Just now, Mike31mt said:

Right, tell me more about Kamala Harris saving democracy by being appointed President.

Former libertarian turned full on commie, it's sad

29 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Yeah it's laughable because you say so.

Again, put your money where your mouth is instead of relying on Daddy USA to do all the dirty work to satisfy your pollyanna view of the world

I'll be waiting for the Frances and Germanys of the world to step up and do what's right. Handle business on your own continent before opening your mouth about what the US needs to do

Biden's autopen could have negotiated a better deal. These terms are a joke because Trump's very bad at deals. he's been soft on Putin since day 1 and that's why he has zero concessions to show for it.

1 minute ago, dawkins4prez said:

Biden's autopen could have negotiated a better deal. These terms are a joke because Trump's very bad at deals.

Right, right. He could have and just chose not to I guess

5 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

The 28pts are now released. Obviously lots of detail but the key points are the land concession requirements on Ukraine AND the article 5 level guarantees for Ukraine. I've always thought there would end up being some land loss in exchange for an article 5 level guarantee from NATO/US to defend Ukraine but the current ask on Ukraine is way too much imho.

Seems things are VERY fluid though so expect this to change/morph and eventually fall apart in all likelihood.

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for "security guarantees". And then they got invaded by Russia. So now they are being asked to give up land in exchange for "security guarantees". This is a bad deal for them IMO. You know what they say, fool me once shame on me....

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for "security guarantees". And then they got invaded by Russia. So now they are being asked to give up land in exchange for "security guarantees". This is a bad deal for them IMO. You know what they say, fool me once shame on me....

Ok so? What is your solution here?

All I hear from your side is: permanent war until everyone is dead

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for "security guarantees". And then they got invaded by Russia. So now they are being asked to give up land in exchange for "security guarantees". This is a bad deal for them IMO. You know what they say, fool me once shame on me....

No way I’d sign it if I was Z

5 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Ok so? What is your solution here?

All I hear from your side is: permanent war until everyone is dead

Kind of depends on what one has for a goal now doesn’t it? Sounds like you are a full on isolationist who isn’t interested in continuing the US role as a global super power.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Kind of depends on what one has for a goal now doesn’t it? Sounds like you are a full on isolationist who isn’t interested in continuing the US role as a global super power.

Still not answering the question. Stop beating around the bush.

Ok you wouldn't sign it. Then what?

What's your plan?

3 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Still not answering the question. Stop beating around the bush.

Ok you wouldn't sign it. Then what?

What's your plan?

If I were POTUS I’d go much harder on Putin on multiple fronts (political, economical, cultural, and militarily) for say six months after which I’d drag him back to the negotiation table and push a fair deal thru.

Just now, Mike31mt said:

Ok so? What is your solution here?

All I hear from your side is: permanent war until everyone is dead

What is "my side"? See that's the crux of your problem in general when it comes to these discussions. You start from a position of "your side my side". Just because you're a extremely partisan person who plays the "red vs blue" stupid game doesn't mean that everyone else does. I don't have a "side". I couldn't give a sh-t about political parties.

I don't claim to have a solution to this war. I think the problem began when Russian invaded Crimea, and we did nothing about it. I think that gave them incentive to eventually push further because they didn't think we'd get involved. I don't think Russia can be allowed to take control of Ukraine land. The only lesson Russia will learn from that is that they can take a temporary pause in fighting, and then another year or so from now, launch another invasion, knowing that eventually there will be another temporary ceasefire with more land given to them.

I think the maximum amount of political and economic pressure should be applied to Russia (trade embargos, sanctions, etc...) and should only be lifted if they agree to a ceasefire that includes completely withdrawing from Ukraine. And that includes putting political and economic pressure on their allies as well to incentivize them to leave.

But, at the end of the day it's up to the Ukrainians on what they are willing to live with. They're the ones shedding blood in this war to defend their land. If they'd rather give up land in exchange for a temporary ceasefire, then that is their decision to make. I just don't think it would be a wise one. Short term benefit sure, but I think with the long term consequence of ultimately losing their country when Russia invades again down the road.

25 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Right, right. He could have and just chose not to I guess

If trump had just followed Biden's lead he'd be in a much better bargaining position. instead he's dropped his panties for Putin at every chance and here we are. this negotiation is a complete embarrassment, again, and will only be surpassed by the even bigger embarrassment of Trump walking back this deal when he realizes how weakly it polls and going back to Limbo on the issue.

Again.

And you'll look like an idiot for bending over for Putin and not getting a deal anyways..

Again.

and when Trump talks tough in 3 weeks, you'll fall for it.

Again.

20 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

If I were POTUS I’d go much harder on Putin on multiple fronts (political, economical, cultural, and militarily) for say six months after which I’d drag him back to the negotiation table and push a fair deal thru.

duh. And show unequivocal backing to Europe and Ukraine publicly, no matter what you're telling them privately.

But Mr deal maker drives him in a Limo and then wonders why he can't get him to back off a single demand.. every time he waffles between fawning and 'tough guy", Putin's position is reinforced.

3 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Since you're in the mood for lecturing us on how much more we should support Ukraine, even though we've supported them more than all of Europe combined, why don't you tell me what else we can do?

You just want to drag this out in perpetuity? Ukraine should be the never ending hole of military funding and death until there's not a single Ukrainian left? Is that your end goal?

Discretion is the better part of valor. Ukraine is not winning. They were never going to win. Do you disagree with that?

And no. I don't think Russia is our friend. But that doesn't mean we have to start military conflicts at every turn. That's why I called your view of the world "pollyanna"--its not always about good guys vs. bad guys.

At some point you must acknowledge reality, and it seems none of you ever will

Oh I’m in the business of lecturing, but I do have my views and opinions.

While you are right that the financial and military support for Ukraine was top notch in the Biden era, I would like to see the data since Trump took over. I’ll definitely give him credit for "forcing” the Europeans to pay their share and more. Now we are selling weapons and Europe / Ukraine is paying for them. Biggest give still is the intelligence we supply. It’s fundamental for the Ukrainians on the battlefield and cutting that off would leave them blind.

What are we losing if we give them weapons to fight that they and Europe are paying for? Putting sanctions on Russia has been done and could be increased.

What else can we do? Don’t give in to Putin’s demands. Don’t let Russia divide the alliance that has been strong for centuries. Reagan had it right with the Soviets and Putin has made it clear that he wants to return to that era. There really isn’t anything overly new that we would need to do. Supply weapons and intelligence, which can be paid by Europe/Ukraine.

Biggest thing is for Trump to not keep going back and forth. Put pressure on Putin and tell him we will support Ukraine until he comes to the table with a fair proposal.

Ukraine is not going to win against Russia by taking back all their land. Nope, that won’t happen. They can keep holding off the Russians if they’re supported with equipment. We should leave it up to them to decide how much longer they can go. We shouldn’t force a Kremlin proposal down their throats.

I think we all agree that no one wants to start new wars. Did Ukraine start this war?

In this case, it is good guys against bad guys. The Putin regime is imperialistic and the danger is that it keeps spreading because we appease his actions. We shouldn’t be on side of Russia and throwing our allies under the bus. It’s actually not that complicated. We’re not sending troops and are getting a lot of money from selling arms. What are we losing?!

On 11/19/2025 at 12:04 PM, Bill said:

JFC.

So Putin wants to use the treaty of Versailles as a framework. That should go over well.

1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

Ok so? What is your solution here?

All I hear from your side is: permanent war until everyone is dead

All I hear from you is appeasement. Let me ask you, when has appeasing dictators ever worked? I mean ever in human history?

***Sigh, ok, one last time for the people who are ignorant of history.

The reason this is abhorrent and catastrophic for the US in the long term is because it is a clear abandonment by the US of the post WW2 order. Very simply, after WW2 the entire global financial and security systems (in the West) were restructured to acknowledge US supremacy. This has provided the US with basically incalculable economic advantages -- most directly, the USD being the reserve currency of the world creates a limitless demand for USD assets (namely treasuries), which keeps our borrowing rates low and imports cheap thanks to a stronger dollar. The entire global financial system is built upon the USD, and this has allowed us to become the wealthiest nation in the world many times over. In exchange, the US took on the mantle of the defender of democracy through things like NATO, SEATO, etc. We created a world completely subservient and indebted to us, and we reaped the benefits. That's what makes things like this so unbelievably dangerous -- by retreating from the world, we create a vacuum for the rise of authoritarians (Russia, China, etc.), and we create doubts in the minds of our allies. But simply -- if we stop holding up our end of the bargain, nothing stops them from retreating from USD assets and markets, which would be catastrophic.

What's even more ridiculous is we are throwing away a system that has been to our benefit for 80 years for no reason whatsoever. The Ukraine conflict wasn't costing US lives or even that many US assets (as compared to Vietnam, or Iraq). We had Russia tied down and a country willing to keep them in a quagmire with our limited support. It was going perfectly, as far as the US is concerned. Tanking the post world war 2 order to end a war where we were getting exactly what we wanted -- that's stupid on another level.

55 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Still not answering the question. Stop beating around the bush.

Ok you wouldn't sign it. Then what?

What's your plan?

Ramp up funding to Ukraine and keep Russia tied down in a never ending war. That's the greatest benefit to the USA.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

***Sigh, ok, one last time for the people who are ignorant of history.

The reason this is abhorrent and catastrophic for the US in the long term is because it is a clear abandonment by the US of the post WW2 order. Very simply, after WW2 the entire global financial and security systems (in the West) were restructured to acknowledge US supremacy. This has provided the US with basically incalculable economic advantages -- most directly, the USD being the reserve currency of the world creates a limitless demand for USD assets (namely treasuries), which keeps our borrowing rates low and imports cheap thanks to a stronger dollar. The entire global financial system is built upon the USD, and this has allowed us to become the wealthiest nation in the world many times over. In exchange, the US took on the mantle of the defender of democracy through things like NATO, SEATO, etc. We created a world completely subservient and indebted to us, and we reaped the benefits. That's what makes things like this so unbelievably dangerous -- by retreating from the world, we create a vacuum for the rise of authoritarians (Russia, China, etc.), and we create doubts in the minds of our allies. But simply -- if we stop holding up our end of the bargain, nothing stops them from retreating from USD assets and markets, which would be catastrophic.

What's even more ridiculous is we are throwing away a system that has been to our benefit for 80 years for no reason whatsoever. The Ukraine conflict wasn't costing US lives or even that many US assets (as compared to Vietnam, or Iraq). We had Russia tied down and a country willing to keep them in a quagmire with our limited support. It was going perfectly, as far as the US is concerned. Tanking the post world war 2 order to end a war where we were getting exactly what we wanted -- that's stupid on another level.

Fwiw, one of my friends and former classmates is a colonel in the US Army and teaches military strategy at West Point. Well he did until he retired last year. Brilliant guy. He made this exact point. It's spot on.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Ramp up funding to Ukraine and keep Russia tied down in a never ending war. That's the greatest benefit to the USA.

Disagree.

In your scenario, Ukraine inevitably folds and Russia takes over. That's where it ends and the US essentially gains nothing long-term.

In the Trump proposed scenario, the conflict is ended, the US increases our global presence long term through enormous leverage with a friendly host nation.

34 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

duh. And show unequivocal backing to Europe and Ukraine publicly, no matter what you're telling them privately.

But Mr deal maker drives him in a Limo and then wonders why he can't get him to back off a single demand.. every time he waffles between fawning and 'tough guy", Putin's position is reinforced.

100% - it is so obvious

Just now, Mike31mt said:

Ukraine inevitably folds and Russia takes over.

Just like Afghanistan and Vietnam did.

Russia is in a no win situation. Were they to try to occupy the whole of Ukraine, there would be an insurgency the likes of which we have never seen.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

***Sigh, ok, one last time for the people who are ignorant of history.

The reason this is abhorrent and catastrophic for the US in the long term is because it is a clear abandonment by the US of the post WW2 order.

This is not true.

Who is more likely to allow US presence in that region -- a (albeit) smaller Ukraine, or a larger and more resource-rich Russia?

Unless we're talking about a hot war, then I reject this notion that we're abandoning anything. Clearly, that's not the case

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

Just like Afghanistan and Vietnam did.

Russia is in a no win situation. Were they to try to occupy the whole of Ukraine, there would be an insurgency the likes of which we have never seen.

This is absolutely nothing like either of those two conflicts

10 minutes ago, Gannan said:

All I hear from you is appeasement. Let me ask you, when has appeasing dictators ever worked? I mean ever in human history?

It's not appeasement at all. Again, Russia is calling our bluff if we escalate this. And we're not sending anything more than what we've already sent.

Time to acknowledge reality

Just now, Mike31mt said:

This is absolutely nothing like either of those two conflicts

It's exactly like those two conflicts, imperialist super power tries to conquer and occupy a smaller nation whose entire identity revolves around independence and self determination.