I anticipate Trump pulling ANY aid for Ukraine when Zelenskyy inevitably rejects Trump's farcical 'deal'.

eclipsenow · Thursday at 9:27 PM

Vambram said:
Does NATO actually want to have a war with Russia over Ukraine?

Why should I answer you if you do not answer me?
Let's try this again.

1. What about Palestine? Are you consistent?

Do you want peace for Gazan civilians?
I support recognising the Palestinian State - as long as Hamas have nothing to do with it.

2. How long do you feel Russia can keep this up?

SOLDIERS
They've lost 165k to Ukraine's maybe 46k? Estimates vary, but Russia's losing over 3.5 times as many soldiers as Ukraine - as Ukraine fights on the home advantage and has enjoyed better kit (from the west).

KIT
Their drone warfare exacts an even greater disparity in economic damage to the enemy's incoming military hardware. When 2 Russian drones worth $1000 total can destroy a $3.5 MILLION Russian TANK - that's got to hurt!

WORKERS
For starters - maybe a million Russians have fled the country rather than be conscripted - or do another deadly tour if they survived the first one!
They are now starting to import thousands of North Korean workers to do other basic jobs in the economy.

ECONOMIC DISTORTION - BUT LONGER TERM DANGER OF DISTORTION
Russia's whole economy is basically war kit and oil. They're buying almost everything else in from China.
That is not sustainable for the long term - people are getting war weary and this could put pressure on Putin's leadership.

This scaling up into a full war machine HAS other risks though.

If Putin is not toppled soon, all their old kit will have been burned through (as they basically convert their oil into weapons hardware) and they'll have a whole bunch of new tanks and kit and supply chains that actually work now. (The start of this war was a debacle for them as half their stuff wasn't 'real' - it had been stolen or embezzled and was on paper only.)

INCENTIVE
If we don't pool resources and help Ukraine fight for their freedom - Putin might take a Trump deal as a break to regroup and prepare for further invasions towards NATO countries. THAT overconfidence if we DO give into this tyrant really does risk WW3!

TARIFF
The ONE tariff I might support America putting on the world (if it were actually run by a democratic debate in Congress the way it used to be!) would be on those nations that buy Russian oil and prop up their wartime economy.

3. Why do you think Russia would want to die under five thousand suns and then starve to death in a decade of dark over a tiny chunk of land in Ukraine? Why do you think THIS piece of land is different to all the other Proxie wars America has engaged in?

How many Proxie wars have the USA been in with communist powers since they invented the bomb a lifetime ago? I asked CHAT for a summary:

1. Korean War (1950–1953)

North Korea invaded South Korea.
The U.S., alongside United Nations allies, supported South Korea.
North Korea was backed by the Soviet Union, and later China (both nuclear powers by then).
Bomberbot student-notes.net usahistorytimeline.com Encyclopedia Britannica

2. Vietnam War (1955–1975)

North Vietnam, backed by the Soviet Union and China, fought to unify the country under communism.
South Vietnam was supported primarily by the U.S.
This war was emblematic of Cold War proxy conflicts.
Bomberbot Compact Histories SpringerLink

3. Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)

A protracted conflict with strong proxy involvement:
- Soviet Union and Cuba supported the MPLA (Marxist-Leninist) faction.
- United States and South Africa backed UNITA and other anti-communist groups.
  Bomberbot Wikipedia

4. Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to support its communist government.
The U.S., through initiatives like Operation Cyclone, covertly supported the Mujahideen insurgents (also aided by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others).
Was a key arena of U.S.–Soviet Cold War competition.
Bomberbot Wikipedia SpringerLink

5. Other Notable Proxy Conflicts Involving Nuclear Superpowers

Several lesser-known yet significant instances include:

Greek Civil War (1946–1949)
- The U.S. and UK backed the anti-communist Greek government.
- The Soviet Union had limited involvement in support of communist insurgents.
  The Civil War Wikipedia
Other regional conflicts where both superpowers had a hand—but often less directly—include:
- Laos, Congo, Ethiopia, and the Ogaden War (Ethiopia vs. Somalia in the late 1970s), where the U.S. and Soviet Union supported opposing sides.
  warhistoryonline

4. Do you believe surrendering territory to Putin will stop him invading other European areas after a few years to rebuild?

5. Do you believe this enough to publicly disagree with Trump if he comes around to my way of thinking?

Pommer · Thursday at 10:29 PM

Vambram said:
Does NATO actually want to have a war with Russia over Ukraine?

Now that NATO is spending 2%(+) GDP on their military, maybe they’ll want to see what their money has bought?

Vambram · Thursday at 10:41 PM

eclipsenow said:
Why should I answer you if you do not answer me?
Let's try this again.

1. What about Palestine? Are you consistent?
Do you want peace for Gazan civilians?
I support recognising the Palestinian State - as long as Hamas have nothing to do with it.

2. How long do you feel Russia can keep this up?
SOLDIERS
They've lost 165k to Ukraine's maybe 46k? Estimates vary, but Russia's losing over 3.5 times as many soldiers as Ukraine - as Ukraine fights on the home advantage and has enjoyed better kit (from the west).

KIT
Their drone warfare exacts an even greater disparity in economic damage to the enemy's incoming military hardware. When 2 Russian drones worth $1000 total can destroy a $3.5 MILLION Russian TANK - that's got to hurt!

WORKERS
For starters - maybe a million Russians have fled the country rather than be conscripted - or do another deadly tour if they survived the first one!
They are now starting to import thousands of North Korean workers to do other basic jobs in the economy.

ECONOMIC DISTORTION - BUT LONGER TERM DANGER OF DISTORTION
Russia's whole economy is basically war kit and oil. They're buying almost everything else in from China.
That is not sustainable for the long term - people are getting war weary and this could put pressure on Putin's leadership.

This scaling up into a full war machine HAS other risks though.

If Putin is not toppled soon, all their old kit will have been burned through (as they basically convert their oil into weapons hardware) and they'll have a whole bunch of new tanks and kit and supply chains that actually work now. (The start of this war was a debacle for them as half their stuff wasn't 'real' - it had been stolen or embezzled and was on paper only.)

INCENTIVE
If we don't pool resources and help Ukraine fight for their freedom - Putin might take a Trump deal as a break to regroup and prepare for further invasions towards NATO countries. THAT overconfidence if we DO give into this tyrant really does risk WW3!

TARIFF
The ONE tariff I might support America putting on the world (if it were actually run by a democratic debate in Congress the way it used to be!) would be on those nations that buy Russian oil and prop up their wartime economy.

3. Why do you think Russia would want to die under five thousand suns and then starve to death in a decade of dark over a tiny chunk of land in Ukraine? Why do you think THIS piece of land is different to all the other Proxie wars America has engaged in?

How many Proxie wars have the USA been in with communist powers since they invented the bomb a lifetime ago? I asked CHAT for a summary:

1. Korean War (1950–1953)

North Korea invaded South Korea.

The U.S., alongside United Nations allies, supported South Korea.

North Korea was backed by the Soviet Union, and later China (both nuclear powers by then).
Bomberbot student-notes.net usahistorytimeline.com Encyclopedia Britannica

2. Vietnam War (1955–1975)

North Vietnam, backed by the Soviet Union and China, fought to unify the country under communism.

South Vietnam was supported primarily by the U.S.

This war was emblematic of Cold War proxy conflicts.
Bomberbot Compact Histories SpringerLink

3. Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)

A protracted conflict with strong proxy involvement:

Soviet Union and Cuba supported the MPLA (Marxist-Leninist) faction.

United States and South Africa backed UNITA and other anti-communist groups.
Bomberbot Wikipedia

4. Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to support its communist government.

The U.S., through initiatives like Operation Cyclone, covertly supported the Mujahideen insurgents (also aided by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others).

Was a key arena of U.S.–Soviet Cold War competition.
Bomberbot Wikipedia SpringerLink

5. Other Notable Proxy Conflicts Involving Nuclear Superpowers
Several lesser-known yet significant instances include:

Greek Civil War (1946–1949)

The U.S. and UK backed the anti-communist Greek government.

The Soviet Union had limited involvement in support of communist insurgents.
The Civil War Wikipedia

Other regional conflicts where both superpowers had a hand—but often less directly—include:

Laos, Congo, Ethiopia, and the Ogaden War (Ethiopia vs. Somalia in the late 1970s), where the U.S. and Soviet Union supported opposing sides.
warhistoryonline

4. Do you believe surrendering territory to Putin will stop him invading other European areas after a few years to rebuild?

5. Do you believe this enough to publicly disagree with Trump if he comes around to my way of thinking?

I don't have enough time to respond to all of your questions. But, in answer to the Gaza issue, I do indeed support peace for the Palestinians as soon as the savages of Hamas lay down their weapons and surrender. The Hamas savages have picked a fight with Israel. The Hamas savages cannot win this fight and the civilians of Gaza are caught in the middle of a war between Israel and Hamas.

eclipsenow · Thursday at 11:34 PM

Vambram said:
I don't have enough time to respond to all of your questions. But, in answer to the Gaza issue, I do indeed support peace for the Palestinians as soon as the savages of Hamas lay down their weapons and surrender. The Hamas savages have picked a fight with Israel. The Hamas savages cannot win this fight and the civilians of Gaza are caught in the middle of a war between Israel and Hamas.

HISTORY
Since 9/11 I find we need a fresh perspective on Moslems. It’s helpful to remember Moslems and Jews and Christians all lived together peacefully for centuries before militant Zionism took over the area. Various historical forces - including some theological Zionism in the west and of course the horrors of the holocaust in WW2 - created urgency for finding a homeland for the Jewish people. There WERE discussions of ceding land from a democracy - like letting them settle in Australia! (See podcast below.) But unfortunately - militant Zionism won the day. For 77 years they have practiced illegal apartheid settler-colonialism in the West Bank involving habitual persecution, expulsion, and murder. Gaza has been the world’s largest open air jail for decades!

HAMAS ATTACKS
I totally agree that Hamas conducted an awful, savage terrorist attack against civilians. It's repugnant. Also, Hamas were never going to win this fight. But maybe they knew by provoking them, Israel would lose the plot and OVER react and provoke the very international outrage that Israel is now labelling anti-Semitic. Sadly, Israel took the bait.

JUST WAR and PROPORTIONAL RESPONSE
Israel's right to defend themselves is completely justified. But now their war is unjust - indeed - they used up any "proportional response" within the first few months! They have been captured by the religious right - and Militant Zionism seems numerically far more deadly than Militant Islam. Zionism reeks of war crimes, from 77 years of illegal apartheid settler-colonialism in the West Bank and habitual murder and expulsion of Palestinians through to the blockade of Gaza. Israel stinks of war crimes. EG: They say they only target military locations, but then use excessive bombs with a 700 m kill zone that are then marketed on the international weapons scene as 'battle tested'. (4 episodes by Australian Jewish reporter: The Palestine Laboratory Podcast )

Within 6 months the Israeli war had ALREADY extracted a toll on Gaza 29 TIMES their own! Now it’s over 50 - and Gaza is just gone! The UN’s original 400 points are down to Israel’s 4 - and Israel use them to target civilians collecting food. One day it’s head shots, the next day groin shots. It's coordinated, "gamified" - like something off Squid Game.

2 STATE SOLUTION
The UN promised the Palestinians there would be a 2 state solution from the beginning. Why hasn't it happened yet? Why do we turn a blind eye to the illegal annexation and settlement of the West Bank? Is it just racism against Moslems?

THE AWFUL IRONY
Israel have for decades now increasingly behaved like the very regime that forced so many Jews to flee Europe in WW2!! Discrimination becomes Persecution becomes Ghettoization becomes Deportation becomes Concentration → the mass starvation in Gaza today. So which is worse - militant Islam or militant Zionism? I know the numbers for THIS case!

Because this stuff is so intense I liked to finish up with some comic relief.
I wish Israeli soldiers would wake up and ask this question:

The bottom line - isn't continuing to turn a blind eye to Israel exactly the same as turning a blind eye to Russia?

Yarddog · Thursday at 11:55 PM

Vambram said:
I wish that would happen, really I do. However, Russia is winning this war against Ukraine. Do we believe that Russia is going to withdraw from all the conquered Ukrainian lands?

If the free world stands up against Putin, yes. Since when did winning make an evil person right?

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 12:15 AM

eclipsenow said:
First - Trump agreeing with Putin to swap ANY Ukrainian territory for peace is illegal under the Ukrainian constitution. It's also illegal under international law. Is his NPD so explosive these days that his staff are too timid to explain these overly-complex things for a guy that has obviously not read a book in his adult life?

Two - why does he love Putin so much? He's been cranky lately because Putin made him look bad. There was no peace with one phone call - no peace on day one. It hurt his fragile NPD - so of course he had to rant on "Untruth social".

Three - I can only conclude he's looking forward to the drama of a rematch with Zelenskyy when all this inevitably explodes - and will have an almighty NPD attack and pull all aid to Ukraine.

Four - if Trump valued NATO and democracy and freedom - he would not have shamed the USA with his Oval Office shakedown of Ukraine and Zelenskyy earlier this year.
But Trump does not respect the rule of law, outright acted confused when asked if a President should defend the American Constitution - and so of course has an ambivalent attitude to international law.

1. Legality of a “land swap” under Ukrainian and international law.

Ukraine’s Constitution explicitly prohibits the alienation or ceding of national territory without a referendum or proper constitutional amendment. President Zelensky has underscored this principle, stating firmly that “the answer to the Ukrainian territorial question is already in the constitution... Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier” .

The United Nations and major international bodies have repeatedly affirmed that territorial changes imposed through force or coercion are illegal. They do not confer legitimacy to annexation or forced cessions .

So yes, suggesting the exchange of Ukrainian territory for peace stands in conflict with both Ukraine’s founding law and international legal norms.

2. Trump’s seemingly favorable stance toward Putin.

Why? Because Trump’s rhetoric about a rapid peace “with some swapping of territories” signals a willingness to negotiate territorial concessions, a position Ukraine, Europe, and many legal voices strongly reject .

This posture can be interpreted through the lens of Trump’s leadership style: One driven by spectacle, transactional logic, and a craving for dramatic wins, possibly overshadowing constitutional constraints or nuanced legal considerations.
Referring to your point, “his fragile NPD,” ascribing clinical diagnoses isn't within your remit. But it's evident that Trump's political persona often gravitates toward confrontation, simplified narratives, and dominance, especially in interactions with powerful figures like Putin.

3. Is Trump angling toward future drama with Zelensky tied to Ukraine aid or a rematch?

Drama for its own sake? Trump’s public framing of the Alaska summit with Putin as a “feel-out meeting” followed by a promised “trilateral” negotiation involving Zelensky suggests a narrative built to maximize attention, and possibly leverage, regardless of actual policy substance .

Aid leverage? While there's no direct evidence yet that he intends to condition aid solely to Ukraine’s agreement to territorial swaps, it’s not uncommon for such political theater to feed into broader debates about U.S. support, especially in the context of an anticipated rematch with Zelensky or the focus on being a “peace broker.”

Your intuition that Trump thrives on the drama and the optics, especially when they give him center stage, seems well aligned with his broader political style.

4. Does Trump actually respect NATO, democracy, and the rule of law?

Oval Office confrontation with Ukraine: Trump's earlier meeting with Zelensky, where aid was held up seemingly over demands, stirred accusations of violating norms. Many saw it as undermining democratic principles and respect for rule of law, all while publicly staking out ambiguity on whether a president should defend the U.S. Constitution .

International legal ambivalence: His recent remarks that skirt Ukraine’s constitutional protection and flirt with legitimizing forced territorial concessions suggest an ambivalence toward those laws, if not a disregard for them.

Vambram · Friday at 12:15 AM

Yarddog said:
If the free world stands up against Putin, yes. Since when did winning make an evil person right?

Putin is evil and he was wrong to invade Ukraine. Millions Russians and Ukrainians are paying the price for this war. A 3 year war which Putin is still winning despite all the military aid from the USA and Europe going to Ukraine. How much longer and how many more lives are we prepared to lose?

eclipsenow · Friday at 5:06 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
1. Legality of a “land swap” under Ukrainian and international law.

Ukraine’s Constitution explicitly prohibits the alienation or ceding of national territory without a referendum or proper constitutional amendment. President Zelensky has underscored this principle, stating firmly that “the answer to the Ukrainian territorial question is already in the constitution... Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier” .

The United Nations and major international bodies have repeatedly affirmed that territorial changes imposed through force or coercion are illegal. They do not confer legitimacy to annexation or forced cessions .

So yes, suggesting the exchange of Ukrainian territory for peace stands in conflict with both Ukraine’s founding law and international legal norms.

Agreed.

Oompa Loompa said:
2. Trump’s seemingly favorable stance toward Putin.

Why? Because Trump’s rhetoric about a rapid peace “with some swapping of territories” signals a willingness to negotiate territorial concessions, a position Ukraine, Europe, and many legal voices strongly reject .

This posture can be interpreted through the lens of Trump’s leadership style: One driven by spectacle, transactional logic, and a craving for dramatic wins, possibly overshadowing constitutional constraints or nuanced legal considerations.

Agreed.

Oompa Loompa said:
Referring to your point, “his fragile NPD,” ascribing clinical diagnoses isn't within your remit.

I didn't - over 230 NPD experts did.

Oompa Loompa said:
But it's evident that Trump's political persona often gravitates toward confrontation, simplified narratives, and dominance, especially in interactions with powerful figures like Putin.

Agreed - as per NPD.

A second psychologist, Dr Vince Greenwood, says people with Trump’s condition “exhibit a grandiose sense of self import, derive pleasure from causing harm, and are incapable of caring about other people’s feelings.”

And a third, Dr Diane Pomerantz, continues the explanation by adding: “This explains Donald Trump’s pathological lies, misogyny, his admiration for dictators and his criminal behavior.”...

...The advertisement concludes with a psychologist named Dr John Gartner stating that Trump “has no choice but to be a malignant narcissist,” and adding that voters can choose whether to put him back in the White House — or not.

“If it wasn’t clear by his erratic, self-obsessed behavior, his pathological lying, his lack of moral conscience, his assaults of women, and his blatant disregard for the safety of others, more than 200 experts agree that he is unfit for office,” Conway said. “Voters need to recognize the threat we face electing this deranged man.”

Oompa Loompa said:
3. Is Trump angling toward future drama with Zelensky tied to Ukraine aid or a rematch?

Drama for its own sake? Trump’s public framing of the Alaska summit with Putin as a “feel-out meeting” followed by a promised “trilateral” negotiation involving Zelensky suggests a narrative built to maximize attention, and possibly leverage, regardless of actual policy substance .

Yes - I've been busy. I missed the important detail that this was the first of Trump realises will be a few meetings and longer process. Fortunately - this means I'm not just vaguely 'hoping' I'm wrong.

I'm now 95% convinced I will be wrong! This time.

But with Trump - who knows what will happen in a week or so?

I agree with the rest of your points.

eclipsenow · Friday at 5:10 AM

Vambram said:
Putin is evil and he was wrong to invade Ukraine. Millions Russians and Ukrainians are paying the price for this war. A 3 year war which Putin is still winning despite all the military aid from the USA and Europe going to Ukraine. How much longer and how many more lives are we prepared to lose?

Is militant Zionism evil for illegally invading the Middle East, displacing 700,000 people in 1948 (and who knows how many more since!), maintaining decades of apartheid government, conducting illegal settler-colonialism - and in more recent decades escalating to the very behaviours of the regime that forced the Jews to look for a new homeland in the first place?

Things happened. Israel now exists and has a right to defend itself. But it does NOT have a right to conduct endless war crimes against the Gazan people in the name of 'self defence'.

Yarddog · Friday at 7:25 AM

Vambram said:
Putin is evil and he was wrong to invade Ukraine. Millions Russians and Ukrainians are paying the price for this war. A 3 year war which Putin is still winning despite all the military aid from the USA and Europe going to Ukraine. How much longer and how many more lives are we prepared to lose?

We? Do you mean Ukraine? It is their country, not ours.

If we were invaded an alliance of Caribbean countries, would you agree to give them Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, to stop the killing?

durangodawood · Friday at 8:36 AM

And now our credulous and pathetically needy president walks into the orbit of a cunning manipulator.

Last time, we saw Trump get completely used by the Russian. Now there's another one on one, no-advisors, session.

eclipsenow · Friday at 8:04 PM

Yarddog said:
We? Do you mean Ukraine? It is their country, not ours.

If we were invaded an alliance of Caribbean countries, would you agree to give them Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, to stop the killing?

Yes. This! Someone asked what other alternative is there than just giving Putin everything he wants and begging, "Please sir! Stop the killing!"
Instead we should:-

Defend democracy.
Defend the idea of democracy.
Defend the idea of a democratic club of nations.
Defend freedom.
Halt tyranny!

Don't talk down NATO!
Don't threaten to pull out in some emotional tantrum - or on some silly whim on the campaign trail!
Don't threaten the image of the invulnerable unity of the world's largest military alliance in history!

In the Ukrainian case...

Give Ukraine everything they need - without putting NATO troops on the ground.
Do everything we can without putting troops on the ground to stop the tyrant taking any more land.
History shows the more he gets, the hungrier his appetite - and the safer he feels to make even bolder moves!

We are wearing Russia down.

Ukraine were a former Soviet vassal state - now they're our democratic friends.

They're shedding their blood to hold the line against an expansionist former KGB officer.

We should be thanking them - not spanking their leader for failing to grovel pitifully at the feet of a former real estate conman and convicted felon!

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 8:59 PM

eclipsenow said:
Give Ukraine everything they need - without putting NATO troops on the ground.

And when the Ukranians have no more meat to put in the grinder, what troops on the ground are going to use the weapons?

eclipsenow · Friday at 9:11 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
And when the Ukranians have no more meat to put in the grinder, what troops on the ground are going to use the weapons?

Russia's losing soldiers 3.5 times faster than Ukraine, and losing military money VASTLY faster (if one ignores that Ukraine is being busted up.)

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 9:41 PM

eclipsenow said:
Russia's losing soldiers 3.5 times faster than Ukraine, and losing military money VASTLY faster (if one ignores that Ukraine is being busted up.)

Well, let's hope that Putin just gives up and leaves Ukrain. Because without NATO troops reinforcing the ground forces, that is the best chance Ukrain has.

GoldenBoy89 · Friday at 11:01 PM

Mr “Art of the Deal” failed to secure a deal.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 11:46 PM

GoldenBoy89 said:
Mr “Art of the Deal” failed to secure a deal.

Yet you seem upset that he made an attempt at diplomacy.

JSRG · Saturday at 12:46 AM

Yarddog said:
We? Do you mean Ukraine? It is their country, not ours.

If we were invaded an alliance of Caribbean countries, would you agree to give them Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, to stop the killing?

If that alliance of Caribbean countries had taken possession of those states, progress had stalled greatly in taking them back, and it was plausible that the Caribbean countries could take over more if the fighting continues? Yes, probably. (I'm not sure how the Caribbean countries could pull off such a thing, though--the US outnumbers them 8-to-1 and has a much stronger military. Did this Caribbean alliance get some kind of crazy future technology?)

At this point, the only way I can see Ukraine taking back all of its territory--the apparent goal being insisted on in this topic--is if Russia ends up legitimately unable to keep going and basically collapses, allowing Ukraine to take back the rest of its territory because Russia is simply unable to continue to defend it. This is something that is possible; Russia does seem to be losing troops at a faster rate than Ukraine. However, the problem with this "keep grinding the war out until someone collapses and just can't keep fighting" is (1) that requires a whole lot more deaths, and (2) Ukraine could be the one to collapse first. Even if Russia is losing soldiers faster, it has more that it can lose. And if Russia manages to be the country left standing at the end of the slugfest, then it gets all of Ukraine.

Pommer · Saturday at 1:28 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
Mr “Art of the Deal” failed to secure a deal.

Nobody was expecting one, though.

Yarddog · Saturday at 2:17 AM

JSRG said:
If that alliance of Caribbean countries had taken possession of those states, progress had stalled greatly in taking them back, and it was plausible that the Caribbean countries could take over more if the fighting continues? Yes, probably. (I'm not sure how the Caribbean countries could pull off such a thing, though--the US outnumbers them 8-to-1 and has a much stronger military. Did this Caribbean alliance get some kind of crazy future technology?)

At this point, the only way I can see Ukraine taking back all of its territory--the apparent goal being insisted on in this topic--is if Russia ends up legitimately unable to keep going and basically collapses, allowing Ukraine to take back the rest of its territory because Russia is simply unable to continue to defend it. This is something that is possible; Russia does seem to be losing troops at a faster rate than Ukraine. However, the problem with this "keep grinding the war out until someone collapses and just can't keep fighting" is (1) that requires a whole lot more deaths, and (2) Ukraine could be the one to collapse first. Even if Russia is losing soldiers faster, it has more that it can lose. And if Russia manages to be the country left standing at the end of the slugfest, then it gets all of Ukraine.

I remember people saying much the same about Afghanistan but the USSR was the one that fell.

I anticipate Trump pulling ANY aid for Ukraine when Zelenskyy inevitably rejects Trump's farcical 'deal'.

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

​

1. What about Palestine? Are you consistent?​

2. How long do you feel Russia can keep this up?​

3. Why do you think Russia would want to die under five thousand suns and then starve to death in a decade of dark over a tiny chunk of land in Ukraine? Why do you think THIS piece of land is different to all the other Proxie wars America has engaged in?​

1. Korean War (1950–1953)​

2. Vietnam War (1955–1975)​

3. Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)​

4. Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)​

5. Other Notable Proxy Conflicts Involving Nuclear Superpowers​

4. Do you believe surrendering territory to Putin will stop him invading other European areas after a few years to rebuild?​

5. Do you believe this enough to publicly disagree with Trump if he comes around to my way of thinking?​

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

​

1. What about Palestine? Are you consistent?​

2. How long do you feel Russia can keep this up?​

3. Why do you think Russia would want to die under five thousand suns and then starve to death in a decade of dark over a tiny chunk of land in Ukraine? Why do you think THIS piece of land is different to all the other Proxie wars America has engaged in?​

1. Korean War (1950–1953)​

2. Vietnam War (1955–1975)​

3. Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)​

4. Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)​

5. Other Notable Proxy Conflicts Involving Nuclear Superpowers​

4. Do you believe surrendering territory to Putin will stop him invading other European areas after a few years to rebuild?​

5. Do you believe this enough to publicly disagree with Trump if he comes around to my way of thinking?​

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Yes - I've been busy. I missed the important detail that this was the first of Trump realises will be a few meetings and longer process. Fortunately - this means I'm not just vaguely 'hoping' I'm wrong.​

I'm now 95% convinced I will be wrong! This time.​

But with Trump - who knows what will happen in a week or so?​

I agree with the rest of your points.​

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Senior Contributor

re Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

In the Ukrainian case...​

They're shedding their blood to hold the line against an expansionist former KGB officer.​

We should be thanking them - not spanking their leader for failing to grovel pitifully at the feet of a former real estate conman and convicted felon!​

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Senior Contributor

Similar threads

1. What about Palestine? Are you consistent?

2. How long do you feel Russia can keep this up?

3. Why do you think Russia would want to die under five thousand suns and then starve to death in a decade of dark over a tiny chunk of land in Ukraine? Why do you think THIS piece of land is different to all the other Proxie wars America has engaged in?

1. Korean War (1950–1953)

2. Vietnam War (1955–1975)

3. Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)

4. Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)

5. Other Notable Proxy Conflicts Involving Nuclear Superpowers

4. Do you believe surrendering territory to Putin will stop him invading other European areas after a few years to rebuild?

5. Do you believe this enough to publicly disagree with Trump if he comes around to my way of thinking?

1. What about Palestine? Are you consistent?

2. How long do you feel Russia can keep this up?

3. Why do you think Russia would want to die under five thousand suns and then starve to death in a decade of dark over a tiny chunk of land in Ukraine? Why do you think THIS piece of land is different to all the other Proxie wars America has engaged in?

1. Korean War (1950–1953)

2. Vietnam War (1955–1975)

3. Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)

4. Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)

5. Other Notable Proxy Conflicts Involving Nuclear Superpowers

4. Do you believe surrendering territory to Putin will stop him invading other European areas after a few years to rebuild?

5. Do you believe this enough to publicly disagree with Trump if he comes around to my way of thinking?

Yes - I've been busy. I missed the important detail that this was the first of Trump realises will be a few meetings and longer process. Fortunately - this means I'm not just vaguely 'hoping' I'm wrong.

I'm now 95% convinced I will be wrong! This time.

But with Trump - who knows what will happen in a week or so?

I agree with the rest of your points.

In the Ukrainian case...

They're shedding their blood to hold the line against an expansionist former KGB officer.

We should be thanking them - not spanking their leader for failing to grovel pitifully at the feet of a former real estate conman and convicted felon!