1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

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.  

First of all, the US isn't negotiating a peace deal with Zelensky.  It is a minerals deal.

Zelensky is looking for an actual security deal, not an economic deal, and that is the problem.

1 hour 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. 

Typically the process for this type of thing is short presser, detailed meetings, longer presser.  The initial press meeting should have been just a formality with a couple of quick setup questions and some pleasantries.  The hosts should have shut this thing down the minute it started to drag into debated details.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

First of all, the US isn't negotiating a peace deal with Zelensky.  It is a minerals deal.

Zelensky is looking for an actual security deal, not an economic deal, and that is the problem.

The two are not mutually exclusive.  During WWII, we had a lend lease program with the Brits that wasn't paid off until the 21st century.

57 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

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 

The problem was that Vance said it in front of the world.  Biden said it behind a closed door.

18 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

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.

 

How do you know the details?  Official recognition of Crimea/territories, etc?

As far as a 20 year banning of Ukraine joining NATO - a "warring country" cannot join NATO  (territorial dispute) -  and in most cases historically, countries with contested territories/at war, are not invited to join NATO.  This is done so that NATO remains a "defensive alliance" and prevents NATO nations from being forced to go to war or defend nations that have current or relatively recent military conflicts.   The purpose of NATO is to avoid war - not to bring its members into war. 

26 minutes ago, Gannan said:

 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. 

Zelensky is looking for Americans to join his national guard.

Are you saying you're less commited to your cause than they are of the cause you perceive them to back?

If that is your tact in life you are always going to lose when it matters.

51 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? 

I think they are making a mistake.  I guess they feel they have to try but it won't amount to anything.  Trump will never agree to anything that Trump didn't put his name on as author.

Also I can't believe a reporter asked him why he doesn't wear a suit and if he has any

Some great journalism there

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The problem was that Vance said it in front of the world.  Biden said it behind a closed door.

I don't have a problem with that. You s*** talk in public you get "back handed" in public. You s*** talk in private you get "back handed" in private.

You definitely don't take s*** from a guest with his hand out in your house. That never works.

Interestingly enough no one bishing about this had a problem with Obama publicly back handing McCain.

43 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

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.

No, he genuinely thought they could figure out a way forward.  Rubio thought the same.  Turns out they were wrong.  A poor example of diplomacy on both sides.

11 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

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?

I don't think Putin would invade Ukraine again.  This was has nearly crippled Russia's military, their economy and their relations with Europe.   If Russia understands that the US has economic interests in Ukraine - not military interests - non NATO interests, etc - he would have little reason to want to go through something like this again. 

4 hours ago, Gannan said:

On "terget" is a good way to put it Trumptards.

9 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

 

How do you know the details?  Official recognition of Crimea/territories, etc?

As far as a 20 year banning of Ukraine joining NATO - a "warring country" cannot join NATO  (territorial dispute) -  and in most cases historically, countries with contested territories/at war, are not invited to join NATO.  This is done so that NATO remains a "defensive alliance" and prevents NATO nations from being forced to go to war or defend nations that have current or relatively recent military conflicts.   The purpose of NATO is to avoid war - not to bring its members into war. 

Because those are the details that would allow Putin to put pen to paper and we've already heard them slipped out by Hegseth and others.

The peace agreement would settle all territory disputes between Russia/Ukraine.

7 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

he would have little reason to want to go through something like this again

Right, because we'd have enough US citizens living there this time! Why didn't anyone think of that last time?  

You're like a child trying to fit in and be acknowledged by adults

5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I don't think Putin would invade Ukraine again.  This was has nearly crippled Russia's military, their economy and their relations with Europe.   If Russia understands that the US has economic interests in Ukraine - not military interests - non NATO interests, etc - he would have little reason to want to go through something like this again. 

Wishful thinking. If Putin gets everything he wants in a so called "peace deal” without giving up anything, then he will not only have his eyes on the rest of Ukraine, but also the Baltic States as a new goal.

29 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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

I actually am completely non-partisan.  I don't agree with partisan politics.  The vast majority of the time - when it comes to politics - the solution is usually somewhere in the middle  - it's rarely "ONLY THIS"  or "ONLY THAT".

I've voted for more Democrats and Independents over the years than I have Republicans, if that helps.  But the party itself isn't what I vote for - it's the person and what I  think that person will (or hopes to) do while in office and how it will affect the country, the world, etc. 

25 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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

You sure about that?   

21 minutes ago, Procus said:

You are a Russian stooge.

5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I don't think Putin would invade Ukraine again.  This was has nearly crippled Russia's military, their economy and their relations with Europe.   If Russia understands that the US has economic interests in Ukraine - not military interests - non NATO interests, etc - he would have little reason to want to go through something like this again. 

While you "don't think Putin would invade again" Zelensky is forced thru experience to "know Putin will invade again" short of Putin having full control (be that territorial or political) over Ukraine.  That is the position he is dug into and one that people in Europe understand all too well.

btw - Hegseth has ordered the stoppage of all offensive cyber operations against Russia as reported in the NYT a couple hours ago.

The plan here is to force Zelensky to resign and then replace him with a Putin puppet and then sign a peace plan.  Russia gets all the stuff I listed in the other post and doesn't have to fight another day to have full control over Ukraine.  He can then go home and clean up for half a year and get started again in the Baltic States.  Trump will have gotten some minerals out of it though.

5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I actually am completely non-partisan

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Right, because we'd have enough US citizens living there this time! Why didn't anyone think of that last time?  

You're like a child trying to fit in and be acknowledged by adults

I'm still not sure of what you're talking about having "enough US citizens there"?  Are you confusing me with someone else?  I never said that having "enough US citizens" in Ukraine would deter anything.  Where did you get that from?

You do understand the difference between saying "The US having a vested interest in Ukraine economically,, with US companies, US citizens there through an official 50/50 agreement with Ukraine" vs saying, "There will be a lot of US citizens there"?  Correct?

 

6 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

You sure about that?

If only you had a couple brain cells to run together to figure out what the violation of a country's sovereignty looks like. 

6 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I'm still not sure of what you're talking about having "enough US citizens there"?  Are you confusing me with someone else?  I never said that having "enough US citizens" in Ukraine would deter anything.  Where did you get that from?

You do understand the difference between saying "The US having a vested interest in Ukraine economically,, with US companies, US citizens there through an official 50/50 agreement with Ukraine" vs saying, "There will be a lot of US citizens there"?  Correct?

 

 

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

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?  

This is getting embarrassing. You sure everything is okay with you? 

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

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

Quoting it again now that you're trying to pretend you never said it.

Imagine being dumb enough to not realize there were US citizens and companies already in Ukraine prior to Russia's invasion. They're not sending their best, folks.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

If only you had a couple brain cells to run together to figure out what the violation of a country's sovereignty looks like. 

 

I was livid when Putin invaded Ukraine - and it still angers me.   

That said, it should have been dealt with beginning 2 years ago after Ukraine bravely made their stand.  Talks - however fruitful or non-fruitful they may be should have begun in order to deescalate the war. 

What should not have happened is a complete isolation of Putin and planting him on the world stage as "an enemy of the world".  Whether you believe that or not - and maybe he is - maybe he isn't - that sort of thought process will lead to nothing but more war and thousands and thousands of casualties - with the danger of escalating a regional war into a world war.

  Is that what you want?  Most don't - so the way to peace - to avoid further escalation - is through diplomacy - no matter how much you despise a person, a nation, political ideology, etc