March 2, 2025Mar 2 1 minute ago, Procus said: Do you see any Russian assets in the room with you right now? So.... simple question do you think it's appropriate for a member of congress to secretly meet with the dictator of a nation hostile to the United States. Yes or no?
March 2, 2025Mar 2 12 minutes ago, The Norseman said: This is exactly my point. It's fine if he didn't like the deal, but he made every indication to the contrary. Then he agreed to fly over here and do this singing only to set the whole thing ablaze when he got here. Very odd. He was very very clear all along that he wouldn't accept a deal without a security guarantee. This was likely a miscalculation by Rubio who probably thought a deal would get thru if they met f2f and they pressured Z.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 9 minutes ago, The Norseman said: This is exactly my point. It's fine if he didn't like the deal, but he made every indication to the contrary. Then he agreed to fly over here and do this singing only to set the whole thing ablaze when he got here. Very odd. You’re right, there was no benefit for Z and Ukraine to piss off one of their main allies in their fight against Russian aggression. It was a disaster from their side, but this whole debacle in front of the world was instigated by JD Vance. He clearly goated Z into the exchange and the dude took the bait. It really helped no one. It was a disaster and only benefited one person: Putin.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 46 minutes ago, The Norseman said: Obviously, this was a public embarrassment and it was Trump at his worst. Made us look terrible and probably further galvanized Putin. Everyone will measure this on their pre plotted pro/anti Trump agenda, but I've been trying to objectively understand what the hell happened here and I just can't get there. Can anyone figure out what Zelensky was trying to accomplish? I understand he wanted more security guarantees, but they could have just pushed off the singing while he kept that on the table. Maybe garner more support from the Europeans by re-negging on the deal and starting a war of words with the US? But why walk away from the table with a major ally? Just seems very odd to me that he would fly all the way over here on the pretense that he would work through the final details of the deal and then publicly light it on fire. Not sure how any of this helps Ukraine. Uh, he didn’t walk away? They were resuming talks after the press conference and Trump told Waltz and Rubio to tell Zelensky to leave.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 53 minutes ago, Diehardfan said: Like I said when I posted it wasn't her making the video it was Rubio talking about it. He said all he needed to do was sign. Again, US troops on the ground isn't a small issue. It's a deal breaker. No way he comes in if that wasn't cleared up and he backed out. You can think I'm dumb. I'll think you just are seeing it the way you want to and we'll move on. We don't need troops on the ground. Z needs an agreement that the US will help defend Ukraine IF Russia restarts the war. That's it. Rubio never said an agreement was in place. Not once.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 56 minutes ago, Diehardfan said: Honestly, I'm moving there with you as well but instead of stupid just not seeing things because I know you aren't dumb. There is no way he'd bring him in if that non starter wasn't cleared up. Well, he did just that thinking they could pressure Z in the f2f.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 20 minutes ago, The Norseman said: This is exactly my point. It's fine if he didn't like the deal, but he made every indication to the contrary. Then he agreed to fly over here and do this signing only to set the whole thing ablaze when he got here. Very odd. No he didn't.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 1 hour ago, Diehardfan said: US troops on the ground in the Ukraine is the NATO issue that started the war under a different name. Yes. Believe what you want at this point, speaking of obtuse. Is that what Zellensky wanted? Do you have a source?
March 2, 2025Mar 2 7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: No he didn't. Yes he did. He agreed to sign it 3 times, the White House meeting being the 3rd. He sided with the war mongering Democrats and his people are going to suffer even more because of it.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 17 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Who (and why) would anyone allow a hard left partisan to meet with Zelensky prior to meeting with Trump? Was the meeting in private? And if so, how could anyone think that doing that would help in any sort of a "peace agreement" that is trying to be brokered "outside" of hard left or hard right partisan politics? There is zero reason Zelensky should have been brought into internal left vs right politics - especially prior to meeting with Trump and signing the agreement. SMH.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 Never in my life would I have thought I’d see the day the GOP became Russian stooges.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 3 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Yes he did. He agreed to sign it 3 times, the White House meeting being the 3rd. He sided with the war mongering Democrats and his people are going to suffer even more because of it. Wow. Unbelievable.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 6 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Yes he did. He agreed to sign it 3 times, the White House meeting being the 3rd. He sided with the war mongering Democrats and his people are going to suffer even more because of it. He was VERY clear he would not sign without a security agreement. He agreed he would sign with one in place. And no, the minerals aren't a security agreement as much as you want one to be.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 21 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: He was very very clear all along that he wouldn't accept a deal without a security guarantee. This was likely a miscalculation by Rubio who probably thought a deal would get thru if they met f2f and they pressured Z. Rubio said the deal could have been signed "a week ago" but it was Zelensky who insisted on coming here to get the deal done.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: Who (and why) would anyone allow a hard left partisan to meet with Zelensky prior to meeting with Trump? Was the meeting in private? And if so, how could anyone think that doing that would help in any sort of a "peace agreement" that is trying to be brokered "outside" of hard left or hard right partisan politics? There is zero reason Zelensky should have been brought into internal left vs right politics - especially prior to meeting with Trump and signing the agreement. SMH. That’s a good question. Then, almost immediately after the blow up the Europeans all posted exactly the same thing. I’m sure it was purely coincidental
March 2, 2025Mar 2 11 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Yes he did. He agreed to sign it 3 times, the White House meeting being the 3rd. He sided with the war mongering Democrats and his people are going to suffer even more because of it. He did not agree to sign it without any security guarantees. That's simply false.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: He was VERY clear he would not sign without a security agreement. He agreed he would sign with one in place. And no, the minerals aren't a security agreement as much as you want one to be. Wrong, they had an agreement and Zelensky pushed for the Oval Office signing https://nypost.com/2025/02/28/us-news/top-zelensky-adviser-pushed-for-oval-office-mineral-deal-signing-against-trump-envoy-kelloggs-advice/
March 2, 2025Mar 2 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: He was VERY clear he would not sign without a security agreement. He agreed he would sign with one in place. And no, the minerals aren't a security agreement as much as you want one to be. Come on now - do you think Putin would agree to a deal that essentially says the US and Europe would take Ukraine's side in any future dispute with Russia? (No matter what the circumstances?) That is essentially asking to be defended as if they were a part of NATO. The idea behind this agreement is to begin deescalation - not to create further tensions with Putin (who already thinks or thought that Ukraine was trying to join NATO).
March 2, 2025Mar 2 7 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: Rubio said the deal could have been signed "a week ago" but it was Zelensky who insisted on coming here to get the deal done. That's not what Rubio said. He said if Ukraine accepted the US's initial terms - which frankly are crap - this "could have been done a week ago". So sure, if Zelensky wanted to give up land, rare earth minerals, and chunks of their country to Russia with no security agreement in place it "could have been done a week ago," but those terms are unacceptable.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 34 minutes ago, Gannan said: So.... simple question do you think it's appropriate for a member of congress to secretly meet with the dictator of a nation hostile to the United States. Yes or no? Depends on the purpose and circumstances
March 2, 2025Mar 2 Putins' puppet in action Of course he was mocked by the usual insane suspects at the time
March 2, 2025Mar 2 7 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Wrong, they had an agreement and Zelensky pushed for the Oval Office signing https://nypost.com/2025/02/28/us-news/top-zelensky-adviser-pushed-for-oval-office-mineral-deal-signing-against-trump-envoy-kelloggs-advice/ I'm not buying reporting from a right wing rag. Zelensky has been on record for the whole of last week that they wouldn't sign without a security guarantee.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: Come on now - do you think Putin would agree to a deal that essentially says the US and Europe would take Ukraine's side in any future dispute with Russia? (No matter what the circumstances?) That is essentially asking to be defended as if they were a part of NATO. The idea behind this agreement is to begin deescalation - not to create further tensions with Putin (who already thinks or thought that Ukraine was trying to join NATO). So you think Ukraine would give up basically everything for only de-escalation? No.
Create an account or sign in to comment