If the US were working for Russia, what would they do differently other than supply weapons to Russia and/or join on their side? Each day it takes more and more faith to believe the opposite.
They would recognize Crimea and all four partially occupied oblasts as Russian. They would support the annexation of additional oblasts that Russia claims belong to "Novorossia".
Freezing the conflict is NOT what Russia wants right now.
If one is extremely cynical, one could claim that the recent actions are a signal to Moscow to hurry up and finish the business in Donetsk/Zaphorizia so that a stable peace deal can be achieved instead of leaving things open yet again.
I'm not that cynical yet and think that Trump indeed attempts to extort a lend-and-lease deal of the same sort that the U.S. imposed on Britain in WW2.
Russia definitely wants to freeze the conflict... They're producing more weapons than Europe yet unable to make major breakthroughs, pausing, rebuilding (without sanctions) and then trying over will definitely yield more territory than what they're currently doing.
In a political sense, well, that's much more debatable. The problem there is that because the US itself did not feel threatened, US aid came with a price tag: the impoverishment of Britain and the demolition of the trade barriers around the British Commonwealth. US aid was on a cash-only basis until Britain had spent all its hard-currency reserves (both gold and negotiable securities). Then came the Lend-Lease agreement -- arguably the point where the US truly entered the war -- and its price tag was explicit, although unadvertised: the agreement itself contains a clause stipulating the removal of the Commonwealth's trade barriers.
If the Ukraine reacts by being less precise in its attacks they might make more progress demoralizing Russia since Russia has less capability of hiding civilian casualties than military ones.
But they should really focus on wooing China. China has never been as friendly with Russia as it appears and Europe might start ranking them over the US and Russia as the least distasteful if they play their hand well right now..
Historically bombing civilians has always galvanised the public against the enemy more than it 'demoralises' them.
For instance the bombing of England during WW2 didn't break their will to fight. The fire bombing of 95% of Japan's cities didn't diminish their will to fight either.
And let's not forget the vietnam war... didn't seem to be effective for the US...
Bombing civilians rarely achieves any war goals and may actually have the opposite affect.
Apparently the delusion of exceptionalism affecting physics didn't die with the entirely equatable Afghanistan experiences or am I supposed to take something else from silent down votes?
Some are suggesting this is because recent gains that Ukraine is making as the army of Russia is getting exhausted also because of some recent succesful destruction of large stockpiles of ammunition by drone attacks.
Okay, but how given the makeup of the House (and D's just lost Sylvester Turner of TX-18)? And then convict in the Senate. The republic is a de facto empire in the open with a unitary executive (duumvirate with Musk and sidekick Vance), a weak and partisan SCOTUS, and a weak majority and ineffective bicameral COTUS.
So far, every impeachment in modern history has been entirely political theater accomplishing nothing, rendering impeachment as a virtue signal rather than a "break glass" nuclear option to remove a threat to the republic.
And then online, it has become the rallying cry of keyboard warriors to conduct cyber tokenism in place of real, courageous disobedience like Al Green.
Might I humbly suggest anyone who disagrees with the prevailing course organize and exercise 1a and vote with their wallets because protesting and speech may soon be criminalized.
The US implementing Russian's foreign policy is something I didn't think possible. Trump clearly idolizes Putin (if not worse), and his supporters don't care.
Just today he's threatening "American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested" for "illegal protests" by which doesn't sound very American.
The very students who for a generation easily abandoned their fellow men to suffer through poverty, industrial buildback, opiod crisis to instead bestow solidarity upon insane death cults?
The students who celebrated past guilt,to ease their present guilt for class traitorship, those students ? A million treaties on slavery and a can of paint for slavery in the present, if its not us?
the brahmans of the castes of suffering who used any way to reduce uncomfortable topics down to screaming racism and bigotry, while getting funded by the same foreign racists and bigots that funded MAGA?
The "social might makes right" group, that screamed down all "non-issues" with discussion air superiority instead of real arguments ?
The education that gave us a whole generation of elites unable to deal with reality, red line after red line, one huge selfcelebrated retrat into defeat, the education of these students? The scientific papermill bastions that produced and imported a never ending replication crisis in most fields are under siege? Shocking!
Of course no reason to panic, analyse or introspect, pure conservation inertia will keep it all going forever and a day!
Those students need help? Im sure the public will rally to their cause immediately. Everything for our whinest and dinest, those inept,inbred dynasties have to offer. The counter-elite they have grown is taking the cake and they still can not rally. But the students sure will, bound by debt and sentenced to generational poverty .
Or they will at least hijack any valid protest to park their divisive dysfunctional poison one last time .
One can hope. So far it seems that when it's about Ukraine, Putin/Trump supporters are all about "peace whatever the cost (to Ukraine and the US' soft power)", but when it's about Canada/Greenland/Panama, then it's all peachy.
Maybe an US Army guy or defense analyst knows how HIMARS and/or MLRS work: Can these systems function completely independently of integrated, US-run targeting/intelligence "cloud" IBCS with domestic battlefield intel and strike orders for lat+lon+time+weapon?
This is a funny comment. If this doesn't force Putin to the negotiation table, then you know what will - the US stopping all military aid to Ukraine. One of these things that US has done to Ukraine is bound to convince Putin, right?
Next step is humanitarian aid to russia, they got hurt by this senseless war badly and need all the help they can get. After that military aid, and then direct US military intervention killing rowdy Ukrainians who just dont know when to stop defending themselves.
If it's solely on Russia's terms, why should Ukraine accept a deal? Zelensky knows Putin can't be trusted, the Trump admin pretends it doesn't know that.
>Washington became the court of Nero, an incendiary emperor, submissive courtiers and a jester under ketamine in charge of the purification of the public service.
>in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war against a dictator, we are now fighting against a dictator supported by a traitor.
Macron, Starmer, even my own president are all still in denial :| Germany's Merz seems to know whats going on, but is still trying to be veeeery diplomatic about it.
I love how all these European politicians wants US to send more money and weapons to Ukraine while thier own individual contributions are significantly lower.
If they want to fight so bad, why not spend more % of their own gdp, especially French and Germany who are close to the situation.
> Germany's Merz seems to know whats going on, but is still trying to be veeeery diplomatic about it.
They literally have no other option. If they could continue war on thier own, they won't be "trying to be veeeery diplomatic about it"
That seems more like more of the same grandstanding that created this problem, Russia Bad I don't disagree. Being surprised when you let America foot the bill for security and looking the other way when they create proxy conflicts to serve their goals only to complain when the US drops the mask and says you let me do what I want as long as you didn't have to foot the bill and responsibility and now it's FU time seemed the only likely outcome. This also works in the US favor Europe has to shift focus and divert resources to Russia.That creates financial opportunities the us can exploit. Trade wars make money, Real wars drain resources. Financial and population. After the war how many Anti Russian citizens will be alive to vote. Switching gears China has strong interest in the fresh water and resources near their border that Russia could trade or even lose if Russia can be made weak enough. Russia has a wealth of facts to twist into propaganda. Honestly restricting this narrative to something as simple as Russia Bad just guarantees the US laughs all the way to the bank.
Why would the war stop for good? Russia gets everything it wanted, with no repercussions. Expect another attack in 5 years. The view you're presenting is very myopic.
So you mean we should be happy with peace on russian terms and rewarding them for invading their neighbour? Russia is very much weakened and probably would like this though.
Wait, is Russia so weakened that it's unable to win this war or is it so strong that if it wins, Europe and eventually even the USA would be next? Pick one, you can't have both.
I personally am not afraid of russia successfully invading my country, especially considering how much men and equipment they lost in Ukraine. But if the war in Ukraine would end on Russian terms, they might get more stupid ideas later after rebuilding their military.
Letting Russia get what it wants and inch ever closer to the center of Europe brings us closer to WWIII, not further away. It's enabling the aggressor and Russia will not stop - why would it?
I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but if Hitler was stopped at Czechoslovakia, and then Poland, maybe we wouldn't have WWII. But the world didn't care back then, and apparently it still doesn't.
There have been thousands of border conflicts in Europe's history where a larger nation annexed small territories inhabited by its own ethic minority (or even majority).
Most of them have not ended in a world war.
We do not need to retake Karelia for Finland to prevent a world war. We no not need to take Gibraltar for Spain to prevent a world war. What about Northern Ireland? How about retaking Northern Cyprus for Greece?
I'm not approving of the annexations, but at some point the war needs to stop.
The war will not stop as long as Ukraine exists. This attack was unprompted by Ukraine, and was just explicitly an annexation plan. They failed to execute it fully, but you're still willing to give in to all their demands. Let me remind you that Kremlin's position on Ukraine is "there is no Ukraine" - as in they don't really have a right for independence.
In other words, I believe you're just repeating Russian propaganda.
historically, two out of the last three have ended in a world war. The only exception being the Balkan wars of the 1990s when the collective West did choose to heavily intervene.
Trump seems to be all about providing Russia and degrading the US.
Nonetheless, I see it as a good thing for the EU - maybe we'll finally stop being a "sending prayers" pussies, develop weapons, stop depending in 100% on NATO, and grow some balls.
It's a win for me and pretty much everyone I know. We can finally start buying Russian gas again and doing business with them. This means our bills will drop after they've doubled over the past three years. Not to mention, we won't have to worry about getting dragged into a nuclear war.
Not a single person I know is willing to sacrifice their livelihood to defend Ukraine's borders. What an absurd idea.
Your 2nd line is a unsupported claim, plus you paint the refugees as social security leeches. Can I counter-claim, that you're a worm-brained Russian troll (like RFK's worm, which can be the right-wingers' version of the "woke mind virus"), with a 10 minute old account?
Yeah, "discussion" seems a lot harder than downvoting idiotic claims. What is this "peace" you (or your -- I suspect -- other account ossobuco, his is the only comment about "peace" that's flagged to death) talk about if it's not "surrender"?
But hey, good news, there's lots of Trump lovers in here too, a comment about Trump loving Putin is also grey because of all the downvotes.
Calling anyone who wants peace a bot or troll or foreign agent won't change things. It will only show that you are very displased at the idea that we won't get WWIII. Not a great look, trust me.
People who want peace tend to support giving Ukraine arms yo ensure that. Russia is more not less likely to attack if Ukraine has less support. And if somehow they succeed in conquering Ukraine as unlikely as that is they'll move on to other countries
> haha wow triggered. Sorry, no WWIII for you! But you're still in time to join the fight as a foreign mercenary if it's war you crave.
See, this is why the "discussion" you crave can't happen. We all just assume shit (like that I'm craving war) and throw insults at each other. A while ago I was arguing online and I realized, "Why am I wasting my time and mental energy trying to convince some fucking moron I don't even give a shit about?" (Yeah I know, here I am doing that again). If it were someone whose opinion I care about, I would bother, but a twat like you? It's much easier to just see your comment and think "Fucking idiot. Flag, downvote.", and probably not even be wrong about the snap judgement.
Feel free to think "Fucking Ukranian war-dodging leeches!" and we can both live in our bubbles.
BTW if Ukraine surrenders, do you think the number of Ukranian refugees in Europe will decrease, or increase? I'm sure your intellect will come up with the correct (for you) answer...
