Do you have any evidence of this beyond your own speculation? I do not get that impression from the video.
I haven’t said that. I think fighting on is one option, but one has to understand and accept the cost in advance.
It’s odd that many in this thread are throwing out accusations like this without stating what they think is the right and smart thing to do. Would you care to share?
It also had the benefit of clearly demonstrating to Europe that Trump is firmly in Putin’s influence and under his regime the United States cannot be relied upon to support its allies. This is a lesson that should have already been obvious but the French Prime Minister crying because he apparently finally realized that Europe is going to have to take care of its own defense pretty much underlined how delusional leaders have been about this.
It also made Trump and Vance look like ineffectual buffoons in thinking they could run a dog and pony show of the president of Ukraine begging for their support, not appreciating that Zelenskyy is neither dog nor pony. Trump whinging about how persecuted he and Putin have been by the press was a kind of desperate plea to lump himself in with at least one of the marginally competent autocrats he so venerates. Instead, he just seemed pathetic and not in control of his own circus even as a Foxheads try to spin this into some kind of affront by Zelenskyy in correcting a multitude of factual errors and standing up for Ukraine. Vance looked like a pathetic little Trump MiniMe, even dressed the same.
Stranger
Well, here are some hints.
Trump has frequently expressed empathy for Putin, and has even accused Ukraine of starting the war. Trump’s shameless sycophancy for Putin goes all the way back to his groveling at the Helsinki meeting.
He attacked Zelensky in the Oval Office after trying to strong-arm him into accepting a deal that gave the US mineral rights in Ukraine and gave Zelensky literally nothing in return, then threw Zelensky out of the White House.
He has now cut off all US aid to Ukraine.
What do you think Trump’s intentions are?
Sure. Bullet points of the right and smart thing to do:
That’s what is “right and smart”, though I suspect we’ll see that you meant “smart” as Ukraine accepting that resistance is futile, because that’s the through-line of the pro-Russian positions that you’re taking.
I noticed that as well. But the inevitable conclusion–that a large fraction of Europeans are comfortable with a Russian victory–doesn’t exactly put them in a better light.
Of course, despite all those European leaders making noise about stepping up, Europe is still sending $23 billion a year to Russia–more than the aid they’re giving to Ukraine.
In other words, they’re net supporters of Putin and his aggression, which is much worse than one can say even of Trump.
Europeans do have to heat their homes and all that. But it’s not like this isn’t a self-inflicted situation on their part. They did some very stupid things with regard to energy policy and are now paying not just a financial but also a moral price, and no one should forget that.
I think he expects adulation. I think he wants to “do something” to point to for getting adulation. I don’t think his “somethings” are good.
Trump’s ability during his first administration was to insult our allies and make nice with dictators and tyrants with fawning praise. He crapped on international relations, tried to ban entry to the US for people from numerous Islamic countries. He negotiated a withdrawal from Afghanistan the same way he’s negotiating the Russian war - he bypassed the legitimate local government that we set up and negotiated our surrender withdrawal directly with the Taliban, and set dates.
And Trump moved the location of the US consulate in Israel to Jerusalem for zero political gain or concessions from the Israeli government, a bargaining chip the US has been holding on to for a long time.
He killed the Iranian deal that constrained their nuclear program, an act that his gotten them closer to having nuclear weapons.
And those are what I remember offhand.
Oh yeah, he tried to intimidate Zelenskyy to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden based on lies in order to cast doubt on Joe Biden to affect his standing in the next election.
He threatened to leave NATO.
I fail to see any good ability at foreign policy.
He is destroying America’s standing and reputation in the world. He is willy- nilly making threats of invading other countries for territory. He is starting a trade war with our closest allies.
Yes, he might be able to negotiate an end to the war, but I what terms?
Standard negotiation practice is to make your entry position extensive so that your concessions leave you in a better position. And Trump always demonstrates an extreme form of this practice.
But his starting position with Putin is to concede all the points of contention.
I don’t see that. He proposed ripping off Ukraine and said that a condition was Zekenskyy sign a ceasefire. He has repeatedly declared he wants to end the war. That doesn’t sound like supporting Ukraine’s right to fight on.
Yes, I agree. I really wanted a harder deterrence effort by NATO. But that’s the past.
My idea of assurances aren’t something from Putin, but something from the West. NATO membership as one of the peace plan steps. Not future, immediately upon signing.
I wouldn’t see that as the inevitable conclusion.
IMO the more obvious conclusion is that most people think their own country is already contributing enough and other countries need to pull more weight. Yes, this implies at least some people have a misperception, but that’s common, people generally see themselves, their community and their country (in that order) in a favorable light.
To be clear, I meant that as the alternative to my first interpretation, which is basically what you’re saying here. Either (some chunk of) people think Ukraine should get more support as long as someone else is doing it, or they are comfortable with a Russian victory.
Ah I see. It seems I lost track a bit of that discussion.
And yes I agree that Europe needs to greatly reduce russian gas imports and take the pain from that. I was under the impression that we had already done that, I’m a bit surprised how weak the energy sanctions are.
Timothy Snyder (historian of European autocracies and fascist regimes) has opinions:
Stranger
I think it’s one option, and it may be the best based on military analysis, etc., to which I do not have access. If I were a decision-maker in the process, I would like to see projections of casualties and a projected timeline for victory.
IOW, I think it’s fine to propose that, but I don’t think it’s the only option. As for a peace treaty right now, I would hold analysis of that option to the same standard above.
Basically agree. The moral thing to do would be roll everything back to 2014, apologize for his crimes against peace and humanity, and resign the presidency. “Smart” from his perspective would be to sue for peace, try to hold onto as much land as possible, end the war and not attack again in the future.
I have said nothing of the sort. Feel free to quote something.
I hate Putin and have no emotional investment in Russia whatsoever.
I could have been more clear, too. No problem.
Some of the countries on the list have a credible claim that others should pull their weight more. Denmark for example is spending 2.2% of their GDP on aid. But France, Italy, and Spain only spend 0.3% of their GDPs on aid and they are at the bottom of the list for more support.
And just as a cite for the energy stuff:
Excellent analysis. In short, peace is not going to be achieved when the president of the United States is Putin’s lapdog.
I think Trump understands, however, that at least someone has to think that the somethings are good in order to receive the adulation. But he is also capable of incorrectly assessing what will earn him that, the whole tariff thing being one example.
I also don’t want to seem like I’m a fan of Trump’s first-term foreign policy. I think it certainly had an ugly look and feel to it. And defending Trump any further on this will just invite a huge debate on every single point. But I think he also did some good, outside-the-box things, and he didn’t start any wars. My point is that maybe he can work something out with Ukraine. Maybe he can’t.
Yes, he’s gone nuts across the board, and I have a hard time imagining him lasting much longer (for both his domestic and foreign actions), but I think it’s unwise to debate that here either.
I think it would be fine for Ukraine to be in NATO. Putin would never agree to it, however.
What exactly did Trump say that changed your mind that he was probably right about Ukraine and Zelenskyy @Aeschines?
Or I guess what did you read or see that changed your mind Ukraine should surrender now?
It’s getting tiresome trying to defend my position when it’s being misrepresented to this degree.
This sentence makes no sense. I haven’t made any claims as to how “right” Trump is about Ukraine and Zelensky. For the record, the things he’s been saying publicly lately are basically wrong. Zelensky isn’t a dictator. Ukraine didn’t start the war. Etc.
This syntax is tortured, but I’ll do my best to figure out what you meant. I never said Ukraine should surrender now, and I don’t think that.
Certainly not if it is predicated on American ‘assurances’ under the Trump regime. Frankly, as much as Putin can’t afford this war, he can afford actual peace even less. He needs capitulation by Ukraine, or barring that, undermining Ukrainian resistance sufficient that the Russian military can make real progress in conquering substantial parts of the Donbas and making at least a try for Crimea.
Stranger
This looks to me like Zelensky playing the game he has to play, the same game Putin is playing - being open to doing a deal. As long as someone’s pretending to offer a deal, it’s in each party’s best advantage not to be the first to back out.
I remain skeptical that there’s any real deal to be had. Anybody but Putin would be insane to take a deal with Trump and presume it to be binding, much less a deal with both Putin and Trump. They’re both completely without honor, they break deals for fun.
As Zelensky said: he’s not playing cards. His country is being bombed daily.
He’s doing all he can do, which is to keep coming back with ways to stop the bloodshed no matter how fuckdumb and compromised the american president is.
There is a ‘deal’ to be had; it just isn’t one that benefits Ukraine, and frankly probably not one that benefits Trump, either. For all Trump’s blather about ‘cards’, he’s the sucker sitting at a poker table in one of his failing casinos getting outplayed because he can’t hide his tells and can’t catch a hanger to save his life, notwithstanding that Putin doesn’t play fair at anything. “As Canada Bill Jones said, it’s immoral to let a sucker keep his money.”
Stranger