is also converned about saving Hitler's troops, a concern his beloved Hitler does not share.
Your concern is laughable.
How noble to give up Ukraine's freedom on behalf of Ukraine.
Weird how the only Nazis in the conflict are on Ukraine's side, no?
Trump wants to end the killing on BOTH sides. Putin has shown interest in negotiation. Zelensky has not. Still does not.
I've never been more grateful for the "mute user" function. Now, I'd really be better off if I could stop looking at the comments entirely. Even reading the comments of people that are thoughtful and provide interesting points of view and information I didn't know is not worth the overall waste of time that they are.
I have come to think of it like this: If I only had 1 hr a day to consume information about politics and "news" more generally, would I be here reading the comments? Would I scroll through social media feeds? Would I listen to podcasts, watch cable 'news' personalities offering their opinions and commentary? Fuck no.
That I'm still here shows me that it is hard to resist, but over the last several decades, humans in developed societies have come to treat news as just another form of entertainment. All of the forward progress we've made in the past and are making now in increasing people's freedoms, equality, and safety from foreign dictators is getting cancelled by the consequences of being distracted and divided by all of the shit we are seeing instead of real news. And we are loving every minute of it.
Good point.
Right, but too few write objectively. One reason is the quality of the article and why it matters that people comment on it.
Poor articles produce poor comments - poor as in low quality substance. Poor as in the response to a poor meeting in the White House with a poor guest producing poor reactions by Trump based on poor relations towards Putin by past poor White House, et al. US government personnel. Meaning, the wrongful attack by Russia would have been avoided if the stance taken years ago was to include working on conflict reduction either by strong force or by being pals, friends, tovarich.
Post's post is not helpful and should not be taken seriously.
You can probably find a podcast that is useful under those terms, and while listening, you can skim various other sources.
People have engaged with others to chew over the news over the ages. They went to bars, coffeehouses, or wherever they hung out. News was a form of entertainment in the 19th Century.
Chatboards, etc., do provide a newer medium that people consume for various purposes. It has a dark side, like other things.
Of course, discussing news reporting with others in the way you describe is normal and healthy for society. That is not what I'm talking about. The 'dark side' of that kind of public discourse is not what I am talking about, either. The only dangers or 'dark side' of discussing current events in bars, coffeehouses, or whatever is that people might give in to their cognitive biases like they would anywhere else or that hanging out only with people like them would lead them to willingly entering echo chambers.
Even aside from how the internet, and social media in particular, enabled people to find echo chambers, it has enable and encouraged people to not even start with any shared sense of what is objectively true before beginning those kinds of discussions. And people aren't starting with that because they aren't looking for any objective news before they start looking for something that will make them feel good.
Ukraine cannot and never could win. The only possibility was with NATO air and ground support. That's NATO at war with Russia. Probably better to go back to nation building in Afghanistan. It's been a grift since day one.
Better still, put Russia back to work on nation building in Afghanistan. That's been going on for so long that Mellville mentioned it in Moby Dick. In fact, any time you conclude any foreign power needs taking down a notch, suggest nation building in Afghanistan.
Ukraine could — and can, if Putin's bitch can be evicted from the Oval Office quickly enough — win. Winning for Ukraine does not involve capturing Moscow with ground forces. It involves holding fast against Russian aggression until Russia can't or won't continue.
Yes, and the Florida Marlins might win the World Series this year, but the moneys on the team with bigger and more weapons.
And which team was that, until "Thanks, Gramps!" came along?
OK, you got me, I'm old, it's "Miami Marlins" hey, I still call them the "Oakland" Raiders
It's clear that you're the next Sun Tzu. Or the next General Arthur Percival.
(Given your experience, my money's on you being a Percival).
Russia is advancing into Ukrainian territory, and your idea for Ukraine to "win" is to let the Russians continue to advance until they exhaust themselves?
What the actual fuck?
Ukraine is losing territory at present. Ukraine also has exhausted their manpower and won't be reclaiming that territory when Russia maybe-sorta exhausts their military two years from now.
Fantasies of future hollow Russian force crumbling in the first wave by Ukrainians in pickups a la Kharkiv in the fall of 2022 are just that- a fantasy.
Now do Afghanistan.
Did the Russians undertake Russification against the Afghani people?
I don't understand the relevance of that question. You ridiculed the notion of the Russians continuing to advance until they exhausted themselves. That sounds a lot like what happened in Afghanistan, does it not?
Ukraine isn't the side reduced to importing North Korean auxiliaries.
Maybe Ukraine should ask North Korea if they have any troops to spare, too:
https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/01/03/why-is-ukraine-losing-ground-deep-analysis-of-military-problems-in-2025/
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2025/02/combat-losses-and-manpower-challenges-underscore-the-importance-of-mass-in-ukraine/
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-big-strategy-solving-manpower-crunch-not-working-2025-1
https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/02/26/ukraine-is-scrambling-to-find-fresh-fighters
https://kyivindependent.com/absurd-phenomenon-the-manpower-issue-threatening-to-weaken-ukraines-air-force/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_conscription_crisis
"It involves holding fast against Russian aggression until Russia can't or won't continue."
Jeez. Again this is just wrong. Tactically speaking, dislodging Russia from the territories it occupies requires Ukrainian aggression, and Ukraine hasn't had a successful large-scale offensive since mid-2022.
David, maybe you'd like to point out how you think UKR can defeat RUS on the battlefield, if only POTUS Trump wasn't there. They've had 3 years under POTUS Biden and did not defeat the Russians.
What changed, David.
David has aptly demonstrated the conceit of the warmongers running Washington before Jan 20th: they want Ukraine to keep fighting not for its own interests, but for their own.
As one observer put it:
What these hateful, evil people don't realize is that even by their own terms, the time to get peace is now. Ukraine is losing territory as Russia slowly grinds its way through the Donbas and there's no realistic hope that Ukraine will somehow take it back.
Yes, you have Ukraine's interests at heart by telling it to surrender and give up its national autonomy.
The straw man is the last refuge of those who operate with their heads up their own asses. To wit: I never said that Ukraine should surrender its national autonomy.
I think Ukraine should aim for a cease fire that maintains the status quo; the front lines should be frozen in place. The conflict can be frozen much like between North and South Korea.
Even if a final peace treaty is signed that recognizes the current de facto territorial control as the new de jure line of control, then that is better for Ukraine than a situation where they burn through lives and treasure to slowly lose territory with no realistic way of ever regaining it.
Certainly the black eye of formally losing territory that they already lost is preferable to losing more territory that they will never regain.
Who is going to enforce the status quo? That has to be part of the cease fire agreement.
I say let Europe enforce it. They can station troops in a Ukraine at peace and help fortify the frontier much as the US has done for South Korea for the the past 75 years.
From Starmer's remarks today:
I was unaware of Starmer's remarks until after I posted my comment, but he and several other European leaders have come to the same conclusion that I have.
You did. The choices are keep fighting or surrendering its national autonomy. Russia is offering no terms that involve Ukraine being a free and independent state.
I think Ukraine should ask for a pony. The U.S. kept tens of thousands of troops in South Korea to protect the country, and still has 25,000 there now, 70 years after the war. The U.S. is offering zero troops in Ukraine. All your proposal does is give Russia time and resources to rearm.
Ukraine doesn't agree with you about what is better for Ukraine.
No, I did not. Stop lying.
How childish. This is a false choice, and it's easy to contemplate other outcomes besides "surrender" and "fighting endlessly."
David, you are ill-informed as to the state of the war and what the players on the world stage are saying:
'"We have to learn from the mistakes of the past, we cannot accept a weak deal... which Russia can breach with ease, instead any deal must be backed by strength," he said.
The prime minister did not state which countries had agreed to join this coalition of the willing, but said that those who had committed would intensify planning now, with real urgency.
The UK, he said, would back its commitment with "boots on the ground, and planes in the air".'
Starmer announces 'coalition of the willing' to guarantee Ukraine peace
...are these the ponies you feared? Because it seems like the world now sees a way out of this.
Um, the same country that (supposedly) went to war because it feared that Ukraine was going to join NATO is suddenly going to let NATO forces be stationed in Ukraine to protect it? Are you delusional?
Is the Prime Minister of the UK delusional? He seems to think he can do it.
Fine, UKR can fight it out with RUS. Good luck. The Germans will send their shitty, poorly maintained Leopard tanks.
Has it ever occurred to you that the US has its own interests, interests that are independent of UKR?
Has it ever occurred to you how fucking childish it is that you want Ukraine to be conquered by Russia because Ukraine was mean to Jews 80 years ago?
How could the NLF defeat the US on the battlefield? How could the Taliban defeat the US on the battlefield? Why do you keep repeating this incredibly stupid talking point over and over?
"How could the NLF defeat the US on the battlefield? How could the Taliban defeat the US on the battlefield? "
Neither of those things happened.
Whoosh! That's the point, Einstein! Namely: you don't have to "defeat [the enemy] on the battlefield" to win a war! So asking "How can Ukraine defeat Russia on the battlefield?", as C_XY keeps doing, is entirely the wrong question.
So, your strategy for Ukraine is to slowly lose the convention war and hope that an insurgency kicks the Russians out.
That only exemplifies your general ignorance of warfare and specific ignorance of how Russia fights insurgencies.
Your strategy is bone-headed in its concept, wasteful in terms of lives, and far more likely to result a Ukraine that is unified under Russian control.
Just ask the Chechens how well that strategy worked for them.
No. Insurgencies did not "kick out" the U.S. in Afghanistan or Vietnam. They simply ensured that the cost of staying was higher than the U.S. was willing to pay.
Was the U.S. supplying Chechen rebels with advanced weaponry? (Because, if so, that would be quite a big news scoop.)
Also, why reach for Chechnya when you have the Soviet experience in Afghanistan?
If the US decided to, it wouldn't have helped the Chechens much.
The Chechens already had access to much of the ex-Soviet stockpiles they captured in their first war and through their contacts with the Russian military.
It didn't help them in the end.
Because the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan is so very different from a notional insurgency in Ukraine. The conflict with Chechnya would be a closer parallel.
You're just a lawyer, so I'll explain this to you in terms that you are capable of understanding:
Afghanistan was a case where the Soviets went into a foreign country to do nation-building. They did not speak the language and had a very poor understanding of the terrain and culture. The terrain in Afghanistan helped small groups of guerillas fight and hide all along the spindly border with Pakistan, which allowed guerillas infiltrate all along the length of the country.
Contrast that with Ukraine: Russia is well-acquainted with the territory due to their historical ties. The Russians understand the culture, which is predominately Orthodox Christian. They have a better grasp of the local language as Ukrainian is not that different from Russian. A not insignificant part of the Ukrainian people are Russian or Russian sympathizers, so Russia could tap into locals to better understand who would be part of the local opposition (I think it's a good time to note that in the initial Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russians sent Spetznaz troops deep into Ukrainian territory to capture/execute suspected opponents to Russian dominance of the Ukrainian government- the Russians already know who to go after).
The terrain in Ukraine is flat and far more permissive to counter-insurgency surveillance; Ukraine's borders with Poland, Hungary, and Romania are easily sealed and monitored, constituting just a fraction of the total length of what the Soviets had to content with in Afghanistan.
"It involves holding fast against Russian aggression until Russia can't or won't continue."
Ok general, what's the military plan to accomplish this?
Reports are that Zalenskyy was being counseled by Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and that Blinken fella were advising Zalenskyy and telling him to take a tough stance against Trump.
Is that behavior illegal?
If Zelensky is taking advice from American traitors, then he deserves to get shunned.
No
David Post has distinguished himself by adding this thread at a moment when opportunity to address a national crisis was needed. He has done one of the best services I have seen on the VC since I began commenting many years ago. Thank you David Post.
Now please, commenters make better use of the opportunity provided. The question which requires focus is how to put an abrupt stop to the Trump/Vance national catastrophe.
I will try a small contribution now, and reserve a larger, riskier, but perhaps indispensable suggestion later, if more research supports doing it. Three suggestions for now:
1. The Ds have an urgent need to get ahead politically. To do that, they need to wrench control of the national agenda out of MAGA's sole control. Start with proposed legislation for a massive increase in Medicaid spending, targeting especially deficiencies in medical care among red state residents. Propose to fund it with complete non-renewal of Trump's tax cuts for the rich. Promise and deliver a lavish health care benefit to poorer Americans nationwide. It will benefit red states disproportionately, which is a good thing politically.
2. Move from there to a proposal for enforceable ethical standards for the judicial system, with specific reference to the Supreme Court. Write up the details, and when discussions ensue, example current court members by name, as worthy targets. Organize the D party behind that, and emphasize it nationwide and continuously. Put emphasis on enforcement of oaths of office, so Roberts and his ilk can give forewarned consideration to implications for them if they continue to make a king out of Trump.
3. Attack now on midterm politics in the House. In purple districts which lean red, it is terror of dark-funded primary opposition which enforces Trump loyalty. Organize a better dark-funded opposition, and put it to work in those districts now, as if it were the most-active stretch of a mid-term campaign. Demonstrate to potentially wavering-but-principled reps that the Ds will have their backs at primary time. Keep that up full strength until election day.
Add to the content of the advertising and communications as new issues arise, to hold interest. Audience perception should be that something just happened to actually engage political process in solving problems previously bypassed and left to fester—and that should be the reality as well as the perception.
Organize and fund a massive ground game in those districts. Begin that organizing outside normal D party political supervision, which has proved too sclerotic, conservative, and self-protective.
Use the ensuing campaigns to test-bed various more-forward-looking political themes than the erstwhile D leadership has supplied. Put D Party leaders on notice that they have opportunity to participate in prospective successes, but no opportunity to take over now.
What other practical political suggestions can VC commenters add to avert the national political catastrophe Trump/Vance/MAGA threatens to deliver?
Can you clarify this?
"3. Attack now on midterm politics in the House. In purple districts which lean red, it is terror of dark-funded primary opposition which enforces Trump loyalty...Demonstrate to potentially wavering-but-principled reps that the Ds will have their backs at primary time. Keep that up full strength until election day."
Are you suggesting that the D's should/would support R's that defy Trump? That seems like a hard sell...
Kamala Harris got Liz Cheney to appear onstage with her. Don't you remember? Kitzinger too.
Yes, I know, Democrats have grown hard-ons for killing darker-skinned folks.
Jmaie — I insist the Ds should do whatever it takes to convert, "seems like," into experience to show whether doing that is politically possible. Of course, much would depend on how Trump/MAGA were performing while the effort was ongoing. Which is part of the point—to do political things which constrain Trump/MAGA within reason, instead of passively handing the entire political agenda to crazy people.
Tangentially, the Ds have screwed up bad, starting at least as far back as Clinton. The decision to compete for big money donors, while throwing overboard the labor unions and ordinary America was beyond stupid when it happened. It has become worse as sclerotic D leadership used funding control as leverage to discipline and disempower economic populists within the party. Those wanted to compete at the margins for voters who have turned in despair to Trump.
The political result shows up here in comments from the likes of DaveM below, who thinks despite polling evidence that the Ds lost, "an entire electorate." The first step is to show by practical politics that did not happen.
Not a single one of your three ideas are on the 80 side of 80/20. Especially #3, the Eternal Flame of Resistance Forever.
A huge swath of voters are completely fed up with that approach. Democrats didn't just lose an election, they lost an entire electorate. The whole nation has shifted against them, but they don't see it.
Well. What can be said that hasn't already been said a thousand times before? Either you're part of the solution, or you're the problem.
Now please, commenters make better use of the opportunity provided.
That's awfully pompous for a failure like yourself. SL, Stupid Leftist.
Surely this crosses the line, even for the diehards.
Still having faith in their judgment, huh?
What can this guy do that would make his supporters disavow and disown him?
Do something really good for the people they hate without being able to convince themselves it is really a trick?
His administration putting in place a very limited regulation of guns (overturned by the Supreme Court) annoyed some of them. It was too little to disown him, though. Maybe if he signed a gun regulation with more teeth?
Anyway, it's one of those amusing thought experiments like asking when the Republican Senate would find a Cabinet member or judge his administration picked was too much.
We saw how that went so far.
“Republican Senate would find a Cabinet member”
Really speaks volumes about Matt gaetz doesn’t it?
Every leader does some things his followers don't like, Barry Hussein for instance, was the candidate in 2008 who didn't support Same Sex Marriage, not changing him mind until inspired by that Progressive Icon, Sleepy Joe, or his highly successful re-invasion of Off-Gone-E-Stan, Barry will show those Repubiclowns how to kick some Moose-lum Ass!
Poor warmongering Leftist, hankering for the days of forever war and Obama appeasement of Russia are you?
An unsurprising take from an Episcopal bishop whose denomination is all about DEI and wokeism. We get it, you hate Trump. Yawn!
Trump sold out the people of Afghanistan, and the Kurds during his first term and now the people of Ukraine in his second term. A tough talker who believes in peace through submission. Who will he sell out next Tawain, or maybe South Korea.
another Idiot, like "W". Barry Hussein, Sleepy Joe who just thinks we haven't tried the right plan to conquer Off-Gone-E-Stan, and who is this "Tawain" you're talking about?
Its clear listening to the exchange that the sticking point is Zelensky wants the US to force Russia to withdraw from the territory they control.
He doesn't get that that isn't going to happen and we are unwilling to either directly or indirectly intensify the war.
Currently Ukraine controls about 80% of its territory, and Zelensky has done a heroic job preserving his country, but the war.needs to end now, and a ceasefire has to be the first step.
Does anyone here really want the US to issue an ultimatum to Russia they need to withdraw or we will intervene?
Does anyone think the war should go on with its current stalemate killing tens of thousands more in addition to the hundreds of thousands already killed?
Does anyone have any other practical alternatives to Trump's ceasefire now plan?
He does not; he has made it quite explicit that he is not asking for and does not expect any American troops. What he wants the US to do is understand that there's no peace unless Russia does so, and that if the U.S. wants to undertake negotiations, which is another thing nobody is asking it to do, that it must be done based on that understanding.
"What he wants the US to do is understand that there's no peace unless Russia does so"
So what will induce Russia to withdraw from the territory they control?
How do you get that miracle to occur?
If that's the criteria, the war will never end, or won't end until.Ukraine finally sucumbs, unless of course you have some magic solution you aren't sharing.
Yes give up all hope and the answer is clear.
And then get angry at anyone else who isn’t a hopeless as you!
Doesn’t matter anymore. Trumps gonna give Putin whatever he wants.
I have great hopes of a ceasefire, of the war ending. And I think there is 90% chance of that.
I think there is 1% percent chance of Putin moving his troops back without a wider war.
Unless you have some solution your holding back from the rest of us.
A proposal is on the table for an immediate ceasefire, and then negotiations.
What is your alternative?
Because Putin can restock during a ceasefire with no intention of negotiating, the deal must be struck without a ceasefire.
Worst think you can do is try negotiate a settlement before a ceasefire.
Then every advance or retreat on the battlefield becomes a negotiating chip:
Putin isn't getting what he wants? Order a 10,000 Nork suicide attack to move the lines 10 miles. Or another hypersonic missile attack on Kyiv.
So while the diplomats are arguing each side is trying to give their side the advantage with more corpses, whether civilians or military, and destroy more infrastructure that will have to be rebuilt in the process.
Kaz...Notice how David, Sarcastr0 and Josh R have no alternative.
The alternative is to negotiate all of the terms of a peace at the table, including security guarantees. No doubt Ukraine will have to compromise. So will Russia. But so far, the United States has conceded on behalf of Ukraine that it will lose land, never join NATO and the security guarantee will not include American troops. At the same time, the United States has conceded nothing on behalf of Russia.
That's not the way negotiations work. Trump wants us to be an honest broker. Honest brokers do not negotiate on behalf of the parties. And they most certainly don't do so only for one of the parties Honest brokers bring both parties to the table to work through their differences.
The concession Trump got from Putin was to allow European troops as the security guarantee.
There will be no US troops in Ukraine.
Nor is any other country going to go to war with Russia to regain the territory Ukraine has already lost.
I don't say Ukraine has lost the territory forever, but they probably won't have any chance to get it back until Russia gets a post Putin government.
He got no such "concession."
He hasn't gotten the explicit concession in public, but not only did he claim to get it, he spent the last week talking publicly in the Oval Office with Macro and Starmer about them sending troops as peacekeepers as a security guarantee.
You may think Trump is reckless but do you think Starmer and Macron are going to get out over their skis like that?
Trump did not say Putin had conceded to European peacekeepers in his meetings with Macron or Starmer.
Josh, Trump announced a week ago Putin conceded to European peacekeepers:
Feb 24, 2025
Trump says Putin will accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine
U.S. leader’s remarks came during a lightning visit by French President Emmanuel Macron.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-european-troops-peacekeeping/
And then a few days later Putin humiliated his bootlicker just for the sake of showing who was boss, saying that in fact Trump was lying.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-rules-out-any-options-european-peacekeepers-ukraine-2025-02-26/
Yeah, I noticed MG threatening WW3 is the only other solution proposed.
Josh R wants Security Guarantees, that is what Trump negotiatded already with Putin.
See my reply to Martinned below, where I point out that European troops providing the security guarantees is the key concession Trump got from Putin, and its what he discussed with Macron and Starmer earlier in the week, and its what Starmer offering to Zelensky today: Trump's plan.
That's what Trump said (and he only said European peacekeepers, not troops). I doubt it.
No. As Starmer said:
The plan is being worked on.
European peacekeepers are troops.
European peacekeeping troops providing the security guarantees IS the heavy lifting. Even the money and arms Starmer offered today was income from sequestered Russian assets (not the assets), and trade "credits" for Belfast made missiles, not direct British money.
And that paragraph you quoted is dead on: We’re working with the US on this point, after my meeting with President Trump last week. And let me be clear – we agree with the President on the urgent need for a durable peace.. Good job, but you should read it over again until you understand it.
Starmer is 100% on board with Trumps plan, and pushing it on Zelensky, and the US security guarantees Zelensky wants are not part of the plan, nor is it any part of what Starmer is pushing.
You can keep saying it, but nobody including you believes that.
Can you tell me any substantive differences between what Starmer is pushing on Zelensky now, and the plan Trump's envoy General Kellogg sketched out February 6th:
"The US is expected to unveil its plan to end the war in Ukraine next week, which could involve freezing the conflict along the current lines and using British troops to enforce a ceasefire."
"In return for freezing the conflict along current lines, Gen Kellogg’s plan involves providing Ukraine with security guarantees to ensure that Moscow does not attack again."
"Ukraine’s European allies, including Britain, Poland and France, have discussed sending troops to Ukraine to enforce a ceasefire."
The US plan as reported by the Telegraph (your source) was never proposed. Did Trump deep-six it? Based on what he said to Macron and Starmer, it appears Trump wants a deal without security guarantees first. Then, security will follow easily in Trump's belief because Putin can be trusted.
Josh I quoted this too, did you not read this part?
"Nearly a month into Mr Trump’s second term Gen Kellogg will next week present a plan to end the war privately to America’s allies at the Munich security conference"
The UK, French, and other EU peacekeepers ARE the security guarantees.
But Zelensky doesn't trust the Europeans to provide the Security guarantees, so he wants Trump to commit the US to a war if Putin violates the agreements, which Trump will not do.
Do you think it was just coincidence Macron, Starmer, and Zelensky all came to Washington this week?
And the talks were about UK and France providing peacekeepers, exactly as outlined in the plan.
You could be right, but I do not accept on faith that a plan has been privately offered which is now being implemented.
"So what will induce Russia to withdraw from the territory they control?"
Extorting the victim for our half of the Molotov-Ribbentrop-v2 pact sure as shit isn't going to induce anything from Russia.
AG Bitch-face disbanding the group responsible for ensuring the sanctions on Russia are enforced sure won't fucking do it either.
Claiming Ukraine started this, calling Zelenskyy a dictator, and spreading Putin's lies about the Ukraine won't do it.
The weird thing is, these are what Trump is doing. It's almost like he doesn't give a fuck about Ukraine and wants the US to ally with Russia instead.
Fuck you people.
What induced Russia (the USSR) to withdraw from the territory they controlled in Afghanistan? What induced the US to withdraw from the territory we controlled in Afghanistan? What induced the US to withdraw from the territory we controlled in Vietnam?
Well if the Ukrainians are prepared for that then more power too them, and they will win my undying admiration.
But I will point out a few differences, the Russians, and the US always occupied the major population centers in Afghanistan, so they were not vulnerabilities for the insurgents. And Afghanistan is mountainous terrain populated by medieval tribesmen, not flat farmland populated by cities and farmers that provide critical export food supplies.
I think the sticking point is security guarantees so Putin cannot restart the war, including restocking during a ceasefire.
There is already proposed French and UK troops, and perhaps other NATO troops.
What more do you want?
But Trump will not, nor do the American people want him to, make a commitment to go to war over Ukraine.
We were doing fine as a stress test of our monstrous capacity, just supplying things, until sympathy for the devil crept in, thanks, Gramps!
The American people wanted this, and politicians responded, much like Libya during the Arab Spring.
Ukraine believes security from the USA is vital.
So they dictate the terms and tell us what our obligations are?
After yesterday the war is over, because Ukraine is not getting another aid package until the ceasefire is signed.
Ukraine didn't do anything wrong, Zelensky, other than intemperance didn't do anything wrong, but he has to be realistic, not only about the level of assistance he can get, but even more importantly the level of risk the US and Europe are willing to assume.
He is asking us to assume an unrealistic level of risk.
That means Ukraine will cease to exist, sooner (no ceasefire, no US aid) or later (ceasefire which Putin will violate down the road). Trump has no problem with the outcome. Shame on him.
"Zelensky, other than intemperance didn't do anything wrong,"
It's Zelenskyy in English, and JD Couchfucker had no business even opening his mouth to a foreign Head of State unless Trump asked him to, or Trump wasn't present.
JD's job was to sit down, shut up, and look as pretty as possible.
Instead, he blew up the meeting because he now doesn't, and never has wanted to support Ukraine against Russia.
Fuck you and your bullshit.
"After yesterday the war is over, because Ukraine is not getting another aid package until the ceasefire is signed."
Why would Putin sign a cease-fire if Ukraine is not going to be capable of defending itself?
Then Ukraine's President should be making nice with the POTUS since the POTUS will be making a lot of the decisions involving what the USA will do in support of Ukraine.
I think the US should issue an ultimatum to Russia they need to withdraw or we will intervene. The US needs to say loud and clear that we do not tolerate wars of aggression against our allies.
So you want the US to explicitly threaten World War 3?
You are insane.
So, Tony, you plan on picking up a gun to back up your idiotic plan?
Yes, let's have a nuclear war over Ukraine.
So ending the war is a bad thing for Episcopals?
Episcopalians, I believe.
"Everyone must ask themselves what kind of global citizen their country should be. It is work we must all do in the days and weeks ahead it we are to do our part to keep the American dream from entering a death spiral."
I've been out of school a while and perhaps the discussion has changed, but I don't recall The American Dream™ having much to do with our role as global citizen...
It doesn't include being a nice person either, but most people still try not to be assholes.
Set your ambitious low and narrow, and you'll be able to ask why everyone else doesn't want to be a low person.
I mean, there's more than that morality/integrity argument, but that you don't understand it says quite a bit on it's own.
And there's the disparaging remark after all, based on what you seem to think I mean rather than what I wrote. Thought you didn't believe in mind reading ;<)
The America Dream, as far as I recall, is the ability to improve one's situation based on personal initiative. Land of opportunity and all that. I am missing the nexus to "global citizen."
Cheers.
The last time we let European ultra-nationalism get out of control, it cost us over 400,000 dead US military personnel. None of those people had their situations improved.
Cheers.
If we're going to have to go back and over protect them from themselves --- why not just make them colonies?
Remove their freedom and make them our subjects.
If that is a bad idea, perhaps those idiots should learn how to act like humans. They have had MILLENIA to learn how to do so.
President John Kennedy's inaugural speech;
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Stirring sentiment to be sure, just not sure what that has to do with TAD™ (henceforward shortened for brevity).
There sure does seem to be a tendency these days to regard anything less than full throated agreement to be opposition. Not yourself in this instance, but see Sarcastro's last comment above. My question had no moral judgement, real or implied. Was just a question...
I criticized your argument.
I didn't insist on full throated agreement, only noting that responding to a morality argument with "but what's in it for me?' is failing to address the argument in a pretty telling way.
Which argument did I make?
“ I don't recall The American Dream™ having much to do with our role as global citizen...”
This is getting silly, I was not arguing anything.
That sure looks like an argument.
And argument that being virtuous doesn't matter, unless it directly benefits Americans.
If that's not what you meant, what were you saying?
As I've mentioned now several times, TAD™ is the concept that an individual can prosper based on talent and personal initiative. That is (to me) simply unrelated to the United States' position in the world as global citizen.
Which is relevant, how?
Again, I can only see it as an attack on the OP's virtue/morals argument.
All the more reason to stop our current policy of killing Russians and Ukrainians.
I don't think the U.S. has killed any Russians or Ukrainians.
Let's see if he produces a media reference for this claim. He could consult Michael P: he's a great citationist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
It's unclear whether Nieporent knows this concept. Contrast Ukraine with, say, the Horn of Africa or the Arab Peninsula if you want to see how little we care when the aggressor isn't Russia or China.
[start massaging my own nipple] 'Oh yeah. That's the stuff'
I do know the concept, and this isn't that. Ukraine isn't fighting on our behalf. Ukraine is fighting on its own behalf. A country aiding an ally does not make it a "proxy war."
And yes, the fate of Europe is more important to us than the fate of (say) Somalia.
Yes, and he walked the walk too, going to the brink of nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crises.
Is that really what you are advocating?
Putin and Trump having a nuclear face off each one trying to convince the other they are ready to push the button if they don't get what they want?
Just in crass political terms, I don't think that would poll well.
A child thinks he's the only person in the world. As he matures he realizes he's just one person in a world full of other people and it's good to get on their good side. Not only is it basic decency, you might need their help someday.
A sentiment I agree with, but not responsive to my question. The good bishop obviously thought there is a nexus, but I can't ask him so was hoping someone here could help me understand what I'm missing. So far I've been insulted but not offered an explanation...
Jmaie — You are missing the entire gravamen of 20th century foreign policy. You espouse a view that its most ardent advocates abandoned en masse on December 8, 1941, lest they find themselves numbered among traitors.
Perhaps you take a position no more extreme or unreasonable than many of those newly-chastened persons continued to hold privately. If so, please note that it remains the judgment of history that they were unwise, and in many cases disloyal. Some of the brightest reputations in recorded American history went into instant eclipse at that moment, never to recover their former luster.
I can now add you to the list of folks intent on finding some hidden meaning in what I wrote. I must give you credit for digging far deeper than Sarcastro's assumption of mere opposition to what the good Bishop wrote. I sincerely hope you can escape from your fevered imagination before permanent damage is inflicted.
I am not taking ANY position.
TAD™ is the concept that an individual's potential for upward economic mobility is self directed. I don't see how our nation's role as global citizen is related. Stop thinking I mean to say, "we shouldn't care about anyone but ourselves." It's much more like, "The bishop mentioned how gravity affects his favorite recipe for cooking fish. I wonder why."
That's it. Nothing more. Nada. Zilch.
Have a nice day.
If Krasnov had flung poo at Zelenskyy, the cultists would be blaming the latter for a failure to duck, while praising Krasnov for his statesman like behaviour.
Krasnov isn't Hitler - Vidkun Quisling springs to mind - but the cultists by their support for him make it hard to argue that they wouldn't have defended Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland, and they wouldn't have turned a blind eye to what Hitler was doing internally in Germany. I suppose one or two Jewish cultists might eventually have realised Mustachio'ed Man Bad.
If you think Zelenskyy is no better than Putin, you're a vile individual
Probably because Putin is for a certain strain of religion, and against left-leaning identity culture issues, it is easy for the christian nationalists in the US to get on team Putin.
Possibly also because as the cultists are authoritarian types, they like authoritarian leaders - and they can overlook the war crimes and murders because that just shows he's a strong leader who does what's necessary.
Imagine defending a spoiled brat who came to the White House knowing that the deal included no security guarantees and that the US position is diplomacy and a ceasefire, only to roll his eyes, lecture about why he's against a ceasefire and diplomacy, and demand security guarantees in the deal.
Ukraine will never have peace, unless it's after total collapse, with that megalomaniac in charge.
A Putinazi speaks: the US position is diplomacy and a ceasefire
Nope. It's coercion and surrender.
What security guarantees? Trump wouldn't answer what he'd do if (or when, not if) Putin re-invades.
Poland and the Baltics are freaking out right now. Finland, too, who I think may he denying the US navy refills, but that's a fairly new claim only a few hours old.
The US is fucking up, big time, in real time. These Putin-provider talking points are falling on deaf ears worldwide. They are incredulous.
Let them. We can always walk away from NATO. It is of no benefit to us. Has not been in decades.
Let Europe take care of themselves.
I have no problem with the argument that Europe can take care of itself. But if thats the idea, then Krasnov should stop trying to coerce Ukraine into surrendering.
This is the point you cultists never address when you talk about wanting not to get involved. It means not getting involved not trying to give Putin a win,
We are trying to make a deal to end the war and provide up some payback for the money we wasted and that Ukraine "lost".
Where "us" is Russia — which it is for Trump and his cultists — sure.
What exactly has NATO provided the US?
It gave W Europe protection from the USSR.
What did the US get?
A secure and prosperous set of allies, you moron. Which situation do you think would've been better for our national security: a world divided between the U.S. and Western Europe vs. the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; or between the U.S. vs. the Soviet Union and all of Europe?
"A secure and prosperous set of allies, you moron."
That and five bucks can get you a cup of coffee.
"Well, Europe did really well" is not the win you think it is.
"Which situation do you think would've been better for our national security: a world divided between the U.S. and Western Europe vs. the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; or between the U.S. vs. the Soviet Union and all of Europe?"
Would not have made a difference either way. The Soviets still could not defeat us regardless.
It is, in fact. That you don't think so is because you are loyal to Putin.
Tory leader: ""President Zelenskyy is a hero. He represents the Ukrainian people's strength and their resistance to an authoritarian regime which is destroying them. He needs all the support he can get"
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kemi-badenoch-praises-zelenskyy-ahead-142832804.htmlget,"
At least the British conservatives have some moral awareness.
An English conservative politician friend emailed me this in response to my email:
Zelenskyy asked, in effect, "how you can do a deal with a man who breaks all his promises. Notable was the complete inability of Trump and Vance to respond to this (other than Trump’s boast to the effect that nobody messes with The Donald). It seemed to be their own lack of an answer that infuriated them. Of course it was wrong and foolish of Zelensky to have asked the question in public."
This is true:
"Zelenskyy asked, in effect, "how you can do a deal with a man who breaks all his promises."
Now what is your alternative?
A Ukrainian fighter in Kursk said it best:
"Better war than a shameful peace"
I note the neo-doves say, "Better Red than dead" on, gak, behalf of Ukrainians, just like 1960s commie college students did.
"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
Congrats, Trump followers. You proved Batman right.
I find it amusing that our neocon friends here, who have for years advocated for the torment of all sorts of people, can no longer stomach conflict. They remind me of teenagers who cannot figure out what they like until Yeezee tells them
There is no overlap between MAGA and neocon.
"At least the British conservatives have some moral awareness."
The country that sends the police over social media posts? They clearly have zero moral self-awareness.
The UK's opinion on things is of precious little interest.
Zelensky is free to fight all he wants. We are free to end the funding as we have done more than enough. A nice and happy divorce, if you will.
Oh bugger off -- something y'all are good at
More wisdom from John Taylor, Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles:
"We believe it grieves the heart of God when human beings make the mistake of projecting their binary understanding of gender onto the complex, beautifully diverse continuum of humanity which God created and we are still learning to understand....
"In a resolution adopted in 2022 by our 80th General Convention, the Episcopal Church went on record calling for “access to gender affirming care in all forms (social, medical, or any other) and at all ages” and supporting “public policies at the local, state, and national levels in all our countries to support gender affirming care.”"
https://diocesela.org/the-bishops-blog/standing-in-solidarity-with-transgender-and-non-binary-people/
Why is it that bishops can't seem to be able to leave boys' balls alone?
But feel free to sit still and endure moral lectures from the likes of him.
Not that germane to the instant discussion, but good to know the bishop practices Christ's command to love one another. Thanks for sharing, Margrave.
Who wouldn't listen to a bishop on foreign policy when his idea of Christlike love involves sterilization and mutilation?
Wow...
Yeah, wow, man. It's interesting this bishop was chosen as an authority on foreign policy, maybe Whoopi Goldberg was unavailable?
Though let us be fair...I loved Goldberg in several movies. I don't think I'd want to watch Bishop Taylor act.
It's time to change my pitch up...
Thank you, b/c I have wanted to say: Consider the source.
You are sick. Get help.
Obviously, anyone who commits wrongthink is sick. Any competent Soviet psychiatrist could tell you *that.*
And it's not as if you would have an easy time defending, on the merits, the sterilization and mutilation of children - so a psychologically-useful shortcut for you is simply to use insults.
No, but someone who reads a religious organisation's statement arguing that we should treat or fellow man with love and understanding even if they are trans or non-binary, and immediately thinks about these individuals' genitals, is definitly disturbed in the head.
The remarks I quoted equated love with “access to gender affirming care in all forms (social, *medical*, or any other) and at *all ages*." [emphasis added]
Remember the activists who used to oppose female genital mutilation? They were certainly obsessed with genitals, weren't they?
And those who opposed "eugenic" sterilization. Also obsessed.
History won't judge you and your ilk very kindly.
You're usually better than this. People can be right about one topic and wrong about another. You're a good example. Dead right about the two-party monopolization ruining our political system, and wrong about pretty much everything else.
This bishop is instructing us on what kinds of wars Jesus prefers the U. S. to be involved in. Apparently, Jesus was sad to see us get into Vietnam and Iraq, and believes in moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel. But Jesus is really angry that we're *not* going all in for a war in Ukraine.
What kind of special kind of Christian wisdom does this bishop possess to assess the kids of distinctions God makes among these different wars?
Bishop Taylor doesn't inspire confidence in his religious insight when he invokes euphemisms to justify life-changing body modification for children, not based on evidence-based medicine but on what's considered woke in the present political moment.
The same trivialization of serious issues, in the interest of following the herd of would-be respectable opinion, shows itself when the bishop tells us God's views of war.
In his hawkish role, Taylor (speaking for God) seems to contradict what he (speaking for God) says about Vietnam and Iraq. How can Putin be Hitler while Ho Chi Minh and Saddam aren't? Maybe Ho and Saddam were just kinder and gentler people, less inclined to aggression and human-rights abuses?
The answer to these perplexities can be found in the spirit which Taylor is following - not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of the age. There's the common thread tying together his views on trans issues, Vietnam, Iraq, Israel and Ukraine.
I don't have any opinion on what kind of Christian he is, or whether or not he speaks for God. I don't read the above post as making a religious argument, for the most part. His opinions about what our foreign policy should be makes sense to me, though. If it is based on the spirit of the age, rather than the Holy Spirit, I'm okay with that.
I think I understand your point, though.
I was looking at the transcript trying to see where it went off the rails
Vance: “For four years, the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.”
Zelenskyy: “Can I ask you?”
Vance: “Sure. Yeah.”
Zelenskyy: “OK. So he (Putin) occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was (Barack) Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the --"
Trump: “2015?”
Zelenskyy: “2014.”
Trump: “Oh, 2014? I was not here.”
Vance: “That’s exactly right.”
Zelenskyy: “Yes, but during 2014 ‘til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, (French President Emmanuel) Macron and (former German Chancellor Angela) Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go … But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?
Zelensky clearly thinks diplomacy won't work.
Why is he there then?
I think Trump has this right:
“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy [sic] is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”
Firstly, notice that Trump is only interested in clearing his name (Oh, 2014? I was not here). As usual, the narcist speaks.
Secondly, Zelensky's comment on Putin repeatedly breaking his word only means he will not accept diplomacy without a security guarantee.
Zelensky clearly thinks diplomacy won't work.
Quite rational.
Why is he there then?
His hand is being forced. There was a huge fight to even get Ukraine invited to the negotiations.
This is why he asked what the US would do if Putin starts up attacking again. "They won't." and "don't be rude", and "you should be grateful what we've given so far" are not answers.
Threatening the US (much less the President) in the Oval Office? Calling the VP a little bitch?
That may have worked with POTATUS and his simp squad, but times have changed.
Better post some transcripts so everyone can know for a fact that you're a lying cunt.
So, if Putin is Hitler, what is Trump, Hitler Squared?
Lindbergh
I see this thread mentioned Batman, so I guess Trump is the Joker.
an Amurican Hero??, I don't think you meant to say that
Lindbergh was an American hero who later became a Nazi apologist. Trump has earned Lindbergh's latter reputation (not the former) as a Putin apologist.
Mark Rutte former Netherlands Prime Minister, and current Secretary General of Nato:
"Nato chief Mark Rutte said on March 1 he told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he needs to find a way to restore his relationship with US President Donald Trump after their clash at a White House meeting on Feb 28."
“I said: I think you have to find a way, dear Volodymyr, to restore your relationship with Donald Trump and the American administration. That is important going forward,” Mr Rutte told the BBC, commenting on a call he had with Mr Zelensky on Feb 28.
He said he told Mr Zelensky that “we really have to respect what President Trump has done so far for Ukraine”, reminding Mr Zelensky that Trump was the one who provided Javelin anti-tank weapons to Ukraine in 2019 that had enabled the country’s forces to fight back after Russia’s invasion.
“Without the Javelins in 2022, when the full-scale attack started, Ukraine would have been nowhere”, said Mr Rutte. “I told him we really have to give Trump credit for what he did then, what America did since then and also what America is still doing.”
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/natos-rutte-urges-zelensky-to-mend-his-relationship-with-trump
Excellent advice, and I am sure Kier Starmer said much the same in private. What I am sure what Starmer did not say is "we don't need Trump or the US, Europe can give you all the weapons and cash you need, and troops too if you need them".
Everyone else knows what this is. Even those who think it's a good thing.
Your ability to believe what you want to puts you well ahead of most of your peers on here.
"Everyone else knows what this is."
Realism?
Sanity?
Or you don't think this is correct:
"reminding Mr Zelensky that Trump was the one who provided Javelin anti-tank weapons to Ukraine in 2019 that had enabled the country’s forces to fight back after Russia’s invasion."
Here's a fact check:
Obama rejected Ukraine’s request for lethal aid in 2014, Trump provided it
Experts on Ukraine military assistance said that the Obama administration rejected Ukraine’s 2014 request for lethal aid.
The decision came as Russian forces invaded the eastern territory of Crimea in 2014 and pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych fled Ukraine. U.S. officials were concerned that providing Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia."
https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-did-trump-send-ukraine-weapons-that-obama-and-biden-withheld/21510033/
Gee Kaz, why'd you leave out the paragraph just before what you quoted?
You deceitful piece of shit.
As I said above, Starmer is telling Zelensky the same thing Rutte did, go back and patch things up with Trump:
"Sir Keir Starmer urged Volodymyr Zelensky to return to the White House and patch up his relationship with Donald Trump after the shouting match in the Oval Office, it has emerged.
The televised showdown between the US President and his Ukrainian counterpart on Friday saw Mr Trump accuse Mr Zelensky of “gambling with World War Three” and being “disrespectful” towards America. The Ukrainian delegation was then ejected from the White House.
Later that evening, Sir Keir telephoned Mr Zelensky to try to persuade him to return to the White House, and then called Mr Trump in an attempt to lower the temperature. His efforts came to no avail, as the Americans told him that tempers needed calming before any return to discussions."
uk.news.yahoo.com/starmer-told-zelensky-back-patch-195625184.html
Sir Keir telephoned Mr Zelensky to try to persuade him to return to the White House, and then called Mr Trump in an attempt to lower the temperature
He's trying to get them both to return to the negotiating table. That's what it means to be a world leader: sometimes you have to pretend that a toddler is not a toddler.
(In Rutte's case that's literally his only job. They hired him for the SecGen job because they thought he was good at managing Trump, and these days every other aspect of his job is done by people like Kaja Kallas and Andrius Kubilius. Both of whom, you will note, are from the Baltics.)
What Kier is offering Zelensky is Trump's plan.
Did you miss the previous week where both Macron, and Kier were in the oval office talking about British and French troops, and possibly others as a security guarantee, then Trump and possibly others negotiates a ceasefire with Russia, without US security guarantees.
Without Trump in the negotiations then Putin there won't be any deal.
This is from This is from February 24th, and is the basic plan Starmer and the EU is pitching today:
MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin says he has not discussed resolving the conflict in Ukraine in detail with Trump, and that Russian and U.S. negotiating teams didn't discuss it when they met in Saudi Arabia last week.
Putin also said Russia does not rule out European countries participating in a peace settlement. Earlier Monday, Trump said Putin would accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine as part of a potential peace deal. The Kremlin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Putin has previously indicated Russia will not accept Western forces in Ukraine.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-ukraine-marks-3rd-war-070241481.html
So, from the comments on this and other posts it seems that Putin is Hitler.
But I thought it was Trump who was Hitler?
Look, I know they saved Hitler's brain, but I would have hoped they would only be able to transplant the brain into one host body, not two.
Or maybe this is a (SPOILER ALERT) Boys from Brazil scenario, where Trump and Putin were each specially raised to be the new Hitler.
And where did the late Saddam Hussein fit into the picture? You Ukraine hawks should ask your new friends the neocons about Saddam, he used to be the new Hitler. I presume you were for the war with Iraq, right?
Are you having trouble understanding which politician is recreating 1939?
You know who else promulgated a seriously distorted reading of history?
'Ooo! Ooo! Mistah Cahter! [switching to coquettish voice] was it Obama?'
So, what do y'all think about the ceasefire between Israel and Gaza?
There was a "Ceasefire" in place on October 6, 2023. Everything seemed great September 10, 2001, the big story November 21, 1963 was how enthusiastic JFK's crowds were in Texas.
Zelensky/ Trump Ukraine interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjnNbvPIEOI
Summary:
Zelensky’s visit to the Oval Office was an absolute disaster for Ukraine, marked by an unnecessary and arrogant confrontation with Donald Trump and JD Vance. Instead of reinforcing U.S. support, he engaged in a public dispute, pushing misleading claims, including the idea that Russia might attack the U.S. over Crimea. Despite Trump confirming continued arms support for Ukraine, Zelensky’s behavior alienated even potential allies, displaying an emotionally charged outburst unbecoming of a leader whose nation’s very survival depends on American aid. His past involvement in U.S. politics, including campaigning with Governor Shapiro for Kamala Harris and attacking Vance, further highlights his miscalculated approach. With polls shifting against aid to Ukraine and battlefield conditions worsening—aging troops, stalled advances, and a reluctance to expand the draft—Zelensky’s insistence that Ukraine must reclaim all its territory or face global catastrophe reflects the delusions of extreme Russiagators rather than pragmatic diplomacy. Unlike leaders such as the UK’s Keir Starmer, who, despite disagreements with Trump, maintained diplomatic decorum, Zelensky’s tantrum reinforced the growing perception of Ukraine as an unstable dependent rather than a strategic ally.
To be sure, Zelensky acted against his own interests in publicly airing disagreements, but it was Vance and trump who were arrogant.
No.
Who? The UK and EU are with him.
Again, no.
Bullshit. Zelensky told his story from a Ukranian point of view, of course, as one would expect of the leader of any country, and certainly a country in trouble. But that’s simply normal diplomacy. It was Trump and Vance who were so self-absorbed that that they found Zelinsky insufficiently obsequious and toadying for their taste.
By the way, for a Russian bot you’re doing a pretty shitty job spreading the Russian point of view. May I suggest firing your current programming team and finding one that at least has a better command of English?
I know I can Google, and as a Wanta-Be Perry Mason/Denny Crane (Denny Crane!) I know the answer to my question already, but for the Peanut Gallery, no Googling yourself, can you explain in 1 or 2 sentences without using Jargon or "Essentially", what a "Bot" is? I'll demonstrate how I do it with Medical terms.
"Dr Drackman, what does the Liver do?"
OK, thats a bad example, because it's easier to say what the Liver doesn't do, but I'll try
"The Liver's the middleman between the Stomach and the rest of the body"
OK, I guess "Middleman" could be considered "Jargon"
Frank "Does this Ushanka make me look Roosh-un?"
That's not a summary.
I object to the post referring to Ukraine as an “ally.” Mr. Trump made it clear that to the extent any part of Ukraine will be permitted to have a semi-autonomous existence, it will be only as a vassal of the US-Russian imperial alliance, and the only potential negotiation leverage it can have is which of the two allies it can offer more to.
As of yesterday, this whole “free world” business has nothing to do with the United States. The United States wants no part of it. The United States wants to be the kind of great enpire whose greatness is measured by the traditional measure of imperial greatness, the number of vassals and colonies it has and how much it can extract from them in tribute and slaves. And the number of toadies its leader can surround himself with and the greatness of the flatterers’ praise.
It is the policy of the United States that this whole “free world” business, this business of small countries thinking they can just live without being vassals and toadies and slaves and tributaries of great nations like the United States and Russia, was an anti-American plot fomented by traitors to this Empire who sought to diminish the United States and prevent it and its Great leader from having the Place and Stature and Respect and Booty that the Great have always been entitled, by their Greatness, to extract from the small.
George III had it right. The entirety of American history has been the rule of traitors. Mr. Trump seeks to put an end to the whole thing and return to a feudal, lord-and-peon based economy and a vassal-based imperial system in which government is of, by, and for the Great Ones and not the peons. The way things should be. Musk’s vision is a world where technology gives the lords, the great ones who control it, true power to rule as they wish.
That RINO traitor Abraham Lincoln misled the Great Ones into having to hide their greatness by creating Big Government to stand between them and the people. Get rid of Big Government, and we can go back to a quasi-feudal debt peonage or similar system with the lords being the sole judges in their fiefs and no Big Government to interfere with them, the way things ought to be.
Trump wants to bring back a world where if he or one of his lords walks down 5th Ave and wants a piece of ass, the piece of ass had better just pull its pants down and take it if it knows what’s good fo it. Same with piece-of-ass countries like Ukraine.
You're welcome to volunteer for the You-Crane Army, I hear the Light Brigade needs cannon fodder also. You're not welcome to volunteer other peoples kids.
To put it simply, we owe no country security. And most certainly not a commitment to fight their endless scuffles. We have historically carried the world, with American taxpayers subsidizing paying their wars with American dollars and American blood, and then paying for rebuilding their countries after their wars.
Rumored that Norway just denied fuel for an American sub. An American sub in Norwegian waters is protecting Norway. Close all foreign military bases, bring our people home. Let the world carry their own water for a change.
Of course, if they all think their security is enhanced by all ganging up against the United States, then no problem, right? ‘Cause we have some sort of magic power that enables us to never have to worry about our own security. Right?
After all, if we owe no country security, then no country owes US security. But ‘cause magic and hocus-pocus, we just don’t have to worry about stuff like that.
That is different than the real world...how?
Can another country attack the US? Sure. We can also fight back.
Still does make US responsible for Ukraine.
Take your Bush foreign policy back to the burn pile it belongs on.
That is different than the real world...how?
The point went right over your head, and you don't have Drax's reflexes, so you couldn't catch it.
The U.S. benefits in so many ways from having friendly allies and not just transactional allies. Or, had, I guess is more appropriate now. A transactional ally is only there for you when you can offer them something in return, right then. A friendly ally will help you now with the understanding that you'll help them in the future if they need it. They may never need the same kind of help they gave you, but nations that develop that level of trust in diplomacy work together on many issues of long-term importance and not just whatever is most pressing at the time.
Trump and isolationists just don't have the vision to think about the long-term benefits of having close allies like that.
For Krasnov, everything is transactional.
Look, a $1.8T deficit. A country running $1.8T deficits as far as the eye can see can't AFFORD to be anything but transactional! What part of that do you not understand? We've bled ourselves dry for them, and it has to STOP.
It was perfectly reasonable that we shouldered most of the load right after WWII, when the USSR was a looming threat and Europe's economy was a smoking ruin.
Today? They've got a bigger economy than we have! So, why should we still be carrying them? Just because we have been for decades?
I've been saying "screw that" for years. I'm glad to finally see a President who shares that view.
As has been shown by your reaction when people talk about tax cuts, your America is bankrupt act is in bad faith.
Tax cuts increase revenue. The spending is the issue. Always has been.
Tax cuts do not increase revenue, except in Republican fantasies.
I'm astonished that anyone still believes that BS.
You're also astonished that Asians are good in Sciences, Pit Bulls often bite, January in Buffalo is cold, July in Phoenix is hot, Women usually get their breasts "enhanced" too large (more than a mouthful.....) Joe Biden is demented, Christ Christie is a fat slob, Poke-a-hontas isn't an Indian, A-rabs smell bad....
Hysterical, much?
The issue here is not who's paying, it's why Krasnov is actively on Russia's side - and why you hence support Putin.
Look, a $1.8T deficit. A country running $1.8T deficits as far as the eye can see can't AFFORD to be anything but transactional!
How much dollar value do you think you can put on the power and influence the U.S. has gotten from having close allies in NATO? You think that we'd be as wealthy as we are without that? You think that ditching those relationships for a "what have you done for me lately?" attitude is going to close that deficit? Keep dreaming.
Would have been a much higher dollar value if we forced them to pay us for our sacrifices for them.
Can you imagine how much MORE fucked Germany's economy would be if we closed our bases there and left?
"Drax's reflexes"??
I'm guessing you mean me, and don't like to brag, but my reflexes are pretty good, even at 62, goes back to Little League, Mom was my personal BP pitcher (Crafty Southpaw, wicked slider) to make up for her 100lb size, she'd pitch from 30 feet (something MLB adopted a few years later, she considered suing, but didn't) same with Tennis, she'd serve, but from her Service Line, during the winter the Base gym had an indoor court with a wooden surface, talk about fast,
Coaching 2 ranked Juniors Tennis players kept them sharp, now I just dodge Mrs. Drackman's shoes (I'm like "W" with that A-rab)
Frank
We certainly owe nothing to Ukraine, an unimportant country that is even more corrupt than Russia.
Even if true - which I doubt - it is not murderously aggressive like Russia, and is not led by a war criminal.
If you think the US should just get out, fine - but why do you support Krasnov's attempt to coerce Ukraine into surrendering?
Ukraine has turned down reasonable peace deals. Zelensky is just as much a war criminal as Putin.
Ukraine has turned down reasonable peace deals.
A lie
Zelensky is just as much a war criminal as Putin
Another lie..
In Chess when you’re in a hopeless situation you resign. Putin is a Chess player.
Bring our men and money and men home and yes, we will be alright. Those subs can patrol our shores and military can guard our borders.
When have other nations rushed to our defense?
When have other nations rushed to our defense?
You might want to look up the one time that Article 5 of the NATO treaty was invoked.
You just made an Own Goal, yeah, the only time it was invoked was Bullshit so it didn't look like we were kicking Iraq's ass by ourselves.
Defensive crouch nationalism.
Proven a bad idea over and over in history. The world over.
I'll never understand the impulse.
ME2R — That is fascinating. Not at all what I would expect, given that American subs are nuclear fueled, using nuclear materials enriched to near-bomb-grade levels. Can you say more about how Norway would have any role?
"The text is by John Taylor, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of . . . ." Even an atheist like me understands that the thoughts of those who loosely cosplay as Christians are certainly pure twaddle.
You realize that every single soi-disant Christian who supports Trump is just cosplaying, and acting against the dictates of their alleged faith?
Read his Bio, this is all I had to know
"Taylor was a chief of staff to former U.S. President Richard Nixon and served as the executive director of the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation. Taylor had served as director of the privately owned and funded Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace prior to it joining the federal presidential libraries system, and becoming the Richard Nixon Presidential Library."
How many Amuricans (and Vietnamese, I know, nobody cares, not even the Vietnamese) died from 1969-1975 trying to prop up South Vietnam's Zelenski, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu?? They said the same thing about South Vietnam, defenseless Democracy, brave fighters, we gave them a shitload of Jets (South Vietnam had the 4th largest Air Force in the world when they collapsed in 1975, Yay Air Power!!!!)
Once we left North Vietnamese Army Tanks were in Saigon in 2 years (could have been sooner, but they didn't want to embarrass us even more) and Thieu ran like a pussy to Taiwan and eventually Boston, taking most of South Vietnam's Gold reserves with him.
Frank
Even an atheist like me understands that the thoughts of those who loosely cosplay as Christians are certainly pure twaddle.
I am also an atheist. I will say, though, that the three people that I most admired for: their boundless empathy and compassion for other people and their willingness to go well out of their way to help people that were not connected to them, were strongly believing and church-going Christians. They wore their faith on their sleeves, but they also lived it. And they managed to do that without any judgement of people that didn't fit into their group. Some Christians really do become inspired to be kind and generous because of their belief in Jesus. When they look for guidance on how to behave towards others, I can totally imagine them literally asking themselves, "What would Jesus do?"
That is very far from how I see conservative Christians behave in the realm of politics. I cannot see how they could possibly arrive at the conclusions that they do about government policy after having asked themselves, "What would Jesus do?"
VP Vance has gotten some criticism from a variety of Christians (and some defending him, to be fair) after these statements in a Fox interview:
There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that.
The Christian defenders have pointed to a concept called ordo amoris, which dates back to St. Augustine. (There are a lot of articles discussing the debate over this, I could link dozens of them if the comment system would let me, but I will assume that sources you find in your own search and choose yourself will be more reliable in your view that what I link.) Without going into a theological debate that I have zero expertise in, I'll just say that whatever merits there seems to be to this concept, Vance still seems to miss the point. As a practical matter one is naturally going to pay more attention and devote resources to problems they have, then that their family has, then their local community, and so on. But that isn't a Christian idea, it is entirely a practical one.
I always figure that Jesus's teachings surrounding loving one's neighbor, the parable of the Good Samaritan, and more was aimed at making his followers understand that everyone in every part of the world is their family, their community, and thus their responsibility to help in times of need. The practical dimension of how you divide limited resources to help people is still going to matter, but I don't see how it is consistent with Christian teachings to prioritize making sure that your kids get piano lessons when there are other children within a day's travel of you that don't have a home, don't have clean clothes, and don't know when they will get their next meal.
I just find it odd that out of all the valid critiques , you'd pick one from a vile man like him.a coward who when it comes to the Jewish state, is all in on shackling it
https://diocesela.org/the-bishops-blog/leading-with-language-on-israel-palestine/
Interesting...he helped hold his fellow-Episcopalians in check when they wanted to accuse Israel of genocide and apartheid, partly by agreeing to use synonyms for "apartheid," not the word itself. Also adopting both-sides rhetoric. He seems like a good clerical politician who stays in the good graces of the woke.
So one question for those who think the US should stick with an ally to the bitter end:
Was the US wrong to leave South Vietnam to its fate in 1975?
If the issue is not allowing a country to encroach upon a neighbor through aggression, should we go to war against China for annexing Tibet?
Your historical knowledge is . . . deficient.
That depends on what strategic importance Sourh Vietnam had in 1975.
That depends on what strategic importance the Ukraine has today.
That would be "None" and "Even less than None"
Oh? What is he wrong about?
Not that you were asking me, but I would say he's wrong as to the extent that South Vietnam was ever a viable, independent nation apart from Vietnam as a whole. Especially when compared to Ukraine. In my humble opinion the two situations have absolutely nothing in common. The mistake was in ever trying to keep Vietnam divided, and not cooperating with Ho Chi Minh in the first place.
Ukraine as a country and as a culture is actually older than Russia.
S Vietnam would have gone under quick without the USA. They, in fact, did so.
Ukraine would have gone under quick if the US did not send them tons of weaponry and men to show them how to use it.
The Ukrainians are incredibly tough and have fought extremely hard. But, like Poland in 1939, numbers are not able to be overcome at a point. And Ukraine is there.
And how does that answer his question about S Vietnam in 1975?
(The part of his statement you didn't address what what he is historically deficient about Re: Tibet)
I only mean that South Vietnam and Ukraine are completely different situations, so that the comparison isn't really apt. I don't really know enough about the annexation of Tibet to address it intelligently. Perhaps it's a better comparison.
When was Vietnam as a whole ever a country before 1975?
When French came in the 1800's Mekong Delta was majority Khmer with the Vietnamese migrating in, the original name of Saigon was Prei Nokor and it was in the Khmer empire. In fact most Cambodians still consider the Mekong Delta stolen and still call it Kampuchea Krom. The French came in in the 1850's and established three colonies and the South became French Cochinchina, the North was called Annam and the central part Tonkin. it was never formally a part of "Vietnam" until 1949, and the French didn't leave until 1958 the war had already started.
Has anyone figured out what TASS, the Russian "press" agency, was doing in the Oval Office?
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/media/tass-russian-state-media-oval-office/index.html
Umm, reporting the news probably. I follow RT (love Blonde Info-Babes, no, not the Dudes) because I like to see what's going on over there (IRNA also, where else can you get the details on the almost 1,000 executions last year?)
When you ignore all "The Great Satans, "Occupied Palestine" they're not any more biased than CBS, NBC, CNN, or PMS-NBC,
and they have those hot Blonde Info-babes (IRNA not so much)
Frank
Also noteworthy how all across Europe far right leaders are backing away from Trump, because being perceived as being friends with him is electoral poison right now.
Here is Farage walking a fine line that doesn't get him banned from the US permanently: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/03/01/farage-white-house-spat-trump-zelensky-makes-putin-winner/
And here is Dutch far-right leader Wilders, a proud friend of Russia as recently as 2018, coming out in support of Ukraine: https://www.brusselstimes.com/1467549/pvv-leader-wilders-stands-behind-ukraine-with-conviction
Well, great. And I mean that!
If this results in Europe deciding that they can no longer rely on the US for a large part of their defense, and picking up the load themselves, we'll both be better off. And as for Ukraine, it's drop dead obvious that the EU has hugely more at stake there than the US, so why is this our problem anyway?
Yeah, it's great that we're on the outside looking in at the allies we've had for more than 80 years, and instead are now viewed as aligned with the Axis of Evil.
In barely a month, Trump has knocked us out of being considered the leader of the free world. Something truly worth celebrating.
You dumb fucks.
Nobody took the US seriously under Biden.
Putin invaded because of how pathetic he was.
"Oh no, Europe ain't happy." That seems like as irrelevant concern as exists.
This ain't the 19th Century. Europe is not relevant in any way, shape, or form.
Nobody took the US seriously under Biden.
You didn't take the US seriously under Biden. Right-wing media didn't take the US seriously under Biden. I suppose that it is SOP for ideologues and partisans to assume that everyone that isn't an enemy of theirs thinks the same things that they do. And if they don't think the same thing, then that is proof that they are an enemy.
No, NOBODY took the US seriously. Having a corpse on the take is not going to engender any level of respect for you.
"I suppose that it is SOP for ideologues and partisans to assume that everyone that isn't an enemy of theirs thinks the same things that they do."
You should clean that mirror you're yelling in front of a little.
Yes, let's just let Europe deal with its own problems. That's always worked out really well!
Wow, all of those British/Dutch troops in You-Crane are really staying hidden! Maybe they should use them before the Roosh-un Tanks get to Kiev
Meanwhile, in Canada Trump has cost Poilievre his seemingly unassailable polling lead, with the Liberals now in the lead: https://www.newsweek.com/canada-liberals-pull-ahead-election-poll-2036625
Even Trump seems to realise this, which is why he made (by his standards) an effort to distance himself from his friend up North: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-canadian-politics-interview-1.7471276
Canada is free to act tough. Their economy could only wish to be as strong as Mississippi.
Time for the US to focus on us first. The world should be on a business-level relationship with us.
By the way, this Marco Rubio guy seems to have a much better sense of Vladimir Putin. Maybe he should run US foreign policy. https://nypost.com/2022/10/02/marco-rubio-fears-desperate-putin-may-strike-nato-territory/
It is really inexplicable why Rubio gave up a safe senate seat to be Trump's — of all things — Secretary of State. The most charitable explanation is that he figured that if it wasn't him, it would be someone who was openly pro-Russia like Tulsi or Flynn or something, and that he could at least mitigate the damage to our country.
Putting the "D" in "TDS" since 2016!
Indeed. They misidentify the disgraceful display and then commit their own. I think the text quoted at https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/03/a-perspective-on-the-oval-office-blowup.php summarizes it well.
We all saw you turn on a dime on Ukraine,
Gee remember all of the stories about how corrupt Ukraine is and that part of their army were literally allies of the Nazis? As for Zelensky don't forget that his elected term expired but he canceled elections which makes him a true dictator. Plus there is the matter that he went to PA and campaigned for Kamala. As for the deal it could have been signed weeks ago but Zelensky insisted he wanted to do it in the White House. Cast your mind back into ancient history--the 2024 presidential campaign in particular. Which one of the candidates consistently said "I want peace. I want the killing to stop. I will end the war in the Ukraine." Hint: it wasn't dememted Joe and it wasn't his last minute replacement. Why would anyone think that trying to trap President Trump into agreeing to prolong a war he campaigned was a good idea?
You and your damn facts! He's an Actor! had a top rated TV Comedy!! (been watching this current one, don't see the humor, OMG 200,000 killed! Hilarious!') He's defending the first "Domino"!!!
Those would be some damn old soldiers!
It does not, and he did not. The Ukrainian constitution did.
(1) This is a lie.
(2) So what if he did?
A (meaningless) deal that was just negotiated three days ago could've been signed weeks ago? Tell me more about time travel.
Only thing missing from the Oval Orifice boo-fooing of Zelenski was JD making Volodomir call heads or tails.
David Post, you are so blinded by your irrational hatred of Trump that you can. no longer evaluate situations even close to objectively. This was not a humiliation or embarrassment to all Americans. Many, many Americans, myself included, think Trump and Vance did exactly the right thing. The only one there resembling a mafioso at all was Zelensky.
This, from David Sacks, is worth quoting in full:
"WHY ZELENSKY CANNOT MAKE PEACE
Zelensky’s meltdown in the Oval Office began over his refusal to accept a negotiated settlement to the war. Even the Vice President’s use of the word “diplomacy” provoked a heated response.
So why can’t Zelensky make a peace deal?
1) He will lose power.
Zelensky cancelled elections in Ukraine and remains in power through martial law. Despite what USAID propaganda polls may claim, Zelensky is unpopular in Ukraine and would likely lose a fair election. That could leave him vulnerable to retaliation from political opponents he has imprisoned or seized assets from. In short, Zelensky needs the war to justify his continued rule.
2) The gravy train will end.
Ukraine was widely acknowledged as the most corrupt country in Europe before the war, and there is abundant evidence that Ukrainian elites have been hugely profiting from the billions in Western aid. If the war ends, so does the gravy train. A post-war audit of where the money went would also be disastrous for Zelensky’s supporters.
3) He fears the ultra-nationalists.
Most Ukrainians say they want the war to end, but the ultra-nationalist faction (a relative minority but well-armed and willing to use violence to achieve their ends) refuses to accept any territorial concessions to Russia. If Zelensky signs such a deal, he has reason to fear for his safety.
4) He’s psychologically committed.
Zelensky’s belief in ultimate victory over Russia has “hardened into a form that worries some of his advisors,” according to a report by TIME Magazine, which described Zelensky’s faith as “immovable, verging on the messianic.” According to one of Zelensky’s aides, “He is delusional. We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.” Zelensky may be in too deep to see the situation objectively.
5) History will judge him harshly.
Zelensky could have accepted a draft peace deal signed in the first month of the war, the Istanbul Accords, under which Ukraine would have kept all of its territory in exchange for neutrality. A deal now will likely be modeled on Istanbul but require Ukraine to recognize realities on the ground (ie loss of territory). Acknowledging that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died only to get a worse deal may be too bitter a pill for Zelensky to swallow, now or ever.
In summary, Zelensky has powerful motivations to reject a deal, no matter how bad the battlefield realities get. His incentive is to continue a doomed war even if it leads to the complete destruction of Ukraine.
Instead of offering unconditional support, Zelensky’s supporters in the West should be urging him to seek a diplomatic off-ramp. Certainly they should stop catering to his unrealistic and maximalist demands.
As Solzhenitsyn said, the yes-man is your enemy, but a friend will argue with you."
See also Victor Davis Hanson's excellent piece on this:
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: 10 bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up
Moron
Istanbul Accords:
Russia be treated as a neutral security “guarantor state” of Ukraine along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, repeating the premise of the Minsk II Accords that did not treat Russia as a belligerent in the war.
Ukraine be forbidden to invite partner forces to conduct military exercises in Ukrainian territory, airspace, territorial waters, and exclusive economic zone without the consent of China and Russia.
China and Russia have a veto over the mechanism for responding to future armed conflict in Ukraine by making China and Russia Ukraine’s security guarantors and granting the United Nations Security Council the authority to take “measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” China and Russia are permanent members of the UNSC and can use their veto power to block responses to future Russian aggression under these conditions.
Ukraine amend its constitution to make Russian an official state language in Ukraine on an equal footing with the Ukrainian language and change a number of its internal laws, including Ukraine’s decommunization laws.
Ukraine lift all Ukrainian sanctions against Russia imposed since 2014 and withdraw criminal cases against Russia in the International Criminal Court for war crimes against Ukraine.
Ukraine amend its constitution to remove the provision committing Ukraine to NATO membership and to add a neutrality provision that would ban Ukraine from joining any military alliances, concluding military agreements, or hosting foreign military personnel, trainers, or weapon systems in Ukraine. Ukraine disarm almost completely and commit never to fielding a military capable of defending the country. The draft agreement specifically imposed the following caps on the Ukrainian Armed Forces:[4]
History will judge traitortrump harshly
You'd think Obama would have submitted that to the Senate as a treaty.
He did not think it was important enough to do so, clearly.
Also seems Ukraine violated that whole provision barring them from joining any military alliances with their requesting NATO membership.
WTF are you talking about? He's talking about a Russian proposal in 2022. What would Obama, who had been out of office for five years, have to say about that, and how could Ukraine "violate" something that was never agreed to in the first place?
Then why are Starmer and the Europeans trying to force the Trump peace plan on Zelensky, as we speak?
There are only two plans
1. Ceasefire with European troops as security guarantees, and US negotiating with Putin for a final agreement.
2. Ukraine keeps fighting.
The US has to be the major negotiator with Putin because he doesn't respect or fear Ukraine or Europe.
Europe knows that, and so does Zelensky.
He sure as hell doesn't respect or fear Donald Trump.
I don't think you understand how negotiations work. Donald Trump has already surrendered to Putin. Even if Trump wanted to, he's got nothing to negotiate with or about.
...and who will be the last Ukrainian or Russian (or North Korean) to die.
The Trump peace plan? You should get a job with the administration on their Sunday morning news show propaganda team.
Care to put up the Biden peace plan?
Here is an article from February 6th on the Trump peace plan, it shouldn't be a surprise:
"The US is expected to unveil its plan to end the war in Ukraine next week, which could involve freezing the conflict along the current lines and using British troops to enforce a ceasefire."
"Gen Keith Kellogg, the special envoy for Ukraine, later conceding that achieving peace would be more complicated and could take 100 days."
Gen Keith Kellogg is Trump's the special envoy for Ukraine
"Nearly a month into Mr Trump’s second term, Gen Kellogg will next week present a plan to end the war privately to America’s allies at the Munich security conference, being held from Friday to Sunday, Feb 14-16.
"In return for freezing the conflict along current lines, Gen Kellogg’s plan involves providing Ukraine with security guarantees to ensure that Moscow does not attack again.
Gen Kellogg is a known advocate for ramping up military aid for Ukraine if Moscow refuses to come to the table."
"Ukraine’s European allies, including Britain, Poland and France, have discussed sending troops to Ukraine to enforce a ceasefire."
But of course Zelensky has been asking for much more, he doesn't want to cede any territory unless it comes.with NATO membership, which is not going to happen:
"However, Volodymyr Zelensky admitted for the first time in November that he was willing to cede territory to Russia to end the war.
The Ukrainian president told Sky News: “If we want to stop the hot stage of the war, we should take under [the] Nato umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control.”
Mr Zelensky said that such a plan could only work with American troops, saying that at least 200,000 soldiers would be needed to enforce peace and that Europe alone was not reliable enough."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/06/donald-trump-plan-end-war-ukraine-kellogg-munich-russia/
Is there any major deviations from that plan you are hearing from Macron, Starmer, Rutte, or any other authoritative European?
Wow, completely evidence-free Russian propaganda that you gobbled up like Trump cum.
Next time you should examine what you're swallowing long before you open your mouth.
You could just shoot yourself in the fucking head and spare us all your displays of stupidity, you know.
Ipse dixit and opinion.
You seem a big fan - you posted it twice.
Care to pull our your favorite bits? And then provide support for them? Because VDH hasn't bothered with that last bit.
No wonder you are such an avid denialist: reading five short points is too hard for you, and you want "favorite bits" extracted to make things easier for you to think about.
I noted your excerpt included both Ipse dixit and opinion.
I also noted Because VDH hasn't bothered with supporting his positions.
My comment was shorter than what you posted, and you seem not to have read it.
If you're going to complain about someone who does not preemptively satisfy your isolated demands for rigor, you could at least recognize different commenters along the way. It would show at least an occasional regard for obvious and exhibited facts.
What facts?
If you're not going to try, you don't need to post.
No professor, I'm not registered for your course, I'm just auditing it.
You act like you "caught me" posting something twice, like I should be embarrased or something. I said in the other post "this is worth poosting again." And, i this very thread, you did the same!
In all seriousness, you should be embarrassed for how gullible and stupid you are.
You didn't bother to fact-check a single one of those things before running here with your little dick in your hands ready to show the world your family shame.
We've seen it, and we're laughing at you. Pull your head out of your ass.
I think the problem in the Oval Office was simple
Zelenskyy simply said, HEy, uhh, Mr President, you seem to have a little something dripping down your chin, is Vlad here?
Keep it classy, arpiniant1.
AS classy as you are truthful
l
500 comments and no one's mind has been changed.
THe Russians apparently pay well
Apparently the Ukrainians pay better.
That's hardly true! Opinions have hardened and become more extreme. TDS has mutated into Trump Psychosis Syndrome, for instance.
If half the people raving about Trump actually believe what they say, the Secret Service are going to have a stressful 4 years ahead of them.
And how out of touch do you have to be to think remotely every American is humiliated by what Trump is doing as President? His popularity has hardly budged in the polls. You'd basically have to think everybody shares your own politics to think that.
This is your usual bullshit.
No one can have an opinion you disagree with (even if you yourself had that opinion a week ago).
It’s gotta be bad faith or insanity.
It’s a great way to never challenge your PoV.
Keep a trollin', trollin', trollin.
thought the thread is swollen
keep the bullshit rollin'
Il Douche.
The title of the OP is literally, "Humiliating for Every American"
And I'm the one who thinks no one can have an opinion I disagree with? What did you think that "every" implied?
You're the one calling him psychotic.
Bellmore, Lend Lease passed by one vote. What happened to foreign relations public consensus when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, not quite nine months later?
How long do you think post-Ukrainian public support for MAGA Putin coddling would outlast a Russian attack against a Baltic state, or all of them?
Lend Lease did not in fact pass by one vote. it was 260 to 165 in the House and 60 to 31 in the Senate.
"Surely this crosses the line"
Again, for these people, it surely does not. Know what you are up against. We know who these people are, including James David Vance. And is this sort of embarrassingly pathetic anti-American performance notably different than trying to blackmail him for political gain? That didn't embarrass the true believers. This won't.
Speaking of embarrassment. One of the more humorous things from Friday was Little Marco demanding apologies for insulting comments.
Heh. I note that insulting America and America's president was a constant until Jan 20th
"Jake Tapper @jaketapper
Interesting study: “EU imports of Russian fossil fuels in the third year of the invasion surpassed the EUR 18.7 bn of financial aid they sent to Ukraine in 2024.”
But they sent a lot of supportive tweets Friday!
Weird how Trump was stupid for asking why is NATO around if Germany is going to keep signing multi-billion dollar energy deals with Russia.
If you're going to keep financing him --- why should we care about what Russia does?
Two former reality TV stars going at each other in the Oval Office was hilarious. The only possible thing that could have made this more entertaining would be a reenactment of Oxburger mud wrestling a big breasted bimbo. Any idea on when the next episode drops?
Ask Putin, he seems to be in control of the programming.
Poor hayseeds. You could have been owning the libs and browns in peace for a good while. But you had to go all 'turning and turning in the widening gyre.' The danse macabre. Full on 'some people just like to watch the world burn.'
Now your Russian puppet is fully exposed. Our alliances are shattering. And you ain't gonna get shit in trade negotiations any more.
And all in the first month! Things are looking up!
A contingency worth considering: the good relations Zelensky now enjoys with the European Union continue to advance. The EU rallies, and agrees substantial financial support for Ukraine, without troop commitments.
Zelensky thanks them for the cash, and proposes to use it to buy arms from the U.S., and to throw in a deal on rare earth minerals, to keep everything flowing smoothly. Seems like that would back Trump into a corner with Putin.
Would Trump repudiate a deal like that? Could he get away with doing it, while everyone in the House and Senate who offered support would get campaigned against with commercials showing Lindbergh meeting with Hitler?
Come 2027 we're gonna need to revive the House Un-American Committee. Who else in this administration and congress is receiving their orders from Moscow? And not just Moscow. 'My Republican Congressmen' who voted to overturn the 2020 election clearly wasn't a one-time deal to sabotage the Constitution. It's ongoing
Don't tease us Senator McCarthy, just how many Roosh-uns are there in "47"'s Adminstration?
As I understand it, this week Hegseth ordered us to stop flying recon over the black sea for Ukraine. He also ordered us to unilaterally stop all offensive cyber actions against Russia. So I'd start with that asshole
Easy to send other peoples kids on dangerous jobs isn't it? Just curious, have you ever pretended to be in the Coast Guard? There was some Valor Thief back in the 90's who did, it's like pretending to be a Pro Pickleball player.
So, yeah, I'd start with Hegseth. You know, Frankie, you're easy to talk to
A contingency worth considering:
The EU continues to support Ukraine, supporting Airbus and their own munitions companies.
All the countries that traitortrump has abandoned turn away from the US and stop buying arms and munitions from US companies at retail.
Long term relationships are formed that sideline the US and its corporations for decades
Yep. Boeing is on the ropes. We'll have to go to Airbus, hat in hand. We seem to losing a plane per week now with only the Aryan Brotherhood running air traffic.
If you know any controllers, there may be some Brothers in the Towers and ARTCC's (I could tell you....) but they ain't Aryan.
Oh yeah, before I forget,
Steal any Valor today? I hear it's like that Poof in Sleepy Joe's Cabinet who was stealing women's underwear, once you get the taste for it you're never satisfied
Frank