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). 

Counterpoint: what possible reason does Zelensky have to sign an agreement that gives away land, resources and offers no deterrent to Russia from invading again?

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

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. 

There’s nothing that would convince which is why no one cares to try. 

50 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

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.

So either way troops on the ground which has been mentioned or a defense pact like you mentioned is NATO membership under another name.

Neither one will allow the war to end. If Putin is intent on conquering Poland and others next he's not going for that. If it was about NATO he's not going for that. It's an absolute deal breaker so it's not just that's it.

9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

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. 

 

QUESTION:  And my source tonight is the Secretary of State, who was in that room today, Marco Rubio.  Thank you so much, Secretary Rubio, for being here.  We just heard from President Zelenskyy.  He said he does not think that he owes President Trump an apology for what happened inside the Oval Office today.  Do you feel otherwise?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I do.  I do.  Because you guys don’t see – you guys only saw the end.  You saw what happened today.  You don’t see all the things that led up to this, so let me explain.  The President’s been very clear; he campaigned on this.  He thinks this war should have never started.  He believes – and I agree – that had he been president it never would have happened.  Now here we are.  He’s trying to bring an end to this conflict.  We’ve explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to a negotiating table.  We want to explore whether peace is possible.  They understand this.  They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which, to me, as I’ve explained and I think the President alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way because we’re involved; it’s now us, it’s our interests.

That was all explained.  That was all understood.  And nonetheless, for the last 10 days in every engagement we’ve had with the Ukrainians there’s been complications in getting that point across, including the public statements that President Zelenskyy has made.  But they insisted on coming to D.C.  This agreement could have been signed five days ago, but they insisted on coming to Washington and there was a very – and should have been a very clear understanding:  Don’t come here and create a scenario where you’re going to start lecturing us about how diplomacy isn’t going to work.  President Zelenskyy took it in that direction and it ended in a predictable outcome as a result.  It’s unfortunate.  That wasn’t supposed to be this way, but that’s the path he chose, and I think, frankly, sends his country backwards in regards to achieving peace, which is what President Trump wants at the end of the day – is for this war to end.  He’s been as consistent as anyone can be about what his objective is here.

QUESTION:  But what specifically do you want to see President Zelenskyy apologize for?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, apologize for turning this thing into the fiasco for him that it became.  There was no need for him to go in there and become antagonistic.  Look, this thing went off the rails.  You were there, I believe.  It went off the rails when he said:  Let me ask you a question – to the Vice President – what kind of diplomacy are you talking about?  Well, these – this is a serious thing.  I mean, thousands of people have been killed – thousands – and he talks about all these horrible things that have happened to prisoners of war and children.  All true, all bad.  This is what we’re dealing with here.  It needs to come to an end.  We are trying to bring it to an end.

The way you bring it to an end is you get Russia to the table to talk, and he understands that.  Attacking Putin, no matter how anyone may feel about him personally, forcing the President into a position where you’re trying to goad him into attacking Putin, calling him names, maximalist demands about Russia having to pay for the reconstruction – all the sorts of things that you talk about in a negotiation.  Well, when you start talking about that aggressively – and the President’s a deal maker, he’s made deals his entire life – you’re not going to get people to the table.  And so you start to perceive that maybe Zelenskyy doesn’t want a peace deal.  He says he does, but maybe he doesn’t.  And that act of open undermining of efforts to bring about peace is deeply frustrating for everyone who’s been involved in communications with them leading up to today. 

 

 

https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-with-kaitlan-collins-of-cnn/

 

36 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Is that what Zellensky wanted?  Do you have a source?

 

Troops on the ground or a defense pact is the same thing as NATO membership so it really doesn't matter. If people want to believe Putin invaded a country twice the size of Poland that's larger than France to take it over or if they believe it was over NATO membership he's not going to end a war with either on the table.

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

 

QUESTION:  And my source tonight is the Secretary of State, who was in that room today, Marco Rubio.  Thank you so much, Secretary Rubio, for being here.  We just heard from President Zelenskyy.  He said he does not think that he owes President Trump an apology for what happened inside the Oval Office today.  Do you feel otherwise?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  I do.  I do.  Because you guys don’t see – you guys only saw the end.  You saw what happened today.  You don’t see all the things that led up to this, so let me explain.  The President’s been very clear; he campaigned on this.  He thinks this war should have never started.  He believes – and I agree – that had he been president it never would have happened.  Now here we are.  He’s trying to bring an end to this conflict.  We’ve explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to a negotiating table.  We want to explore whether peace is possible.  They understand this.  They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which, to me, as I’ve explained and I think the President alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way because we’re involved; it’s now us, it’s our interests.

That was all explained.  That was all understood.  And nonetheless, for the last 10 days in every engagement we’ve had with the Ukrainians there’s been complications in getting that point across, including the public statements that President Zelenskyy has made.  But they insisted on coming to D.C.  This agreement could have been signed five days ago, but they insisted on coming to Washington and there was a very – and should have been a very clear understanding:  Don’t come here and create a scenario where you’re going to start lecturing us about how diplomacy isn’t going to work.  President Zelenskyy took it in that direction and it ended in a predictable outcome as a result.  It’s unfortunate.  That wasn’t supposed to be this way, but that’s the path he chose, and I think, frankly, sends his country backwards in regards to achieving peace, which is what President Trump wants at the end of the day – is for this war to end.  He’s been as consistent as anyone can be about what his objective is here.

QUESTION:  But what specifically do you want to see President Zelenskyy apologize for?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, apologize for turning this thing into the fiasco for him that it became.  There was no need for him to go in there and become antagonistic.  Look, this thing went off the rails.  You were there, I believe.  It went off the rails when he said:  Let me ask you a question – to the Vice President – what kind of diplomacy are you talking about?  Well, these – this is a serious thing.  I mean, thousands of people have been killed – thousands – and he talks about all these horrible things that have happened to prisoners of war and children.  All true, all bad.  This is what we’re dealing with here.  It needs to come to an end.  We are trying to bring it to an end.

The way you bring it to an end is you get Russia to the table to talk, and he understands that.  Attacking Putin, no matter how anyone may feel about him personally, forcing the President into a position where you’re trying to goad him into attacking Putin, calling him names, maximalist demands about Russia having to pay for the reconstruction – all the sorts of things that you talk about in a negotiation.  Well, when you start talking about that aggressively – and the President’s a deal maker, he’s made deals his entire life – you’re not going to get people to the table.  And so you start to perceive that maybe Zelenskyy doesn’t want a peace deal.  He says he does, but maybe he doesn’t.  And that act of open undermining of efforts to bring about peace is deeply frustrating for everyone who’s been involved in communications with them leading up to today. 

 

 

https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-with-kaitlan-collins-of-cnn/

Do you really believe Marco Rubio? Seriously?

 

Just now, DEagle7 said:

Do you really believe Marco Rubio? Seriously?

Yah, we should believe you instead

8 minutes ago, Procus said:

Putins'  puppet in action

Of course he was mocked by the usual insane suspects at the time

 

And to his credit, he was spot on that Germany would eventually regret the dependence on Russia gas. Nordstream was a huge mistake and they are paying the price now.

 

23 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

So you think Ukraine would give up basically everything for only de-escalation? 

No. 

Ukraine isn't "giving up everything".  They made a stand and stopped Russia from taking over their country.   But eventually (should have been done 2 years ago, imo) once that was accomplished, Ukraine - along with the rest of the world should have moved towards de-escalation. 

Whether anyone agrees with Putin or not - there should have been constant and open dialogue with Putin - on a daily basis - through ambassadors, leaders, etc - the last thing that should have been done was isolating Putin so that he ends up believing everything he thought was true - that Ukraine was really trying to join NATO (not true imo) and that somehow The West was trying to take over Russia (or Russian controlled territories) - whether through influence or other  - also not true, imo.  

As far as the current agreement, if it led to a cease fire and brought Russia to the table in negotiations, it would have been better progress than anything that has been accomplished towards peace there over the past 3+ years, imo. 

1 minute ago, Procus said:

 

Do you think that every Russian soldier is elated to fight in Putin’s stupid war? Are we going to see war crimes next from the Ukrainian side? What’s the point here? Turning the victim into the perpetrator?

 

2 minutes ago, Frankfurteagle89 said:

Do you think that every Russian soldier is elated to fight in Putin’s stupid war? Are we going to see war crimes next from the Ukrainian side? What’s the point here? Turning the victim into the perpetrator?

 

of course not - but the people running Ukraine right now are no angels either

See that's once again the thing....that will not be part of a peace deal. Russia will not go for that and the UK knows that. Second, IF that happens I hope Trump pulls us out of NATO immediately. Let them get pulled into a war and we'll watch.

Funny how he's like we are doing this without the US but oh yeah we need the US if it's going to work.

1 minute ago, Procus said:

of course not - but the people running Ukraine right now are no angels either

Oh, you can't say that. You are just a Russian troll now

 

18 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Counterpoint: what possible reason does Zelensky have to sign an agreement that gives away land, resources and offers no deterrent to Russia from invading again?

The minerals agreement would put US Citizens and companies on the ground in Ukraine.  That means the US would have a vested interest in Ukraine - economically.  It wouldn't be a "military" interest as in NATO - so it wouldn't "infringe" on Russia's sovereignty the same way a military presence would. 

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

The minerals agreement would put US Citizens and companies on the ground in Ukraine.  That means the US would have a vested interest in Ukraine - economically.  It wouldn't be a "military" interest as in NATO - so it wouldn't "infringe" on Russia's sovereignty the same way a military presence would. 

Exactly.

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

The minerals agreement would put US Citizens and companies on the ground in Ukraine.  That means the US would have a vested interest in Ukraine - economically.  It wouldn't be a "military" interest as in NATO - so it wouldn't "infringe" on Russia's sovereignty the same way a military presence would. 

The minerals agreement is a far cry from guaranteed support in the setting of an invasion. So give up half of your country's metal natural resources so we might have more incentive to not allow Russia to invade you in the future. Sounds like a pretty crap deal. 

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

of course not - but the people running Ukraine right now are no angels either

No one is claiming that. In wartime there was and always will be terrible human suffering. Bad actors from both sides. Let’s agree on that?!

Which country is fighting for their existence? Are Young Ukrainians trying to dodge going to war?! Hell yes and i can’t blame them. Ukraine is running out of soldiers and that’s why this war needs to end sooner than later. Russia has taken massive losses and their tactics resemble their WW2 tactics. Just send soldier after soldier into the meat grinder and eventually the enemy will run out of bullets.

21 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Do you really believe Marco Rubio? Seriously?

 

Yes, I actually do.  Whether you agree with his politics or not he has always come out as a "straight shooter" imo -  he comes out as being "truthful"  in his beliefs, even if you or anyone else may not agree with him.

11 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

The minerals agreement would put US Citizens and companies on the ground in Ukraine.

Ah yes, solid point. If only we had US citizens and companies on the ground in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 then Russia wouldn't have dared to invade... oh wait.

Just now, Ace Nova said:

 

Yes, I actually do.  Whether you agree with his politics or not he has always come out as a "straight shooter" imo -  he comes out as being "truthful"  in his beliefs, even if you or anyone else may not agree with him.

He really isn't. Not even remotely close. I'm certainly going to believe Zelensky's repeated statements that he wouldn't sign without a security agreement before the event over Marco doing damage control after his boss just threw a temper tantrum on TV 

31 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

There’s nothing that would convince which is why no one cares to try. 

It's from a source that lacks credibility citing nobody specific about things supposedly going on behind the scenes.

Things that are completely at odds with all other public statements from Ukraine and Zelensky in the prior weeks and contradicting even Rubio who stated that Ukraine has not been receptive to their offer "that could have been signed weeks ago" if only they accepted what the US told them to accept with nothing in return.

I determine reality based on factual reporting.You routinely share the most insane Twitter accounts an right wing rags, sometimes in image snippets that lack any citation whatsoever. 

Your criticism of what I believe is hilarious.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Ah yes, solid point. If only we had US citizens and companies on the ground in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 then Russia wouldn't have dared to invade... oh wait.

 

Come on now.  Certainly you understand there would be a major difference between having enough US citizens, companies there in a 50-50 agreement vs the amount of US citizens and companies there in the past?  And the fact that this is (literally) an agreement between the US Government and Ukraine - not just private companies and private citizens doing business there.  Apples & Oranges. 

9 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

He really isn't. Not even remotely close. I'm certainly going to believe Zelensky's repeated statements that he wouldn't sign without a security agreement before the event over Marco doing damage control after his boss just threw a temper tantrum on TV 

If you read his statement closely he says that the securities of having US companies and citizens there was the type of security the US was willing to offer but it "wasn't getting through" to Zelensky.  So he indirectly acknowledges that Zelensky either didn't understand or wanted more.  He states that Zelenskly KNEW where the US stood 5 days ago (it could have been signed) but Zelensky thought he could get more by coming here. 

 

14 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

Come on now.  Certainly you understand there would be a major difference between having enough US citizens, companies there in a 50-50 agreement vs the amount of US citizens and companies there in the past?  And the fact that this is (literally) an agreement between the US Government and Ukraine - not just private companies and private citizens doing business there.  Apples & Oranges. 

Oh we didn't have "enough" US citizens? We literally have an embassy in Ukraine and had ~30k citizens living there prior to the invasion. 

Do you guys even bother to look anything up before poorly regurgitating the latest Fox News talking points? All it does it make you all look like gullible low-IQ rubes when you come running here with such easily refuted garbage. Find better sources if you want to be taken seriously.