Trump vs Zelensky

I guess it's the left's way of making fun of Lindsay's sexual proclivities.
 
UK government adopting Zelensky political tactics to suppress free speech:-

 
Focusing on Trump vs. Zelensky obscures what may really be behind this "dispute". Trump, for a long time, has been on a tirade that the members of NATO have to contribute more to the alliance, including the Ukraine even-though the Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Trump wants the Europeans to take greater responsibility for protecting Europe. As a consequence of this hissy fit many European leaders have come to the defense of Zelensky, but apparently have not made any substantive proposals for Ukrainian support beyond empty words. Trump may be indirectly "forcing" them to take greater involvement. Trump does not want the US to be the one providing the majority of Ukrainian support.
 
Ukraine seeks U.S. security both financially and militarily. Trump wants a return on our investment including mineral rights. Europe wants to continue its long 'holidays' and 'free healthcare' without getting its hands dirty, while Uncle Sap shoulders the load once again.
 
I think we need to remember that Ukraine was a significant Nuclear power and was persuaded to completely disarm billions of dollars worth of Nuclear weapons, based on protection to be provided primarily by the US, and the UK and France at the time. This happened when the USSR collapsed and only removed some of its weapons.

Putin is trying to reassemble it, and doesn't care how he achieves his desires.

Whilst we would all like to see an end to the war, cuddling up to Putin is not the way to do it, he has zero regard for anyone else or a majority of his own people.
He has consistently reneged on various treaties he signed to prevent Russia expanding it's borders, and being the aggressor.

Putin is pulling all the strings at the moment, and Trump has removed any element of a vaguely satisfactory solution (from a Ukraine perspective, remember they were ones invaded) by openly telling everyone he won't help without signing up an asset stripping agreement with a war-torn country.

In other news...

I have no problem making other NATO countries pay their way, UK included.
Unfortunately, like all things in life, if someone isn't making you pay, you aren't going to volunteer the money unless you are "reminded".
It's been left to drift too long, and needs rectifying.

The UN needs to remove the Veto from the major players, nothing ever gets passed, as half the time the Veto gets used politically by the very nations that requires action against them. No teeth.
 
Minty said:
I think we need to remember that Ukraine was a significant Nuclear power and was persuaded to completely disarm billions of dollars worth of Nuclear weapons, based on protection to be provided primarily by the US, and the UK and France at the time. This happened when the USSR collapsed and only removed some of its weapons.

Putin is trying to reassemble it, and doesn't care how he achieves his desires.

Whilst we would all like to see an end to the war, cuddling up to Putin is not the way to do it, he has zero regard for anyone else or a majority of his own people.
He has consistently reneged on various treaties he signed to prevent Russia expanding it's borders, and being the aggressor.

Putin is pulling all the strings at the moment, and Trump has removed any element of a vaguely satisfactory solution (from a Ukraine perspective, remember they were ones invaded) by openly telling everyone he won't help without signing up an asset stripping agreement with a war-torn country.

In other news...

I have no problem making other NATO countries pay their way, UK included.
Unfortunately, like all things in life, if someone isn't making you pay, you aren't going to volunteer the money unless you are "reminded".
It's been left to drift too long, and needs rectifying.

The UN needs to remove the Veto from the major players, nothing ever gets passed, as half the time the Veto gets used politically by the very nations that requires action against them. No teeth.
Click to expand...

Some of the things you mentioned especially at first, @Minty , I did not know - I will have to ponder that a bit.

I do think the only way you draw anyone to the peace table is by giving some to both sides. Even the terrible, despicable, unspeakably bad HAMAS had to be negotiated with a little bit - it wasn't considered cuddling up, it was considered negotiation.

What other solution do you propose? I don't think it's totally unreasonable to get something back minerals-wise from our support, I'm uncomfortable with it, but in a squirmy way, kind of like when you're uncomfortable asking someone to split the bill at a restaurant BUT at the same time you feel like at that particular point it's totally the fair thing to do.

Unfortunately there's not tons of options. Keep fighting (monies are being drained on all sides and the toll of human life is indescribible), negotiate some piece of land (obviously Ukraine doesn't want this), give them security guarantees (which is like saying we will start war with Russia and I'd rather not be microwaved any time soon), or the combination of negotiate for peace with some land ceding and continued US $support and some giving up of minerals in Ukraine. Russia hasn't been great at keeping agreements, but surely you'd concede now is different from before - their military is decimated and it's very unlikely they would decide or want to invade again for a real long time.

It does stink for Ukraine, I'm not saying it doesn't. But unfortunately we aren't there to magically make everything right - it literally can't be made right. Someone got bested by a powerful bully next to them - so powerful none of us want to directly intervene.
 
Before 1991, there were verbal assurances made to Soviet leaders that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward, though nothing was formally agreed upon. After the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO started to expand into former Eastern Bloc countries, with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joining in 1999. Russia saw this as a broken promise and a direct threat to its security, while NATO argued that countries had the right to choose their own alliances. It’s similar to how the U.S. has historically opposed foreign military influence in its own hemisphere, as seen with the Monroe Doctrine, showing that great powers often push back when they feel their influence is being challenged near their borders.
Click to expand...
 
moke123 said:
What are we getting from Israel? Trump Gaza?
Click to expand...
Not much other than just the treat of the middle east not devolving into a further catastrophe than it already is. If Iran took over Isreal, that seems like a direct threat to our security and Iran's coming up. I'm not sure the same can be said for Russia reclaiming Ukraine, but I can see an argument there too
 
moke123 said:
What are we getting from Israel? Trump Gaza?
Click to expand...

and PS, the most generous, kind thing anyone could possibly do for the Gazans is to take it over and rebuild it for them. They obviously can't govern themselves without making extremely costly mistakes when choosing governance.
 
I'm not sure, there's been no history attempt at it. Maybe we could. I say we help them out a bit.
 
PutinTrumpZelensky.png
 
One thing for sure. If Trump had not forced the issue of Ukraine, the politicians in the UK and Europe would still be sat back in their warm bath, accepting that the war could just bumble on without unduly affecting them. Not a single extra €, £ would have been added to their defence budgets.

The UK has recently had a new budget forcing huge rises in taxation to pay for ludicrous socialist schemes with nothing allowed for defence. It appears almost like Reeves from Complaints, the Chancellor had no knowledge of the war. This was a person who claimed to have inherited huge debts. Then came up with the idea that spending huge extra amounts would fix the issue. If someone is faced with debts, most people don't go out and buy a new car and book a World cruise.
 
Sorry forgot to hit post
Pat Hartman said:
We can't make fun of Graham's sexual proclivities.
Click to expand...
Why not? It's only a thing because he hides it. You know, family values and all that.

Pat Hartman said:
even some mostly naked, real freak doing a bump and grind at a Gay Pride parade as he waves his genitalia in the face of small children along the parade route.
Click to expand...
How many of those parades have you attended? Or are you just assuming that's what happens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BlueSpruce
NFL Tampa Bay Bucs vs. New Orleans Saints
Replies
17
Views
182
BlueSpruce
BlueSpruce
Isaac
Another example of fake news
Replies
3
Views
274
Steve R.
Steve R.
Dick7Access
Question for Legal Beagles
2
Replies
28
Views
2,592
AccessBlaster
A
BlueSpruce
Where and what were you doing on 9/11/2001?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2,035
AccessBlaster
A
Isaac
Rational vs. irrational reporting
2
Replies
37
Views
2,939
ColinEssex
ColinEssex

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom