March 2, 2025Mar 2 7 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: 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. Ok so we agree that Zelensky didn't come here to sign a deal that he then blew it up at the last minute then correct? He came to negotiate in person.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 Just now, we_gotta_believe said: 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 gullible like low-IQ rubes when you come running here with such easily refuted garbage. Find better sources if you want to be taken seriously. We have US embassies and US citizens in almost every major country - I have no need to look that up - it's common knowledge to me and to most people that paid attention in school. Maybe I wasn't clear - this would be a binding agreement between the United States and Ukraine - essentially would be EQUAL PARTNERS in mineral rights there. That would mean the United States would have a vested and economic interest in Ukraine - meaning US Companies, Citizens - US money - all being invested in Ukraine. The one thing it wouldn't be (which Putin would be against) is US Military or NATO presence there. Ideally, Putin would have little reason to start another war there if there is no "military" threat by NATO (in his eyes). And the fact that it would be handled by private companies could leave the door open for better economic relations between Ukraine/Europe and Russia in the future. It wouldn't be "military/government" vs "military/government" it would be "private companies" doing business, etc. It's really not that complicated.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 13 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: We have US embassies and US citizens in almost every major country - I have no need to look that up - it's common knowledge to me and to most people that paid attention in school So if the number of US citizens residing in the country is the deterrent, then what's the magic number that meets your standard of "enough"? Because clearly 30k wasn't "enough" in your highly informed opinion, so then maybe 50k? 60k? How many employees do you think it takes to run a modern day morning operation, bud? Do you think they're all down there with shovels and pick axes, filling up carts by hand?
March 2, 2025Mar 2 8 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Ok so we agree that Zelensky didn't come here to sign a deal that he then blew it up at the last minute then correct? He came to negotiate in person. Read Rubio's entire quote more closely. He states that "you guys didn't see it until the end" meaning that they were likely negotiating, etc - then Zelensky "blew it up at the end" by trying to negotiate it in public, through the media, in the Oval office - something that I don't believe has ever happened in the history of this country. There's a "time and place" for everything - including these types of negotiations - the one place you don't do that - especially as a world leader who the US has helped and is looking for continued help - is at the White House, in The Oval Office, in front of the media and the rest of the world. Imagine Churchill, Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin began to negotiate and argue when they met in public after WWII: And there were many negotiations/agreements/disagreements, etc and deals made during that meeting - but they didn't do it in front of the cameras and press. They looked like the best of friends in front of the cameras and the press - THAT'S HOW NEGOTIATIONS ARE HANDLED ON THE WORLD STAGE (That is, if you actually want to get something done).
March 2, 2025Mar 2 4 hours ago, Diehardfan said: So after playing with countries on their border for 30 years and supporting a country they are fighting in a war they decided to team up with Cuba and that proves what? If for the last 30 years they were admitting countries in LATAM into a defense pact with them and trying to put missiles down there (like the 60s) you'd have a point. So if we ignore Russia sending war ships for decades, missiles for decades, and oil pacts for decades yea Russia is totally not involved in Latin America. Damn you’ve gotten dumb.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 Just now, 20dawk4life said: So if we ignore Russia sending war ships for decades, missiles for decades, and oil pacts for decades yea Russia is totally not involved in Latin America. Damn you’ve gotten dumb. Defense pacts aren't the same lol my gosh
March 2, 2025Mar 2 1 hour 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/ Yes, I know. I watched it and understood what he was and was not saying. When he says this: 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 It's quite clear to me he's saying that from Ukraine and Zelensky's camp this was still a negotiation. The framework of something was there but nothing was agreed. How else would you read that?
March 2, 2025Mar 2 34 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: So if the number of US citizens residing in the country is the deterrent, then what's the magic number that meets your standard of "enough"? Because clearly 30k wasn't "enough" in your highly informed opinion, so then maybe 50k? 60k? How many employees do you think it takes to run a modern day morning operation, bud? Do you think they're all down there with shovels and pick axes, filling up carts by hand? I'm trying to be respectful - as a fellow Eagles fan (And you and I tend to agree on most issues with the Birds) so here goes... Do you remember the very first thing the US Government advised to US Ciitizens living in Ukraine when they realized Russia invading was imminent? Correct - they told them to leave Ukraine and even assisted in getting them out. If US Citizens refused to leave, then the US could no longer guarantee their safety. (Basically telling them they would be left to their own devices). But once an agreement is made - there will be vested US interests in Ukraine - meaning companies, people, etc etc - that are essentially there BECAUSE of the agreement between the US Government and Ukraine - AND hopefully as part of a peace treaty with Russia. There would be no US/European/NATO military presence in the area as part of this peace treaty. BUT if Russia were to "break the treaty" then that would no longer force the US/Europe etc to abide by that treaty. Understand?
March 2, 2025Mar 2 20 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: I'm trying to be respectful - as a fellow Eagles fan (And you and I tend to agree on most issue with the Birds) so here goes... Do you remember the very first thing the US Government advised to US Ciitizens living in Ukraine when they realized Russia invading was imminent? Correct - they told them to leave Ukraine and even assisted in getting them out. If US Citizens refused to leave, then the US could no longer guarantee their safety. (Basically telling them they would be left to their own devices). But once an agreement is made - there will be vested US interests in Ukraine - meaning companies, people, etc etc - are essentially there BECAUSE of the agreement between the US Government and Ukraine - AND hopefully as part of a peace treaty with Russia. There would be no US/European/NATO military presence in the area as part of this peace treaty. BUT if Russia were to "break the treaty" then that would no longer force the US/Europe etc to abide by that treaty. Understand? So you can't give me the magic number for what you meant by "enough citizens"? Gee, that's unfortunate. It's almost like your entire talking point was blown up the minute you couldn't explain why 30k citizens wasn't already enough of a deterrent. That's a real shame, bud, you were so close. And as for honoring agreements, we've been the ones honoring the Budapest memorandum but you know who hasn't? That's right, Russia hasn't honored it despite the tens of thousands of US citizens that lived there and the vested economic and geopolitical interests we already had. I mean, where do you come up with this weak crap? Is it Facebook memes, Fox News, Tucker Carlson, or what? Sorry, but you can take this dogshit argument elsewhere because all it's doing right now is making you look like an absolute moron who's desperate to be pretend like he has a clue about something he hasn't even spent 5 minutes to understand the history of.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 16 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Yes, I know. I watched it and understood what he was and was not saying. When he says this: 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 It's quite clear to me he's saying that from Ukraine and Zelensky's camp this was still a negotiation. The framework of something was there but nothing was agreed. How else would you read that? Zelensky was trying to negotiate a "peace deal" with the United States when all the US is doing with this deal is "tying ourselves to Ukraine" economically - so that if/when Russia comes to the table to negotiate the actual peace deal - the US can say, "We now have vested (non military) interests in Ukraine and would like to come to a peaceful resolution to this war." Why is that important? It tells Russia that the US is interested in this for Economic reasons NOT for military or "spheres of influence" reasons. The purpose of this deal was a "first step" towards bringing Russia to the table to negotiate a "peace deal" NOT the "peace deal" itself - which is what Zelensky seemed to want to negotiate.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 41 minutes ago, Ace Nova said: Read Rubio's entire quote more closely. He states that "you guys didn't see it until the end" meaning that they were likely negotiating, etc - then Zelensky "blew it up at the end" by trying to negotiate it in public, through the media, in the Oval office - something that I don't believe has ever happened in the history of this country. There's a "time and place" for everything - including these types of negotiations - the one place you don't do that - especially as a world leader who the US has helped and is looking for continued help - is at the White House, in The Oval Office, in front of the media and the rest of the world. Imagine Churchill, Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin began to negotiate and argue when they met in public after WWII: And there were many negotiations/agreements/disagreements, etc and deals made during that meeting - but they didn't do it in front of the cameras and press. They looked like the best of friends in front of the cameras and the press - THAT'S HOW NEGOTIATIONS ARE HANDLED ON THE WORLD STAGE (That is, if you actually want to get something done). It was close to an hour long publicized meeting. You expected them to just smile and nod for the camera the whole time? Of course their disagreements came up and negotiations came up. And Vance came in with the whole being grateful nonsense which is such an incredibly twatty thing to do it boils my blood. And comparing Trump to any of those guys is laughable. No he doesn't get the same respect as Churchill. Nor does he deserve it.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 23 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: It was close to an hour long publicized meeting. You expected them to just smile and nod for the camera the whole time? Of course their disagreements came up and negotiations came up. And Vance came in with the whole being grateful nonsense which is such an incredibly twatty thing to do it boils my blood. And comparing Trump to any of those guys is laughable. No he doesn't get the same respect as Churchill. Nor does he deserve it. Vance didn't say anything to Zelensky that Biden didn't say. If anything the congressmen he met with earlier likely blew enough smoke up his arse before the press conference that Zelensky should get screened for colon cancer
March 2, 2025Mar 2 2 hours 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. Well yeah it could have it Zelensky would have agreed to sign without a security agreement from the US. However, that isn't possible for Zelensky. He MUST get a proper security agreement or he fights on.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 3 hours 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.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 30 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: So you can't give me the magic number for what you meant by "enough citizens"? Gee, that's unfortunate. It's almost like your entire talking point was blown up the minute you couldn't explain why 30k citizens wasn't already enough of a deterrent. That's a real shame, bud, you were so close. And as for honoring agreements, we've been the ones honoring the Budapest memorandum but you know who hasn't? That's right, Russia hasn't honored it despite the tens of thousands of US citizens that lived there and the vested economic and geopolitical interests we already had. I mean, where do you come up with this weak crap? Is it Facebook memes, Fox News, Tucker Carlson, or what? Sorry, but you can take this dogshit of an argument elsewhere because all it's doing right now is making you look like an absolute moron who's desperate to be pretend like he has a clue about something he hasn't even spent 5 minutes to understand the history of. What "magic number" are you talking about? Enough Citizens? No, I'm actually politically independent - watch about as much Fox News as I do CNN, etc - and I acknowledge that most of these cable news networks are highly partisan and politically driven - most being left leaning - Fox News right leaning. The one cable news station that consistently isn't "right or left" is News Nation - maybe you should watch that a little more. The Budapest Memorandum was primarily a non proliferation of nuclear weapons agreement. It also set guidelines for the sovereignty of Ukraine, among other nations. The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][53] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[52] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[53] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[54] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[55] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Although not obligated to, the US and its allies still helped Ukraine financially as well as giving them weapons during both Crimea and this current war. I'm not sure who or what you're angry at but your anger and calling people "morons" doesn't help you or whatever point you're trying to make.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 2 hours 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/ "Kellogg and Zelensky had agreed to a deal with one item still to be finalized,” the US official said of the talks that concluded Feb. 21." - From the very article you posted. Zelensky was clear on multiple occasions exactly what that item was that needed to be finalized.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Well yeah it could have it Zelensky would have agreed to sign without a security agreement from the US. However, that isn't possible for Zelensky. He MUST get a proper security agreement or he fights on. Not if you want peace. Putin isn't coming to the table with that.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 Reports are that Starmer, Micron and Zelensky are negotiating a new ceasefire and will bring it to US once ready. They’re kind of leaving the most important person out aren’t they?
March 2, 2025Mar 2 7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Well yeah it could have it Zelensky would have agreed to sign without a security agreement from the US. However, that isn't possible for Zelensky. He MUST get a proper security agreement or he fights on. He can get his security agreement from his neighbors.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 2 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Reports are that Starmer, Micron and Zelensky are negotiating a new ceasefire and will bring it to US once ready. They’re kind of leaving the most important person out aren’t they? No they aren't. WWII was mess because Europe couldn't get their s*** together. We had to take on Japan and Germany at the time. We're in no shape (literally and physically) to take on Russia and China at the same time.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said: Not if you want peace. Putin isn't coming to the table with that. If you don’t want to be called a Russian stooges, maybe stop with the "not if you want peace” BS, in the same breath you mention the very person responsible for starting the Fing war in the first place.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 2 minutes ago, lynched1 said: No they aren't. I always thought that negotiated cease fires required input from the dominant force winning the war. Guess they can do it without them.
March 2, 2025Mar 2 This pretty much sums up the hypocrisy of the lefties on this issue - especially those on this thread
Create an account or sign in to comment