What he really wants, IMO, is for the U.S. and Europe to continue to help him win the war. He’s not ready to make any concessions to achieve a peace deal.
The Art of the Deal was fiction, written by a Ghost writer that has made that clear.I don't subscribe to WAPO so I don't know what their "journalists" are saying. However, Trump seems to be bungling the Ukraine peace talks so far. Maybe it is the art of the deal.
What concessions will Ukraine have to make for a peace deal?
Regardless of the deal, Putin had to be thrilled that the relationship between the US and Europe is at its lowest point that I can remember.
![]()
‘Free world needs a new leader’: Europe defends Zelenskyy after Trump attack
France, Germany and Poland all make prompt declarations of support as Europe fears Trump’s alignment with Putin.www.politico.eu
That would seem reasonable.They will not be able to restore the borders that existed before the first invasion in 2014.
I'm thinking/guessing the US thought they had a deal that was ready for signing. Does Trump think he was double-crossed?....
As for the incident earlier today…never have a meeting of the heads of state until there’s a done deal ready for signatures. Diplomacy 101.
Also, a language and cultural barrier contributed to the spat. Neither side completely understood each other.
I'm thinking/guessing the US thought they had a deal that was ready for signing. Does Trump think he was double-crossed?
As another poster on this forum posted in the past 2 weeks, the Russians starved to death 30-40 million Ukranians in the 1930's. The Ukrainians hate the Russians. Russia invaded Ukraine and has killed and raped their way to 20% of the country and devastated the rest. Trump's negotiation skills suck if he doesn't understand. Meanwhile Laura inghram is saying the Ukrainians should surrender as I write this. Lots of synophants in the media, even at Fox News.
Why is a security guarantee so bad? What is Trump going to do when Russia invades Finland? Apparently nothing.
If the US is not economically tied to Ukraine (rare metals, etc.) why would we offer any security guarantee? They aren't in NATO and the issue that irritated Putin in the first place was US meddling in Ukraine and then the idea of them joining NATO when Brandon Admin started is what moved Putin to take more.As another poster on this forum posted in the past 2 weeks, the Russians starved to death 30-40 million Ukranians in the 1930's. The Ukrainians hate the Russians. Russia invaded Ukraine and has killed and raped their way to 20% of the country and devastated the rest. Trump's negotiation skills suck if he doesn't understand. Meanwhile Laura inghram is saying the Ukrainians should surrender as I write this. Lots of synophants in the media, even at Fox News.
Why is a security guarantee so bad? What is Trump going to do when Russia invades Finland? Apparently nothing.
Thanks. That's a short read, but a really good one.
I think Trump believed the mineral deal was a de facto security guarantee, apparently based on the premise that if the US had a major interest in Ukraine through economic presence/ties. Russia would be dissuaded in the future from violating whatever cease fire and eventual peace that could be negotiated. I think Doug was correct that Trump wants to stand in between the two sides and broker an end to the war. Zelensky seems to want Trump to serve his desire to continue the war until he wins it.As another poster on this forum posted in the past 2 weeks, the Russians starved to death 30-40 million Ukranians in the 1930's. The Ukrainians hate the Russians. Russia invaded Ukraine and has killed and raped their way to 20% of the country and devastated the rest. Trump's negotiation skills suck if he doesn't understand. Meanwhile Laura inghram is saying the Ukrainians should surrender as I write this. Lots of synophants in the media, even at Fox News.
Why is a security guarantee so bad? What is Trump going to do when Russia invades Finland? Apparently nothing.
Your perjorative about the Ukrainians is weird. The Ukranians were invaded, murdered, and raped. Russia has no right to do this. But it is McCarthyism to say otherwise?Trump said today that he understands why Zelenskyy hates Putin. However, peace isn't possible if those hatreds are driving the discussion. If the U.S. is to broker a deal, it has to be based on the realities on the ground.
People are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives to punish Putin, mostly because of politics. Armchair warriors. I wonder what their position would be if U.S. forces were deployed to Ukraine, including their own sons and daughters.
This new McCarthyism that creeps into the debate isn't useful in any way. It's propaganda meant to demonize and discredit those who have opinions that people don't like.
Then get some __alls and call it a security guarentee. After what Russia did to Ukraine, seems like an understandable desire on their part.I think Trump believed the mineral deal was a de facto security guarantee, apparently based on the premise that if the US had a major interest in Ukraine through economic presence/ties. Russia would be dissuaded in the future from violating whatever cease fire and eventual peace that could be negotiated. I think Doug was correct that Trump wants to stand in between the two sides and broker an end to the war. Zelensky seems to want Trump to serve his desire to continue the war until he wins it.
Your perjorative about the Ukrainians is weird. The Ukranians were invaded, murdered, and raped. Russia has no right to do this. But it is McCarthyism to say otherwise?
McCarthyism was a period in the 1950's where everything was anti Soviet Union. I think Putin desperately wants to end the war but only after he wins at the negotiating table. Trump just wants it over. I would be worried if I were Ukraine.No, its McCarthyism to claim that people who want an end to the war are on Putin's side.
The Art of the Deal was fiction, written by a Ghost writer that has made that clear.I don't subscribe to WAPO so I don't know what their "journalists" are saying. However, Trump seems to be bungling the Ukraine peace talks so far. Maybe it is the art of the deal.
If the US is not economically tied to Ukraine (rare metals, etc.) why would we offer any security guarantee? They aren't in NATO and the issue that irritated Putin in the first place was US meddling in Ukraine and then the idea of them joining NATO when Brandon Admin started is what moved Putin to take more.
I thought Trump did, or very close to it, in the meeting today. Could be wrong though, there was a lot of inturrupting and talking over going on. But this wasn't a fist attempt to hammer something out. The diplomats thought an agreement was reached. Zelensky wants money and weapons and maybe soldiers, then he'll talk about a cease fire. Trump wants a cease fire, then he'll talk about what comes next, with the economic deal a carrot to assuage concerns about future security. I'm not unsympathetic to Ukraine's position, just trying to make sense of what's happening.Then get some __alls and call it a security guarentee. After what Russia did to Ukraine, seems like an understandable desire on their part.
You think that is close to the total Trump/Vance embarrassment we saw today?
What evidence is there Putin desperately wants to end this war?McCarthyism was a period in the 1950's where everything was anti Soviet Union. I think Putin desperately wants to end the war but only after he wins at the negotiating table. Trump just wants it over. I would be worried if I were Ukraine.
It was a really easy call for Putin. Biden Admin was full of Obama people that Putin took advantage of.I don't think the threat of Ukraine joining NATO had much to do with Russia invading Ukraine. Just BS from Putin, IMO.
To what end?There appears to be a growing belief among non-partisan foreign relations reporters that Zelenskyy was encouraged by European leaders to confront and provoke Trump. Was it all just theatrics?
Sadly, it wouldn't be a huge surprise. If that's true I wonder if they're surprised Trump didn't back down, or if they just wanted to submarine a cease fire.There appears to be a growing belief among non-partisan foreign relations reporters that Zelenskyy was encouraged by European leaders to confront and provoke Trump. Was it all just theatrics?
I thought Trump did, or very close to it, in the meeting today. Could be wrong though, there was a lot of inturrupting and talking over going on. But this wasn't a fist attempt to hammer something out. The diplomats thought an agreement was reached. Zelensky wants money and weapons and maybe soldiers, then he'll talk about a cease fire. Trump wants a cease fire, then he'll talk about what comes next, with the economic deal a carrot to assuage concerns about future security. I'm not unsympathetic to Ukraine's position, just trying to make sense of what's happening.
To what end?
Has Zelenskyy ever said how he thinks Ukraine can actually *win* this war?Theoretically, to gain more sympathy for the Ukrainian cause. Also, to send a message that Europe and Ukraine itself will dictate the terms of any potential peace talks. For Zelenskyy, part of it was likely to gain more respect from his own people. “I stood up to the big, bad Trump, and I did it for you”.