2 hours 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 agreement would only be a security agreement in the event Russia further attacks Ukraine.  In return, Putin would get a boatload of concessions including official recognition of Crimea, possession of the territories Putin now occupies, restoration of the Russian territory occupied by Ukraine, a 20yr banning of Ukraine from membership in NATO, and the lifting of sanctions against Russia.  Yes, he'd sign that.  Well, unless his plans are to continue taking more of Ukraine.

4 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? 

You mean the war criminal who started the war? Could you be more of a Russian stooge. F Putin, if he wants peace, he will accept the terms Ukraine gives him. 

2 hours ago, Procus said:

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

I certainly didn't mock him for saying that and I don't think anyone in here did so either.

4 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

I always thought that negotiated cease fires required input from the dominant force winning the war. Guess they can do it without them.

They have to get Zelensky's s*** together before they can go to his adversary. They apparently aren't far enough along to involve Russia at this point. You go to Putin after it's litigated and in writing.

11 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

"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.

So you’re saying Zelensky was being disingenuous by pushing to come here to sign when his intention all along was to make more demands? I’d agree with that.

4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

You mean the war criminal who started the war? Could you be more of a Russian stooge. F Putin, if he wants peace, he will accept the terms Ukraine gives him. 

Could you be more of a dunce? No, no you couldn’t. Smoke another one Brody.

This is insanity 

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/14u52bnDg2/?mibextid=wwXIfr

7 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

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. 
 

Hi, guess what? Putin gets a vote. If you want him to agree then don't do things that will be deal breakers like NATO membership or that with another name like security deal. Same thing. 

2 hours 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/

 

Zelensky was clear on multiple occasions he wasn't accepting the mineral deal as a security deal. 

27 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. 

 

I was showing how deals are made - especially with nations on the opposite ends of the political spectrum (Churchill, Roosevelt - Stalin). 

If the US/Europe could successfully negotiate a peace deal with Joseph Stalin - after WWII - then why can't Ukraine/Europe/The US negotiate one with Russia now? -   In hopes of preventing anything like WWII from happening again? 

 

Sounds like he's been at this for a minute.

2 hours ago, Procus said:

Depends on the purpose and circumstances

You mean it depends on whether its one of your people or not. 

12 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

You mean the war criminal who started the war? Could you be more of a Russian stooge. F Putin, if he wants peace, he will accept the terms Ukraine gives him. 

Do you see any Russian stooges in the room with you right now?

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

You mean it depends on whether its one of your people or not. 

That is the most idiotic response you could have made.  Congressmen and government representatives frequently speak with our adversaries.

2 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

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.

He isn't saying put boots in Ukraine now to wage war.  He's talking about putting a peace keeping unit in to preserve peace after an agreement is reached.

This would also be the start of a more coordinated Euro/British effort militarily for all purposes and not just Ukraine.  Exactly the kind of thing that Trump rightly has been pushing for.

3 hours ago, Tnt4philly said:

Never in my life would I have thought I’d see the day the GOP became Russian stooges. 

This is all about opening up Russian markets so Elon can sell Teslas there, Apple can sell iPhones, and Bazos can set up Amazon distribution centers there. There is absolutely no advantage for the United States to betray our allies and switch sides to ally with rogue nations and dictators. While betraying western democracies is surprising, Trumptards like Zuker, Procus, and WV Mike who would chop off their own wieners if Trump told them to, going along with it is hardly a surprise at all. 

2 hours 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. 

 

Yeah, there you go.  Both sides KNEW the deal wasn't complete yet.  Both agreed to meet in Wash DC. Pretty standard to go f2f to solve a final issue when the sides feel things are close enough.

I think Rubio botched this one which is why he looked so dejected on the couch.  He didn't read the situation correctly thinking that Zelensky would back down once he got to DC.

10 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I was showing how deals are made - especially with nations on the opposite ends of the political spectrum (Churchill, Roosevelt - Stalin). 

If the US/Europe could successfully negotiate a peace deal with Joseph Stalin - after WWII - then why can't Ukraine/Europe/The US negotiate one with Russia now? -   In hopes of preventing anything like WWII from happening again? 

Probably partially because Roosevelt wasn't actively blowing Stalin through Yalta. 

43 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

No, I'm actually politically independent

Ah yes, the fabled "politically independent" Trump voter who doesn't even like him but will spend hours defending every idiotic and embarrassing thing he ever does

36 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

It also set guidelines for the sovereignty of Ukraine, among other nations

Oh honey, you're so close to getting it.

I finally watched it. Seemed like Vance started it by being an idiot and then trump pounced like another idiot

 

1 minute ago, Mike030270 said:

I finally watched it. Seemed like Vance started it by being an idiot and then trump pounced like another idiot

It's such a painful watch

1 hour 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. 

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.  

I understand your thinking but there is ZERO chance that Zelensky can accept that deal.  He knows that Putin will invade again as soon as he can do so.  What would the US do at at that point?

4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

It's such a painful watch

Not as painful as reading your insane drivel