Replacing previous thread which has continuing page count issues.
Previous Thread
Previous Original Thread:
Threabanned posters:
brickstser69
slay55
mulbot
People were evacuating and trying to evacuate for weeks. The Russians were bombing them including known evacuation corridors. An evacuation corridor would be set up and next thing they were deliberately focusing attacks on it. The surrounding areas were also encircled pretty quickly. Keep in mind Russian air power was much more prevalent then and the whole country was under attack making certain evacuations and movements across the country very difficult.
Neither Putin nor Trump can be trusted with any kind of agreement. They have no time for rule of law. We need to ignore what they say, and string them along as much as possible while arming ourselves and Ukraine to the teeth. To do anything else, given Putin and Trump's track records, is madness, dangerous madness at that.
All of those points beg this question: Why didn't the Ukrainian authorities order the evacuation of civilians from Mariupol before it was surrounded? If they had done that then, a bit like the Omagh bombing, a high level of civilian fatalities in Mariupol would have been prevented.
If Zelensky will reject exchange land for peace
Has he explicitly said this? AFAIK he hasn't ruled it out but until a comprehensive peace deal hoves into view he obviously isn't going to be talking it up..
The key point is
Putin will reject anything other than Crimea + the four claimed oblasts,
and I don't see any willingness on his part to compromise on anything else of substance either
Trump is a terrible negotiator, he keeps thinking international affairs are like NY real estate, brow beat anyone needing help, squeeze them til they bleed.
It can't be said enough times times, Trump's ambush of Ukraine is doing for the USA what elons roman salute has done for Tesla sales in Europe.
Trump thinks nothing has changed, he still thinks he's got all the cards whereas the new "coalition of the willing" will become the new NATO for Europe.
These aren't two countries in a territorial spat, both trying to save face, needing a third party to mediate.
It's very different, it's one country invading another, unilaterally, in a war it can stop at any moment (or keep going). It's entirely up to Putin. Zelensky could offer him half of Ukraine and he could reject and continue his war.
The plan is about setting up and defining minimums:
Trump is an unstable unreliable partner, he's erratic as it's not sure which way he will ultimately flip-flop and how all that will pan out.
Hence Europe is trying to build in redundancy for that. As best we can with what we've got given the situation.
Hes not from 'nowhere' and it's completely implausible that a social media campaign would get you 20% swing votes in matter of days. Especially if he was out of nowhere. The claim (of the Russian funded social media campaign) has not been conclusively substantiated either in fact there is an investigative platform in Romania reporting that it had indeed been funded by the National Liberal Party. If this (annulling election results) happened in Russia we'd all be screaming 'dictatorship!'.
I dont know how coups work tbh but frankly I dont think neither do you unless you have 20 years of CIA experience or something. But what I do know is that western politicians were going in and out of Maidan making speaches and rallying. Imagine there was say an extinction rebellion march in London with like I dont 50,000 people and next we have Lawrow speaking there.
The way we casually apply different standards to everything just because we imagine 'we' dont do such things and 'they' do is staggering and I am dumbfounded how people just dont see this. Especially with plenty of evidence throughout history that 'we' do indeed do such things.
Seems straight forward. On the 4 points
Thats it, done. We don't get to 2,3 or 4 unless UKR surrenders, which will never happen or if Putin crawls back into his hole, which he's done before.
Do you notice how Europe hasn't put a gun to UKRs head unlike Trump, talk about kicking your friend when hes down, in this case kick and rob him blind.
UKR has the natural resourses to pay back what they borrowed, and thats not considering the bleeding out of russia and the payouts expected from them when tbey fail. Trump is an idiot, he could have raped UKR and walked away, but he had to be the big man.
This is not about national interests. This is all about the personal interests of oligarchs and billionaires.
Trump and Musk's interests are not those of the US.
Putin's interests are not those of Russia.
Xi's interests are not necessarily the interests of China, but this is harder to see.
The EU's interests are, however, much more reflective of the interests of the people of the EU.
Looking at US or Russian policy from a national interest perspective is mistaken, you have to look at the personal interests of the dictators and their regimes instead. (And I think Trump can be considered a dictator here.)
In a war with China US would need to keep its economy going, that depends on trade to fund the military
Guess who the top three import/export destinations for US are?
That’s right: Europe, Canada and Mexico account for over 3/4 of US trade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States
US would also want the same to at least not trade witch China at same time
Trump could have done a pivot without pissing off and 💩 ing on what used to be US allies
Starmer: Coalition of willing to guarantee Ukraine peace
Speaking at a news conference shortly after the meeting of leaders, Starmer said four points had been agreed:
That is Starmer's four step plan for Ukraine.
There's a very clear problem in this plan. Everything is contingent on both sides coming together and signing a peace agreement.
I don't see how such a thing is even remotely possible in the short, or even medium-term. If Zelensky will reject exchange land for peace, and Putin will reject anything other than Crimea + the four claimed oblasts, then there simply isn't the prospect for an agreement.
There was no "US coup" in Ukraine (the notion that there was is Russian propaganda)
There were mass protests due to Yanukovych's actions, he had a hand in escalating the violence, ultimately had responsibility for the deaths of protesters (they were fired on by his security services), is still wanted in multiple countries, ultimately he fled to his paymasters (and those who shot protesters also fled to Russia and were given passports). He left behind a trail of evidence validating the protests. Ukrainian parliament unanimously voted to remove him after the fact.
Maidan was a movement to remove Russian coercion and corruption from their political system. Yanukovych had been leading Ukraine towards closer ties with the EU, until Russia strong armed him at the last minute to pull out of the deal.
Ukraine after two decades of excessive Russian influence post independence (and hundreds of years before independence), finally said enough is enough and rose up in protest.
Hence Euromaidan began.
China, they are on board with. If you read the National Security Strategy produced in Trump’s first term, there is not doubt that they envision a pivot to the Pacific. It’s part of the reason they’ve been so hot on NATO spending levels. The US removed their requirement to have an armed force capable of fighting two full scale wars at once a couple of decades ago, the Army just can’t do Russia and Korea or Taiwan at the same time (Fortunately, Taiwan is more a Navy thing, but that doesn’t help Korea or the MidEast.
Rubio certainly considers China the main competitor, and nothing I have heard from Trump or Hegseth this term has indicated they are moving China from the “treat with caution” to “friend” columns.
What would you call it? In what terms would you describe the US intervention?
Is the solution proposed funny? Is that what that means? If so, what would be a more serious solution?
😂😂🤣
At least we can fall back on a bit of satire, which oddly isn't as off the wall as the real thing. I need to see more Mike Myers as Elon Musk. Also, I see Bill Burr had his near inactive twitter account flagged after he ranted about the "twitter guy" on his podcast.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/03/europe-trump-ukraine
…………..
If Ukraine and Europe continue to push for strong US security guarantees, they have a small chance of succeeding and a larger chance of creating a permanent rupture with Trump. The president could conclude that his allies refuse to listen and, worse, keep trying to entrap him. Throwing up his hands, he could take the very actions that Ukraine and Europe most want to avoid: cutting off all US support for Ukraine and making a dirty deal with Putin. The damage could extend throughout Europe if Trump removes US military forces and assets from the region.
Can this worst-case scenario be avoided? A route is still available. The sooner Ukraine and Europe stop fixating on a US security guarantee, the sooner they can coalesce – with the United States – around a viable plan that contains two main provisions.
First, postwar Ukraine would maintain a large and technologically advanced military, trained and supplied by its western partners. Second, the US and Europe would commit to arm Ukraine heavily if Russia invaded again. Because they are doing so now, this commitment would be highly credible, unlike a heroic pledge to wage war on Ukraine’s behalf. Nato allies could also sign a legally binding document and stockpile specific weapons systems that could be surged to Ukraine in case of a renewed attack.
It's not. The Soviets and Russia since has tried it and many, of not most nations support such things(even with lip service) if a movement is in step with their own views. The point is large scale homegrown push for change in a nation is almost never a planned coup by outside sources, it's a reaction for or against such movements by outside sources. Ergo calling something like Maidan a CIA coup is a nonsense.
America pivots to China
Russia pivots to Europe
America and Russia have done a dirty deal
That makes sense alright from a Trump point of view anyway - it’s just usually framed as him wanting to get out of Europe as if that was some sort of blocker.
It’s a poor strategy anyway as Putin is in no way sympathetic to the US and will completely screw Trump over continually if it suits him.
It is all aggressive disinformation.They have a continuous liar as head and a cabal of project 2025ers bury themselves in his head and anus.
They will continue their work until (if ever) there is pushback.
They hate Zelenskyy because he is a good person , a good strategist and knows what is going on.
So they attacked him in public and in numbers to discredit him.
Its a repostioning of their geoploitical agenda, they want a friendly russia if when they go up against the Chinese.
Its not that they cant afford to fund it or supply obsolete material.
He'll ignore it. Britain will be free to close the skies over Ukraine when a peace deal is done because by it's very definition, a deal requires Putin's consent.
Before that deal is done is when the RAF would be of most use.
It’s mentioned a lot, but I don’t really understand in practical terms what “turning their full attention to China” really means, especially as an excuse to drop Ukrainian support.
They are providing funding, but the funding is a drop in the ocean compared to the newly risen debt ceiling. They are sending obsolete weaponary too. Supporting that should barely register on the US at all. They’re not asking for troops, or for the US to shoulder the entire burden, just to honour their security guarantees. How is that too much to allow their supposed primary goal on focusing on China to go ahead?
Seeing a good few comments stating that the Oval office ambush on Friday will do as much damage to the US's standing in Europe as Elon's Roman salute has done to Tesla.
Trump's first term was treated as a blimp, but his reelection confirms that the US doesn't respect anyone.
The mayor or local commander in Kherson was also a Russian asset and didn’t blow the bridge when ordered
Also he didn’t coordinate defences despite people showing up
BBC Ukrainecast early episodes had good deal of info why Kherson was different
Interestingly there was a very strong defence towards Odesa where the mayor turned out to be a hero routing Russians
Interesting … How will Putin view this one wonders .. a step too far, then threaten Nukes, but thats it
"Britain is prepared to close the skies over Ukraine to enforce a peace deal! Prime Minister Keir Starmer announces readiness to deploy troops and aircraft for monitoring. Several European countries are also gearing up for a peacekeeping mission."
@political analyst Because Putin was after his "NAZI's" and the Azov Special Forces Regiment of the Ukrainian National Guard who were the main force fighting in Mariupol, fitted the bill perfectly.
In announcing Azovstal's seizure, the Russian Defense Ministry's chief spokesperson referred to the Azov Regiment's fighters as Nazis and said their commander was taken away in an armored vehicle because of residents' alleged hatred of him "for numerous atrocities."
https://www.voanews.com/a/explainer-who-were-mariupol-s-last-defenders-/6584122.html
Then raise Mariupol to the ground possibly as an example and/or for "supporting" the Nazi's.
Also this raizing business meant a greenfield site where Putin and CO built NEW apartment complexes, a new city and shipped Russian citizens there .. I think ( similar to crimea )
https://ig.ft.com/mariupol/
