That was also 7 years before the first nukes. Like or not the dynamic has changed. De-escalation should always be goal #1.
Trump 47
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
That was also 7 years before the first nukes. Like or not the dynamic has changed. De-escalation should always be goal #1.
IMO, it is the same with or without nukes. Otherwise, you allow nuclear blackmail to be a valid geopolitical doctrine. That would increase the likelihood they are used by some country in the future. Then North Korea, Iran and others will start doing the same thing. Poland and Germany would then build nukes for protection, as would Iran and Saudi Arabia. Game theory fleshes out how that would go long term.
Furthermore, that isn't how the Cuban missile crisis was solved. JFK escalated until Kruschev acquiesced.
Bullies only understand being punched in the face. Putin is a bully. You have to punch him in the face or he will take and take and take.
mugatu
Ranger
Brinksmanship. It works when people don't want to destroy the world.
We are already in the 2nd Cold War and have been since 2014.
Demand Putin to stop offensive operations or Ukraine will get a blank check and full approval with all but the most cutting edge systems along with all frozen Russian assets.
And freeze territory as is with a caveat that Ukraine gets into NATO. Ukraine entering NATO would stop future Russian aggression. Any peace deal without that just means that this war restarts in 5 to 10 years after Russia has replenished their equipment losses. Similar to what just happened in 2022 after the 2014 hostilities.
Otherwise, I would not be suprised if Ukraine looks to build a bomb. Their country is at risk of disappearing without one.
And I say again, EU and NATO better step tf up for this to happen. Just tweeting "we stand with Ukraine" isn't going to cut it.
Fair enough. This could very well be the right answer. Biden nor Trump and no other European/Nato Country seems to think escalated ultimatums are the answer. Time will tell.
mugatu
Ranger
They've been supporting with weapons and money too... and look to be upping that. Also pretty sure EU has been talking about troops being near the current front to act as a peacekeeping force following any treaty. Ukraine wants the US to be part of that force.
Europe quietly works on a plan to send troops to Ukraine for post-war security
Increasingly alarmed that U.S. security priorities lie elsewhere, a group of European countries has been working on a plan to send troops to Ukraine to help enforce any future peace settlement with Russia.
apnews.com
mugatu
Ranger
Judge blocks Trump order threatening funding for institutions that offer care for transgender youth
A judge has continued to block President Donald Trump’s plan to pull federal funding from institutions that provide gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
apnews.com
A judge just struck down Trump's EO that he was arguing with and threatening the Maine giv over.
A more self sufficient Western Europe would be a positive outcome. If any of their leadership is thinking long term, beyond the current conflict that's what they should be doing. If our commitment to the world and our allies varies from election to election then they can no longer depend on us in times of need. Im concerned about what happens when we need them but in the near term that isn't something to be too worried about.
I worry that the lip service they are paying to Ukraine won't be backed up though, and then what do the NATO Balkan nations think if Putin turns his attention towards them.
Looks like it's already happening.
Norwegian fuel supplier refuses U.S. warships over Ukraine
Haltbakk Bunkers will cease supplying fuel to U.S. forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Looks like it's already happening.
Norwegian fuel supplier refuses U.S. warships over Ukraine
Haltbakk Bunkers will cease supplying fuel to U.S. forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.
I meant when we really needed them.
That being said, we reap what we sow. And right now I'm sure China is running around telling a bunch of nations we can't be trusted but they have their backs.
Being a surrender monkey to Putin resulting in a new and emboldened Iron Curtain USSR with eyes on actual NATO members ain’t it either.
Trump hasn’t “put his foot down”. He’s rolled over and exposed his white, soft, downy underbelly to Putin.
There has to be something between “WWIII” and Neville Chamberlainesqe giving Putin everything he demands and hoping he’ll be satisfied and stop where he is.
For instance….exchanging Ukrainian heavy metal resources for a security guarantee against further Russian aggression. Which is exactly what Zelenskyy asked for.
Last edited:
I agree, I'm not arguing Trump is handling any of this well, I'm arguing that giving Zelensky what he wants or needs hasn't stopped anything for 6 years now.
In my opinion, NATO should have stepped in when Russia invaded. But they all wanted to sit back and let the good ol US handle it and for what ever reason, we didn't.
Putin is kind of depleted right now. If we're going to do anything we better get on with it before China does get involved.
But there's still that question of "will the insane bastard go nuke if that happens"?
So I don't know but what we've been doing isn't getting us or Ukraine anywhere.
Big8+4-2-2+2-2+4+4
New member
You could not be more wrong:
Attachments
The question of “will the insane bastard go nuke if that happens” has been present since at least the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban nuclear crisis.
I posted here, on this site, that I kinda liked the Ukrainian heavy metals exchange idea.
I said that because I believed that an exchange of those resources would be a “line in the sand” where the US provided security guarantees in exchange…where we told Putin “ no more because we are allied by this agreement/exchange”. I wouldn’t have been happy with Putin keeping Ukrainian occupied territory, Ukraine not being allowed in to NATO, etc., but I would have been have been okay with it. It would have been an okay, but not ideal, compromise position. It wouldn’t have been giving Zelenskyy everything he wants by any stretch of the imagination.
What I saw this week, however, (and yes, I watched all of it) was Trump and Vance saying “give us the resources we want and we aren’t going to draw any line against Putin’s aggression. We’ll see what happens in the future.” Zelenskyy was absolutely right to not trust that crap and to walk out. Trump tried to get something for NOTHING using Putin as leverage. That’s not negotiating a peace. That’s colluding with Putin and dividing the spoils. Trying to blame that conduct on the prior administration is laughable.
And again, that has done nothing for anyone except cost millions of lives, and churn out money for defense contractors AND lost Ukraine territory.
So let’s rollover, grab Ukrainian heavy metal spoils, and hope Putin will stop where he has out of the goodness of his heart?
(Note the question mark. I’m not claiming that is what you’re saying. I’m asking what you actually are saying. You’ve already said you’re not arguing that Trump is handling this well. I’m asking what handling it well looks like to you.))
Similar threads
