Of course.money are not tanks.But,keep in mind,that ,especially germans tend to promise deliver something,and count it as help arleady delivered.
Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Polish politicians,and american,do not mistaken it.Only germans.
GooseElite
Goosey Goosey Gander Whither shall I wander?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy intends to fire the governor of Sumy. The city of the same name was hit by a devastating Russian missile attack over the weekend, killing 34 people and wounding more than 100.
The governor in question, Volodymyr Artiuch, has admitted that an awards ceremony for soldiers took place in the area, according to Ukrainian media. The same building was used to hold courses for children, according to Sveriges Radio.
The governor is accused of inadvertently creating an incentive for the Russian attack by holding the ceremony, writes Kyiv Independent.
The governor in question, Volodymyr Artiuch, has admitted that an awards ceremony for soldiers took place in the area, according to Ukrainian media. The same building was used to hold courses for children, according to Sveriges Radio.
The governor is accused of inadvertently creating an incentive for the Russian attack by holding the ceremony, writes Kyiv Independent.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
A target with actual military value that's also packed full of children? Irresistible target for Russians, so gross negligence for governor.
## [CNN:](<https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/18/europe/rubio-russia-war-in-ukraine-us-talks-intl-hnk?cid=ios_app>) Rubio warns if it's not possible to end the war in Ukraine, US needs to 'move on'
>>> US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that if it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, the United States needs to abandon its efforts and move on.
"If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on," he told reporters before departing Paris. "We need to determine very quickly now, and I'm talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable."
"If it's not possible, if we're so far apart that this is not going to happen then I think the president is probably at a point where he's going to say we're done," he said.
"It's not our war. We didn't start it. The United States has been helping Ukraine for the past three years and we want it to end, but it's not our war," he added.
The comments come a day after he and special envoy Steve Witkoff met with European and Ukrainian allies as US President Donald Trump's administration pushes for an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.
A US-authored outline of a peace plan had received an "encouraging reception" at the talks, according to a State Department readout, which did not give details on the outline. Rubio also spoke with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and conveyed the same outline, the readout said.
Edit:
To add, he is saying this because Russia doesn't want to work towards peace
>>> US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that if it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, the United States needs to abandon its efforts and move on.
"If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on," he told reporters before departing Paris. "We need to determine very quickly now, and I'm talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable."
"If it's not possible, if we're so far apart that this is not going to happen then I think the president is probably at a point where he's going to say we're done," he said.
"It's not our war. We didn't start it. The United States has been helping Ukraine for the past three years and we want it to end, but it's not our war," he added.
The comments come a day after he and special envoy Steve Witkoff met with European and Ukrainian allies as US President Donald Trump's administration pushes for an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.
A US-authored outline of a peace plan had received an "encouraging reception" at the talks, according to a State Department readout, which did not give details on the outline. Rubio also spoke with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and conveyed the same outline, the readout said.
Edit:
To add, he is saying this because Russia doesn't want to work towards peace
Last edited:
If a peace deal isn't achievable, then it isn't achievable, and Europe can carry Ukraine while the US focus's on the Pacific.
I would also remind you Zelensky fucking up in the Oval Office derailed the plan Trump initially had, soured parts of the GOP/MAGA on Ukraine that had been previously supportive of it, the aftermath showed how many European allies would lie about what happened just to try to fuck with Trump, and Zelensky's continued delay/obstruction of a mineral deal fucked up some of the leverage that Trump was planning to use with Russia.
Europe can step up and try to keep Ukraine fighting indefinitely, see if they can wear Putin down or take him out, and handle the aftermath, if no deal can be achieved.
Because Trump also seems to understand something that many in the DC Blob don't; the sunk cost fallacy, and that sometimes throwing good money and munitions after bad won't get the US a better outcome, and that US cannot do everything we would like, and have to prioritize. Taiwan ranks much higher on the 'loss would impact US civilian daily lives directly and immediately', compared to Ukraine, which...Ukraine could cease to exist tomorrow and it wouldn't meaningfully impact the daily lives of most of America. That's just the brutal truth.
So...in the end it's fine if Russia wins.
Because I can assure you, the people of Estonia and Latvia wouldn't think so.
Neither would those in the Causcus regions.
Because they are for sure next.
But it's not Ukraine not willing to work with the US, it'd Russia.
Russia isn't willing to actively engage in peace or ceasefire talks and constantly stalls and pushes it along.
Ukraine jumps at every opportunity.
Add in blaming zelesnky when his government still probably would not have signed the mineral deal is funny.
This entire point now is due to Russia, not Ukraine
But to the eyes of the world the US is willing to let bullies go if it means we arnt actually invovled.
Maybe that's why Iran hasn't been bombed yet, maybe that's why we lowered the tariffs on electronics from China.
Almost like our current president wants to avoid war at any cost, and only throws threats around but has so far shown that our enemies only care for strength showings, not threats of sanctions
Largo
Well-known member
Taiwan also ranks much higher on the "How much will the US bear" scale, too.
The thing about Taiwan is that Americans seem to think that there's going to be some great decisive battle. The Chinese will launch an invasion. Either they win and take over Taiwan, or they lose and a peace deal is signed/the Chinese people get angry and overthrow the Communists or something.
But what if the Chinese don't stop fighting? What if there is no peace deal, where the Chinese continue to lob missiles at Taiwan or the nearby navy and attempt to deny shipping to Taiwan (remember: Taiwan has basically no ports on the east side of the island)? The US has just shown that it's not willing to spend just treasure, let alone blood, to defend Ukraine. Will it be willing to spend tens of thousands of lives (and let's be clear: many, many Americans are going to die in a Taiwan invasion scenario) to defend Taiwan?
Or will it, like Ukraine, pack up after a short time and decide that Taiwan isn't worth it after all. There's still the second island chain. We can contain China just fine with that. Or really, who needs to contain China? We need to deal with the real domestic enemy first anyways.
This whole "We need to abandon Ukraine to focus on Taiwan" is horseshit when one looks at what the actual small East Asian states are saying. They're nervous as shit about US cowardice, because they have no reason to believe that said cowardice won't rebound on them too.
The thing about Taiwan is that Americans seem to think that there's going to be some great decisive battle. The Chinese will launch an invasion. Either they win and take over Taiwan, or they lose and a peace deal is signed/the Chinese people get angry and overthrow the Communists or something.
But what if the Chinese don't stop fighting? What if there is no peace deal, where the Chinese continue to lob missiles at Taiwan or the nearby navy and attempt to deny shipping to Taiwan (remember: Taiwan has basically no ports on the east side of the island)? The US has just shown that it's not willing to spend just treasure, let alone blood, to defend Ukraine. Will it be willing to spend tens of thousands of lives (and let's be clear: many, many Americans are going to die in a Taiwan invasion scenario) to defend Taiwan?
Or will it, like Ukraine, pack up after a short time and decide that Taiwan isn't worth it after all. There's still the second island chain. We can contain China just fine with that. Or really, who needs to contain China? We need to deal with the real domestic enemy first anyways.
This whole "We need to abandon Ukraine to focus on Taiwan" is horseshit when one looks at what the actual small East Asian states are saying. They're nervous as shit about US cowardice, because they have no reason to believe that said cowardice won't rebound on them too.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
We could disagree about how much what happens to Ukraine affects the US but that's not actually the important question. The important question is, what is the difference between how the US is affected by what happens to the Ukraine in our absence relative to how the US is affected by the US sending aid to Ukraine as well as what actually happens in Ukraine.
I would agree that Ukraine being wiped off the map, or overrun, or stuck in an increasingly gruesome war for years wouldn't throw the US into absolute chaos; but neither would the cost of the aid we've been sending, or double or triple the aid we've been sending. It's ridiculous to wash our hands of a globally destabilizing conflict just because it's not so destabilizing that it will tear the world asunder. And yes, I am positive that a future where the US mostly or totally washes its hands of Ukraine is more destabilizing than a future where it maintains or increases support.
Lastly, I have a question. The reason for the question is not to accuse or imply; it is because I have seen what appear to be multiple different motivations for people opposing US aid to Ukraine and I can't really remember what signs you in particular have shown. So please tell me how much these factors motivate your stance (please feel free in your response to modify any of these to more closely suit your personal position):
1. Desire to reduce human suffering equally across the board
2. Desire to reduce human suffering in non-aggressor nations (especially Ukraine as the battlefield nation but also the world to the extent applicable) with some, but reduced, consideration for the immediate well being of the population of the aggressor nation, and even less consideration for long term economic effects etc. on the aggressor.
3. Desire to reduce human suffering in the United States specifically regardless of the cost to others, even if highly disproportionate
4. Desire to avoid any foreign military entanglement even if no US troops are at risk because of bad experiences earlier this century.
5. Belief that aid to Ukraine necessarily reduces US ability (including political will and allies) to respond to Chinese aggression AND that this reduction is more harmful on net than the results of aid withdrawal.
6. Other (please specify)
<@&950571861492768769> [Putin](<https://tass.ru/politika/23728581>) has declared an Easter truce, announcing that it will come into effect today (April 19) at 6 PM local time and last until midnight on April 21
> Guided by humanitarian considerations, today from 18:00 [Moscow time] to 00:00 [Moscow time] from Sunday to Monday, the Russian side declares an Easter truce. I order that all military actions be stopped for this period," the head of state said at a meeting with Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov after the truce was declared.
>
> Putin stressed that Russian troops must be prepared for possible ceasefire violations by Kyiv. They must be ready to repel any provocations by the enemy, any aggressive actions.
Like the last time they called for one of these, the Russian will break it and blame Ukraine
> Guided by humanitarian considerations, today from 18:00 [Moscow time] to 00:00 [Moscow time] from Sunday to Monday, the Russian side declares an Easter truce. I order that all military actions be stopped for this period," the head of state said at a meeting with Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov after the truce was declared.
>
> Putin stressed that Russian troops must be prepared for possible ceasefire violations by Kyiv. They must be ready to repel any provocations by the enemy, any aggressive actions.
Like the last time they called for one of these, the Russian will break it and blame Ukraine
That is not what I said.
I said Europe can carry Ukraine, if the US walks away, to focus on the Pacific.
And Trump may not walk away from UA completely, but may walk away from negotiations and just let the fighting play out with minimal US involvement going forward.
If Putin angers Trump badly enough here towards the end, Trump may even increase sanctions on Russia, and the drop in global oil prices is already hurting Putin's pocket books.
Maybe, maybe not; Ukraine didn't have the Article 5 option, and Congress did ratify the NATO charter, so it's not just an Executive Branch decision if Russia makes a move on NATO itself.
Zelensky doesn't seem willing to accept he may need to give formal, legal claim to certain areas to Russia, not just labeling them 'occupied territories', in order to get a deal. I think that's the main hang-up on the UA side, besides the mineral deal.
And Putin/Russia is not exactly making Trump happy either, as he's said several times recently. Trump has refrained from publicly insulting Putin or Russia during negotiations, which is just sensible, and has been getting shit on for it.
If neither Zelensky or his gov would sign the mineral deal, then why the fuck did he request to come to the White House to sign it?
Because it wasn't Trump or Rubio that invited Zelensky, he asked to come, and then made the diplo clusterfuck of the century in the Oval Office.
Russia is being an aggressive bunch of dipshits, yes, and playing fuck-fuck games diplomatically that are trying Trump's patience.
Ukraine on the other hand has been a source of grief for Trump since his first term, thanks to Vindman's fuckery with the Zelensky call that lead to that sham impeachment attempt by Pelosi, then we have the NAFO-types who have been hating on Trump and the GOP since long before the election, the UA supporter who tried to shoot Trump at his golf course, then finally Zelensky's insulting actions in the Oval Office.
Trump's not really a fan of either side, but if Russia is the group who causes Trump to stop trying for peace, UA is likely to see aid maintained at whatever level they can pay for, while Russia won't see sanctions eased. If UA is the side that drives Trump away, then expect sanctions on Russia to be eased and nearly all aid/sales to Ukraine halted.
So you best hope it is Russia that drives Trump away from negotiations.
Iran hasn't been bombed because we are currently trying to negotiate a deal that caps enrichment of a civie nuke program, while blapping the Houthi's, who are the Ayatollah's last remaining useful proxy in the area.
However, Trump has set a time line for those negotiation, and if it falls through/the Ayatollah keeps trying to delay, then the B-2s and their MOPs will be visiting Fordow and other Iranian nuclear sites.
Trump isn't a warfighter, he's a businessman, something you constantly seem to forget in your foreign policy desires; military force is never going to be his first option.
Again, Trump is a businessman, not a warfighter, and will not pursue military actions as first options, if he believes he has economic and political tools he can use first.
Trump doesn't like people being killed, military or civie, and he will not initiate actions that will result in killing, if he believes he has other options.
However, when Trump runs out of peaceful options, he can also pull a Solemani on nearly a moments notice.
Given Zelensky and co keep waffling on the minerals deal, which would actually see Ukraine become a net benefit to the US, how the US is affected by what is happening in Ukraine really depends on if UA/Zelensky have a modified mineral deal they will sign in a few days/next week or so.
If the US isn't getting something back out of Ukraine for all the aid/sales/intel we have provided, then what happens in UA isn't terribly important to the daily life of the average American.
If Ukraine can pay for 2-3x the amount of supplies they are getting/asking for/buying, and it doesn't impact our ability to supply and stockpile gear for use in the Pacific, great.
But we aren't at a point of production capacity where that is the reality on the ground, from what I've seen; production bottlenecks are still such we have to chose between stockpiling some gear for the Pacific or sending it to Ukraine (if they've paid for it), we cannot always do both at the number Ukraine wants/needs.
My issues with current aid to Ukraine is based on a few things:
1) Zelensky fucked up what should have been an easy signing visit, a visit he requested, and then people in UA and the EU began lying about it being an 'ambush', while at the same time Vance saying Europe no longer get to free ride on US defense and abuse the US economy and no longer seems to share some value with the US due to their internal political action regarding free speech and the illegal immigrant/jihadi issues was considered a 'betrayal'.
Ungrateful, two-face, and outright gaslighting actions by UA/EU in regards to Trump and Vance have burned a lot of my previous goodwill toward UA.
2) UA is not in a position where it can do more than hold the line, and maybe limited raids into places like Belgorod, and they may have overplayed/overstayed their operation in Kursk. This is when UA is continuing to have manpower/recruiting issues and frankly the leadership is more Soviet minded than NATO-styled, and it's causing a feeling of 'Are we throwing good muntions and money after bad out of pride/unwillingness to admit UA isn't using it wisely?'.
If Europe wants to keep throwing good money and muntions after bad, that's on them, but the US has other responsibilities in the Pacific where we could be stockpiling munitions for a fight with the CCP, and if no amount of aid/sales will get UA the victory they want and aren't being used wisely by UA, then those muntions might be of better effect to the US public by having them stockpiled in the Pacific.
3) Because it seems no amount of previous support for UA matters, the second someone says that UA is making mistakes and needs to reign in it's expectations. That burns a lot of goodwill from people who used to be ardent UA supporters, and makes it so UA seem ungrateful and unwilling to deal with any reality that might involve them giving up lands in legal, formal documentation, not simply calling places 'occupied', and that no amount of desire for NATO membership will make it happen for UA.
4) The timeline for confrontation with the CCP has constantly been getting shorter, they may make a move on Taiwan within this year, so time is not on the side of the US and we therefore have to make some hard choices about stockpiling for that fight vs selling/sending things to UA. We do not have years to build up our stocks while selling to UA, and if things go hot with Taiwan, we may not even have the spare heavy lift capacity to ship much shit to Europe as a whole, never mind UA.
We do not have the time to do things the way UA and the EU would like, partly because the EU has been playing so nice with the CCP and Russia for decades, EU underspending on NATO so the US is more stretched in the Pacific where NATO isn't useful most of the time, and because the 'End of History' bullshit so many prior admins in the US and west had bought into.
Last edited:
So the gist you are saying is:
Blame zelesnky, blame zelesnky, blame zelesnky, Trump is not wrong and is the God emperor!
I laughed honestly when you said he doesn't want people killed.
If that was the case he would have set hard limits on Russia.
Instead...thousands more have died since negotiations have started.
And Trump and Rubio both have said they will pull us out of the conflict, on both sides.
Russia just today broke its Easter truce it set, hoping the Ukrainians would attempt to abide by it.
Russia has proven time and time again they want one thing, and that's total cessation of conflict against them, the demilitirization of Ukraine at least, or all of Ukraone.
Zelesnky doesn't want to give up entire oblasts that Russia has a small foothold in. Should Russia get all of Kherson while it doesn't even have rhe main city?
And article 5 is worthless for Hungary is most likely not going to agree to ot, and by the time NATO responds Estonia will be Russian. Latvia has a large Russian population...easy for them to lose being Latvian.
Add in the Causcus region.
Russia will keep expanding, and if given Ukraine now has access to a lot of materials ot can set up trade with China.
Believe it or not, we won't be hurt by having a two front war, because almost everything we have sent to Ukraine woukd be useless in Pacific....
As for Iran, they have outright said they arnt going to listen and backed out of direct deals...yet where are the bombings?
And all china sees is a long war with out our intervention benefits them.
so constant bombardment of taiwan will hurt us in thjer eyes.
add in without Ukraine we wouldn't have systems in place to bring our manufacturing back.
But anyway, our president doesn't understand peace through strength as the Russians are playing him like a fiddle.
RenegadeInterrupt
Anarcho-Centrist Judeo-Satanic Imperialist
The Trump subjugation of Russia as a new US proxy state is working splendidly:
apnews.com
If Trump keeps this up, he's going to make Putin his bitch. Yet another nail in the Liberal Democrat propaganda machine's coffin.
Putin announces an Easter ceasefire as Russia and Ukraine swap hundreds of POWs
Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced a temporary Easter ceasefire in Ukraine starting Saturday, citing humanitarian reasons.
apnews.com
If Trump keeps this up, he's going to make Putin his bitch. Yet another nail in the Liberal Democrat propaganda machine's coffin.
You know what, your refusal to engage in good faith with what I say, instead of shoving words in my mouth, is a continuing trend, and I am done with it.
You are going on ignore.
Edit: I took you off ignore, and you know why, and you know what I expect of future engagement with me.
Last edited:
Russia already broke it within minutes of it happening, with like 11 offensives. And bombing KhersonThe Trump subjugation of Russia as a new US proxy state is working splendidly:
Putin announces an Easter ceasefire as Russia and Ukraine swap hundreds of POWs
Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced a temporary Easter ceasefire in Ukraine starting Saturday, citing humanitarian reasons.
If Trump keeps this up, he's going to make Putin his bitch. Yet another nail in the Liberal Democrat propaganda machine's coffin.
Alright, that's fine.
I have made my point though, and all I have seen is you defending Trump and not going off on Russia, just Ukraine.
Technically, that is true.
Practically, that is a great way to give Europe a bloody perfect way to excuse themselves out of providing any help regarding US Pacific conflicts that it feels uncomfortable providing.
In short term this is bad for Europe, but in long term it may end up being a textbook example of a short-termist mistake as that excuse may be worth its weight in gold for Europe once shit starts happening in the Pacific.
This, especially once combined with the tariff boondoggle are pretty clear foreign policy mistakes when it comes to maneuvering against China on the geopolitical stage if you look at it coldly and from more long term perspective.
And he would have to be utterly retarded or treasonous to give them. After all, withdrawing from such legal concession is far harder, perhaps impossible even, for Ukraine than it is for Russia to break the deal later.
AFAIK is also legally impossible to make this recognition conditional upon Russia's future behavior.
I think it's simple enough to understand the peril of giving a lasting concession for one that may be very temporary at enemy's initiative.
Getting a deal is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Sure, it would be nice for Trump to get to pat himself on the back for his peacemaking, but for people more interested in US and/or Ukrainian strategic interests, events beyond the horizon of 1 or 4 years matter more than that, and a deal that promotes short term nice vibes over those is ultimately a bad deal for everyone, even if it may not seem like it in short term, before things inevitably go to shit due to a shoddy deal made under desperate pressure.
Zelensky and Ukraine in general never had any power over the Vindmans and NAFO types of US side.
This is not a valid excuse for his bumbling in this area, this is an implication that should delegate the warfighting side of foreign policy to someone who understands it better, and it's not like US right is short on people who are competent with this stuff (they certainly don't sit on the other side of the political scene).
The problem is that you turn the whole point about EU playing nice with Russia in the past into a suicide bomb for your entire position by at the same time suggesting EU and USA should play nice with Russia in the present in the name of "peace" delusions.
Anyone who follows that logic is making *exactly* the same mistake EU made, except even worse, because it is aggravated by the increased amount of hindsight being ignored.
Last edited: