I don’t have the wording but I know that Russia has said it will match the Ukraine deal. I also know Trump refused any guarantees of defence. So, why couldn’t Putin attack but promise to leave US interests intact?
If Germany had won the war in Europe in WW2, then the US would have faced Japan on the west coast, and the Axis on the East. I fully recognise the sacrifice made by brave young Americans in Europe, but the US (eventually) had to fight the war in Europe to keep it at arms length from their mainland - they weren`t doing us or the world a favour. After the war, they happily put their deterrents in Europe (guess what, at arms length). Trump and his sycophants should recognise who his real allies are and what the consequences could be should Ukraine fall. I`ll never get my mind around how a country like the US could end up with a president as infantile as Trump.
A lot of politics is pure theatre, it always has been. Especially when dealing with someone like Trump, who is a showman to his core. All the world's a stage, and only a fool turns up on stage naked. Contrast Zelensky's tracksuit gaff with Starmer playing a blinder, pulling a Royal invitation from his pocket; being a lawyer, he knows all about theatre himself.
I won't say its obvious because that would be me projecting what I think as an opinion so IMO... Trump sees that there is no option but a Berlin Wall II here. Russia keeps what it has already, war ends blah blah. Yes we can argue about whether that is acceptable or not. You have your side, we have ours. keep the peace. However I think most of us would (I'm not saying all because I can't talk for all) will say that is not really acceptable! So there are 2 options: 1: Do the deal and split a country - Donalds plan 2: Go to war to push Russia back to Russia. We already know which option Trump favours. However we also know that all of our leaders of the past 10 years have shown no will to actually push Russia back!
Yea, but my point is that if there is no guarantee of defence for Ukraine, they gain nothing. A business interest can continue after invasion. How can Ukraine trust the USA?
Yay- Uk politics. Well to me Macron and Starmer "playing a blinder" meant "yes sir, please sir." They rush to the new president after all their words and then play the submissive little whelp to get through it without a show. If anything Zelensky showed both of them who has the balls! Starmer and Macron would've been biting their tongues sucking it up! And Zelensky has much more at stake than both of them! They were protecting money! He was protecting his people's entire existence!
How could we trust Russia after world war 2? The allies cut a deal. Bad as it may taste to both sides, they cut a deal and they had to trust each other as there were few other options other than now going to war with each other now the Germans were done.
I agree with you on some things but I feel like you are avoiding my exact question. I am for the deal. Zelensky suggested it. But it must contain a treaty of mutual defence - or what stops the USA from simply accepting the same terms from Russia? This whole idea of defending interests only works if there is a solid reason to defend them. Why would anyone trust Trump? He is a convicted fraudster.
Well as above post how could we trust Stalin, or for that matter Roosevelt? I have no idea what the "suggestion" of Russia's deal is however If we are looking at Berlin wall II then the security comes with the US interest. They aren't gonna plough billions and trillions into this "mining" project without putting their forces in there....not as NATO but as US defence. 1 comes with the other. IMO.... But this does not address whether Ukraine itself or the western world is happy to concede this territory....just to get a peace deal!
I think we are ignoring that Ukraine also had a chunk of Russia now. Back to pre-2021 borders would make nobody happy but save everyone face. Also, Ukraine’s democracy must be protected from Russian interference.
Although Mr Dictator might be quite likely to throw that "Russian" territory under a bus if the Ukraine "territory" is worth more to him........whether that be in what it contains or what it means!
Firstly, that assumes there would be no peacekeeping troops of any sort on the ground, which seems somewhat unlikely to me. But let's pretend that's the case. If American companies are operating in Ukraine and using American workers then you can be sure America will protect them and any American government would react VERY strongly if American citizens were harmed. If Russia was to invade Ukraine it would be virtually impossible for them to guarantee the safety of those Americans or their - potentially very expensive - equipment. There have been plenty of instances of misdirected missiles hitting hospitals or schools and allied troops killed by "friendly fire" in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. So, to be sure they didn't kill an American and start a direct confrontation, the Russians would have to notify the Americans of their intentions and the Americans would then have to evacuate their people before any invasion began. Franky, if you think the USA is untrustworthy enough to engage in that sort of behaviour then why would you rely on a treaty of mutual defence? What's to stop the USA simply refusing to honour the treaty?
It is true though. Just because you’re ignorant and naive of history doesn’t make it less true. How did Nazi germany censor speech? How did Soviet Russia censor speech? Was it obvious to their citizens at the time? Or were they exactly like you… naive?
This is my gist. If US invests all that money then they are gonna have their people in their to protect it. Not as NATO (which is the red line?) but to protect US interests. It needs no extra guarantee. The 2 go together! We hear a lot about the US going there to plunder but we don't hear much about the fact that the US investment will 50/50 benefit Ukraine as well. The US gets "its money back" from their share and Ukraine benefits from the 50% that US investment helps to bring to the ground! That does not however, address the issue of territory! who accedes what if any etc etc. I'm too young, even with reading, to understand the ins and outs of what or why the allies accepted the East/West Europe divide although I guess even just 80 years ago leaders had a lot less worry about morals or what is right than we do now!
Careful Os, you and loading are very close to another ban, and it will be at least 3 months this time. How many times do I have to warn you both not to make personal attacks?
As ever, Matthew Syed writes an excellent piece on all this for the Sunday Times comment section tomorrow (it's online now if you care to read it). He's somewhat more hawkish than I am about how to deal with Trump, but then I hadn't realised he's sacked the judge advocate-generals for all three branches of the armed forces - they're the people who tell military leaders what is and isn't legal. It's a slide into authoritarianism, however you want to spin it, or want to think that it isn't.
You, the left, the politicians and everyone screaming about how bad Trump is are missing the keyest of key points: A territory is only a territory if you are prepared to defend it with blood. Game theory basically dictates that whoever is the most willing to lose the most, will eventually win. In this case, that’s the Ukrainians Then Putin Then Europe Then America Therefore Putin holds the cards I said this to you when the war started yet here we are a few years later and you’re still arguing the same nonsense
