The Ukraine Crisis

[kalm]

We’re still on the side of the good guys right?

I don't think we're providing any funding or weapons to Russia, are we?

Good lord let’s hope not, but Trump hasn’t moved Putin one inch while they continue talks. And we’re now letting Europe provide UKR with weapons (which may not be a bad thing in the long run).

Last I heard, the proposal was for Russia to “keep” land it doesn’t hold.

Zalensky should give up on the U.S. being an ally and focus on Europe.

[GannonFan]

I don't think we're providing any funding or weapons to Russia, are we?

Good lord let’s hope not, but Trump hasn’t moved Putin one inch while they continue talks. And we’re now letting Europe provide UKR with weapons (which may not be a bad thing in the long run).

Last I heard, the proposal was for Russia to “keep” land it doesn’t hold.

Zalensky should give up on the U.S. being an ally and focus on Europe.

Give up on the US? Even under Trump the US has given more to Ukraine that all of Europe combined has. It's fair to question Trump's effectiveness with this situation, but it's also unfair to say that we're not an ally.

I've always said this is a tough situation. How exactly do we get Russia out of Ukraine? It wasn't until Trump that the US even seriously threatened Russia's economy. Biden made a show of it, but put guardrails around anything to do with oil, despite knowing that Russia's economy was completely dependent on oil sales (he didn't want gas prices to go up while his other policies had already caused rampant inflation - there was an election he was still planning for). So we do that, like what Trump is doing with India (he could threaten China, but we don't have any of the leverage with China that we might have with India). But even that is a long game. If we really wanted Russia out of Ukraine we'd have to insert forces and get directly in the fight ourselves. Is that what you're proposing? It would work, but at what cost (both monetary as well as human toll)?

[Caribbean Hen]

Trump wasn’t wrong when he told Zelensky “you don’t hold the cards”

Russia is not giving up anything unless U.S. gets very involved and nobody wants that. Russia can wait for a decade or more
if they have too

Trumps public demands and timelines on Putin are not what I would be doing….

Therefore, if this stalemate is going to be broken, Ukraine needs to make some concessions

[kalm]

Good lord let’s hope not, but Trump hasn’t moved Putin one inch while they continue talks. And we’re now letting Europe provide UKR with weapons (which may not be a bad thing in the long run).

Last I heard, the proposal was for Russia to “keep” land it doesn’t hold.

Zalensky should give up on the U.S. being an ally and focus on Europe.

Give up on the US? Even under Trump the US has given more to Ukraine that all of Europe combined has. It's fair to question Trump's effectiveness with this situation, but it's also unfair to say that we're not an ally.

I've always said this is a tough situation. How exactly do we get Russia out of Ukraine? It wasn't until Trump that the US even seriously threatened Russia's economy. Biden made a show of it, but put guardrails around anything to do with oil, despite knowing that Russia's economy was completely dependent on oil sales (he didn't want gas prices to go up while his other policies had already caused rampant inflation - there was an election he was still planning for). So we do that, like what Trump is doing with India (he could threaten China, but we don't have any of the leverage with China that we might have with India). But even that is a long game. If we really wanted Russia out of Ukraine we'd have to insert forces and get directly in the fight ourselves. Is that what you're proposing? It would work, but at what cost (both monetary as well as human toll)?

Trump has shown a trend to support UKR until he meets or phones Putin and then comes back with a deal could be struck. As long as Russia gives up nothing. He also did similar recently with the Tomahawk missiles.

[UNI88]

Trump wasn’t wrong when he told Zelensky “you don’t hold the cards”

Russia is not giving up anything unless U.S. gets very involved and nobody wants that. Russia can wait for a decade or more
if they have too

Trumps public demands and timelines on Putin are not what I would be doing….

Therefore, if this stalemate is going to be broken, Ukraine needs to make some concessions

I think Ukraine is willing to make reasonable concessions. Is giving up territory they currently hold reasonable?

The war is a grind and the cost to russia is higher than you think. They're losing a not insignificant chunk of a generation of their young men. Their economy is also functioning because of oil revenue and war spending. At some point the lack of spending on civilian projects is going to catch up with them. At the current rate, it will take russia more than 100 years to conquer all of Ukraine. They can't sustain that so they don't hold all the cards either.

There is no way that Ukraine can trust putin/russia so for them to accept any peace deal it has to include a US/European promise to protect their sovereignty in the future. putin isn't going to go for that so is a peace deal even attainable? If it isn't, Ukraine has a choice accept a flawed deal that gives russia time to rearm and invade again in the future or continue fighting now. They're going to be fighting for their future regardless.

[kalm]

Trump wasn’t wrong when he told Zelensky “you don’t hold the cards”

Russia is not giving up anything unless U.S. gets very involved and nobody wants that. Russia can wait for a decade or more
if they have too

Trumps public demands and timelines on Putin are not what I would be doing….

Therefore, if this stalemate is going to be broken, Ukraine needs to make some concessions

I think Ukraine is willing to make reasonable concessions. Is giving up territory they currently hold reasonable?

The war is a grind and the cost to russia is higher than you think. They're losing a not insignificant chunk of a generation of their young men. Their economy is also functioning because of oil revenue and war spending. At some point the lack of spending on civilian projects is going to catch up with them. At the current rate, it will take russia more than 100 years to conquer all of Ukraine. They can't sustain that so they don't hold all the cards either.

There is no way that Ukraine can trust putin/russia so for them to accept any peace deal it has to include a US/European promise to protect their sovereignty in the future. putin isn't going to go for that so is a peace deal even attainable? If it isn't, Ukraine has a choice accept a flawed deal that gives russia time to rearm and invade again in the future or continue fighting now. They're going to be fighting for their future regardless.

Great post.

[SeattleGriz]

Trump wasn’t wrong when he told Zelensky “you don’t hold the cards”

Russia is not giving up anything unless U.S. gets very involved and nobody wants that. Russia can wait for a decade or more
if they have too

Trumps public demands and timelines on Putin are not what I would be doing….

Therefore, if this stalemate is going to be broken, Ukraine needs to make some concessions

I think Ukraine is willing to make reasonable concessions. Is giving up territory they currently hold reasonable?

The war is a grind and the cost to russia is higher than you think. They're losing a not insignificant chunk of a generation of their young men. Their economy is also functioning because of oil revenue and war spending. At some point the lack of spending on civilian projects is going to catch up with them. At the current rate, it will take russia more than 100 years to conquer all of Ukraine. They can't sustain that so they don't hold all the cards either.

There is no way that Ukraine can trust putin/russia so for them to accept any peace deal it has to include a US/European promise to protect their sovereignty in the future. putin isn't going to go for that so is a peace deal even attainable? If it isn't, Ukraine has a choice accept a flawed deal that gives russia time to rearm and invade again in the future or continue fighting now. They're going to be fighting for their future regardless.

I do not think giving up land is acceptable. Too many Ukrainian nationalists been given promise of no surrender.

The cost of the war to Russia isn't anything you'd know about. Stop projecting bullshit.

WTF are you talking about not trusting Putin. Minsk I and II. Absolutely shameful fake surrender by Ukraine to gain a tactical advantage.

Putin has been asking Europe for security guarantees since forever.

[kalm]

I think Ukraine is willing to make reasonable concessions. Is giving up territory they currently hold reasonable?

The war is a grind and the cost to russia is higher than you think. They're losing a not insignificant chunk of a generation of their young men. Their economy is also functioning because of oil revenue and war spending. At some point the lack of spending on civilian projects is going to catch up with them. At the current rate, it will take russia more than 100 years to conquer all of Ukraine. They can't sustain that so they don't hold all the cards either.

There is no way that Ukraine can trust putin/russia so for them to accept any peace deal it has to include a US/European promise to protect their sovereignty in the future. putin isn't going to go for that so is a peace deal even attainable? If it isn't, Ukraine has a choice accept a flawed deal that gives russia time to rearm and invade again in the future or continue fighting now. They're going to be fighting for their future regardless.

I do not think giving up land is acceptable. Too many Ukrainian nationalists been given promise of no surrender.

The cost of the war to Russia isn't anything you'd know about. Stop projecting bullshit.

WTF are you talking about not trusting Putin. Minsk I and II. Absolutely shameful fake surrender by Ukraine to gain a tactical advantage.

Putin has been asking Europe for security guarantees since forever.

You've got no proof of this. Absolutely despicable.

[SeattleGriz]

I do not think giving up land is acceptable. Too many Ukrainian nationalists been given promise of no surrender.

The cost of the war to Russia isn't anything you'd know about. Stop projecting bullshit.

WTF are you talking about not trusting Putin. Minsk I and II. Absolutely shameful fake surrender by Ukraine to gain a tactical advantage.

Putin has been asking Europe for security guarantees since forever.

You've got no proof of this. Absolutely despicable.

No. You're despicable. It's the truth and you know it.

[kalm]

You've got no proof of this. Absolutely despicable.

No. You're despicable. It's the truth and you know it.

You are!

War monger with other people’s lives.

[GannonFan]

I think Ukraine is willing to make reasonable concessions. Is giving up territory they currently hold reasonable?

The war is a grind and the cost to russia is higher than you think. They're losing a not insignificant chunk of a generation of their young men. Their economy is also functioning because of oil revenue and war spending. At some point the lack of spending on civilian projects is going to catch up with them. At the current rate, it will take russia more than 100 years to conquer all of Ukraine. They can't sustain that so they don't hold all the cards either.

There is no way that Ukraine can trust putin/russia so for them to accept any peace deal it has to include a US/European promise to protect their sovereignty in the future. putin isn't going to go for that so is a peace deal even attainable? If it isn't, Ukraine has a choice accept a flawed deal that gives russia time to rearm and invade again in the future or continue fighting now. They're going to be fighting for their future regardless.

I do not think giving up land is acceptable. Too many Ukrainian nationalists been given promise of no surrender.

The cost of the war to Russia isn't anything you'd know about. Stop projecting bullshit.

WTF are you talking about not trusting Putin. Minsk I and II. Absolutely shameful fake surrender by Ukraine to gain a tactical advantage.

Putin has been asking Europe for security guarantees since forever.

That last point is just weird. What security guarantees does Russia need? Who is threatening Russia or posing a threat of invading Russia? The answer is nobody. Russia is an aggressor; they are invading other countries. No one, anywhere, is threatening Russia's borders or sovereignty.

[GannonFan]

Give up on the US? Even under Trump the US has given more to Ukraine that all of Europe combined has. It's fair to question Trump's effectiveness with this situation, but it's also unfair to say that we're not an ally.

I've always said this is a tough situation. How exactly do we get Russia out of Ukraine? It wasn't until Trump that the US even seriously threatened Russia's economy. Biden made a show of it, but put guardrails around anything to do with oil, despite knowing that Russia's economy was completely dependent on oil sales (he didn't want gas prices to go up while his other policies had already caused rampant inflation - there was an election he was still planning for). So we do that, like what Trump is doing with India (he could threaten China, but we don't have any of the leverage with China that we might have with India). But even that is a long game. If we really wanted Russia out of Ukraine we'd have to insert forces and get directly in the fight ourselves. Is that what you're proposing? It would work, but at what cost (both monetary as well as human toll)?

Trump has shown a trend to support UKR until he meets or phones Putin and then comes back with a deal could be struck. As long as Russia gives up nothing. He also did similar recently with the Tomahawk missiles.

The Tomahawk missiles had an extra layer of complexity. Today, the main vehicle to launch Tomahawk missiles is from submarines. We used to be able to launch them from ships (like the Iowa class battleships we used in at least the first Iraq War) but most if not all of those ships have been decommissioned. Even if they weren't, Ukraine doesn't really have a navy to speak of that would be able to launch the Tomahawks if we made them available to them. And I doubt we want to start taking over the role of firing ourselves directly against Russian targets. There is a more recent land-based method of firing Tomahawks, but again, it's very recent (past couple of years), and it itself is somewhat controversial as launching them via land-based only became possible when Trump, in his first term, took us out of the 1987 treaty on intermediate nuclear forces (granted, he only did so after it was clear that Russia was already violating it).

[kalm]

Trump has shown a trend to support UKR until he meets or phones Putin and then comes back with a deal could be struck. As long as Russia gives up nothing. He also did similar recently with the Tomahawk missiles.

The Tomahawk missiles had an extra layer of complexity. Today, the main vehicle to launch Tomahawk missiles is from submarines. We used to be able to launch them from ships (like the Iowa class battleships we used in at least the first Iraq War) but most if not all of those ships have been decommissioned. Even if they weren't, Ukraine doesn't really have a navy to speak of that would be able to launch the Tomahawks if we made them available to them. And I doubt we want to start taking over the role of firing ourselves directly against Russian targets. There is a more recent land-based method of firing Tomahawks, but again, it's very recent (past couple of years), and it itself is somewhat controversial as launching them via land-based only became possible when Trump, in his first term, took us out of the 1987 treaty on intermediate nuclear forces (granted, he only did so after it was clear that Russia was already violating it).

Thank you for the info.

Why did Trump even offer them? Because he knew they wouldn’t work?

[UNI88]

I think Ukraine is willing to make reasonable concessions. Is giving up territory they currently hold reasonable?

The war is a grind and the cost to russia is higher than you think. They're losing a not insignificant chunk of a generation of their young men. Their economy is also functioning because of oil revenue and war spending. At some point the lack of spending on civilian projects is going to catch up with them. At the current rate, it will take russia more than 100 years to conquer all of Ukraine. They can't sustain that so they don't hold all the cards either.

There is no way that Ukraine can trust putin/russia so for them to accept any peace deal it has to include a US/European promise to protect their sovereignty in the future. putin isn't going to go for that so is a peace deal even attainable? If it isn't, Ukraine has a choice accept a flawed deal that gives russia time to rearm and invade again in the future or continue fighting now. They're going to be fighting for their future regardless.

I do not think giving up land is acceptable. Too many Ukrainian nationalists been given promise of no surrender.

The cost of the war to Russia isn't anything you'd know about. Stop projecting bullshit.

WTF are you talking about not trusting Putin. Minsk I and II. Absolutely shameful fake surrender by Ukraine to gain a tactical advantage.

Putin has been asking Europe for security guarantees since forever.

The Budapest Memorandum > Minsk I or II. Checkmate.

[Caribbean Hen]

I don't think we're providing any funding or weapons to Russia, are we?

Good lord let’s hope not, but Trump hasn’t moved Putin one inch while they continue talks. And we’re now letting Europe provide UKR with weapons (which may not be a bad thing in the long run).

Last I heard, the proposal was for Russia to “keep” land it doesn’t hold.

Zalensky should give up on the U.S. being an ally and focus on Europe.

Just when you think you’ve smelled everything, Klam drops another turd

[GannonFan]

The Tomahawk missiles had an extra layer of complexity. Today, the main vehicle to launch Tomahawk missiles is from submarines. We used to be able to launch them from ships (like the Iowa class battleships we used in at least the first Iraq War) but most if not all of those ships have been decommissioned. Even if they weren't, Ukraine doesn't really have a navy to speak of that would be able to launch the Tomahawks if we made them available to them. And I doubt we want to start taking over the role of firing ourselves directly against Russian targets. There is a more recent land-based method of firing Tomahawks, but again, it's very recent (past couple of years), and it itself is somewhat controversial as launching them via land-based only became possible when Trump, in his first term, took us out of the 1987 treaty on intermediate nuclear forces (granted, he only did so after it was clear that Russia was already violating it).

Thank you for the info.

Why did Trump even offer them? Because he knew they wouldn’t work?

Because he's an idiot. The stuff Trump doesn't know can and does fill libraries. And he can't stop himself from saying whatever thought enters his head. But again, he's an idiot.

[kalm]

Good lord let’s hope not, but Trump hasn’t moved Putin one inch while they continue talks. And we’re now letting Europe provide UKR with weapons (which may not be a bad thing in the long run).

Last I heard, the proposal was for Russia to “keep” land it doesn’t hold.

Zalensky should give up on the U.S. being an ally and focus on Europe.

Just when you think you’ve smelled everything, Klam drops another turd

1). European leaders are already making overtures to this (ot would help you actually kept up on the news).

2). It’s what Trump has been asking for all along. Why are you disagreeing with him now?

[SeattleGriz]

Trump has shown a trend to support UKR until he meets or phones Putin and then comes back with a deal could be struck. As long as Russia gives up nothing. He also did similar recently with the Tomahawk missiles.

The Tomahawk missiles had an extra layer of complexity. Today, the main vehicle to launch Tomahawk missiles is from submarines. We used to be able to launch them from ships (like the Iowa class battleships we used in at least the first Iraq War) but most if not all of those ships have been decommissioned. Even if they weren't, Ukraine doesn't really have a navy to speak of that would be able to launch the Tomahawks if we made them available to them. And I doubt we want to start taking over the role of firing ourselves directly against Russian targets. There is a more recent land-based method of firing Tomahawks, but again, it's very recent (past couple of years), and it itself is somewhat controversial as launching them via land-based only became possible when Trump, in his first term, took us out of the 1987 treaty on intermediate nuclear forces (granted, he only did so after it was clear that Russia was already violating it).

We already do this. Much of the capability relies on US labor and technology from acquisition through targeting. Ukraine would be crippled if you ever took out Western capabilities.

[SeattleGriz]

I do not think giving up land is acceptable. Too many Ukrainian nationalists been given promise of no surrender.

The cost of the war to Russia isn't anything you'd know about. Stop projecting bullshit.

WTF are you talking about not trusting Putin. Minsk I and II. Absolutely shameful fake surrender by Ukraine to gain a tactical advantage.

Putin has been asking Europe for security guarantees since forever.

The Budapest Memorandum > Minsk I or II. Checkmate.

Bro. The US blew that memorandum out of the water with all its economic manipulation.

This is your worst take ever, and that's saying something.

[UNI88]

The Budapest Memorandum > Minsk I or II. Checkmate.

Bro. The US blew that memorandum out of the water with all its economic manipulation.

This is your worst take ever, and that's saying something.

Examples? Proof? Links?

Blame the US, like russia hasn't done similar and worse things than we have. Why do you hate America?

[UNI88]

What's the significance of US sanctions on Russian oil?

US President Donald Trump has announced what he called "tremendous" new sanctions against two of Russia's largest oil companies, in a bid to pressure Moscow into ending its war on Ukraine.

The measures target Rosneft and Lukoil - two major oil corporations that help fund the Kremlin's "war machine", according to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
...
"Every time I speak to Vladimir, I have good conversations and then they don't go anywhere," Trump explained. "I just felt it was time. We waited a long time."

trump finally does something putin's hollow words.

[GannonFan]

What's the significance of US sanctions on Russian oil?

US President Donald Trump has announced what he called "tremendous" new sanctions against two of Russia's largest oil companies, in a bid to pressure Moscow into ending its war on Ukraine.

The measures target Rosneft and Lukoil - two major oil corporations that help fund the Kremlin's "war machine", according to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
...
"Every time I speak to Vladimir, I have good conversations and then they don't go anywhere," Trump explained. "I just felt it was time. We waited a long time."

trump finally does something putin's hollow words.

Something we should've done at the start of the war, but Biden didn't want to harm his own re-election hopes so we had a bunch of sanctions that didn't really do very much.

[GannonFan]

The Tomahawk missiles had an extra layer of complexity. Today, the main vehicle to launch Tomahawk missiles is from submarines. We used to be able to launch them from ships (like the Iowa class battleships we used in at least the first Iraq War) but most if not all of those ships have been decommissioned. Even if they weren't, Ukraine doesn't really have a navy to speak of that would be able to launch the Tomahawks if we made them available to them. And I doubt we want to start taking over the role of firing ourselves directly against Russian targets. There is a more recent land-based method of firing Tomahawks, but again, it's very recent (past couple of years), and it itself is somewhat controversial as launching them via land-based only became possible when Trump, in his first term, took us out of the 1987 treaty on intermediate nuclear forces (granted, he only did so after it was clear that Russia was already violating it).

We already do this. Much of the capability relies on US labor and technology from acquisition through targeting. Ukraine would be crippled if you ever took out Western capabilities.

Of course we do, no one is pretending we aren't helping Ukraine as they try to stave off an aggressor. The only thing we don't do is pick the targets or push the buttons. And if Russia hadn't attacked Ukraine we wouldn't be doing any of that.

[UNI88]

What's the significance of US sanctions on Russian oil?

trump finally does something putin's hollow words.

Something we should've done at the start of the war, but Biden didn't want to harm his own re-election hopes so we had a bunch of sanctions that didn't really do very much.

biden was a crappy, wishy-washy President.

[GannonFan]

Something we should've done at the start of the war, but Biden didn't want to harm his own re-election hopes so we had a bunch of sanctions that didn't really do very much.

biden was a crappy, wishy-washy President.

I haven't actually bought gas from a Lukoil station for like about 10 years or so, once I learned that they were ultimately a Russian company. I had done the same with Citgo (was Venezuelan) and even though I like the Brits, I steer away from BP stations.