What’s different about those war and this one? I remember all those blank checks we sent to France and Denmark rather than getting in the fight.
We have, Have you forgotten the Kurds that CORRUPT Filthy Don CIC threw under the bus after doing the dirty work in AFGAN . Promises made, promises broke.
How do you think the war could end with the USA, Ukraine, and the west winning? I don't see Russia just giving up.
That fine in theory, but how are you going to convince Russia to do this? In the end, it still comes down to negotiations. Russia is not going to stop the war, and give up the land they won, and pay reparations to Ukraine voluntarily.
They were also involved in Operation Enduring Freedom. All phases. Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.
Ukrainian involvement in the Iraq War - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Thanks for reminding us about the Ukraine help in Iraq.
Our actions in Iraq were strongly opposed by most populations including a sizable portion in this country.
Russia has long said they don't want Ukraine to join Nato. The west was flirting with allowing Ukraine into Nato and then Russia attacked Ukraine. Putin called the bluff of the US and Nato. Im sure Putin feels like Ukraine owes him for backtracking on the deal to remain independent.
You don't. You're simply too ignorant to recognize what is obvious.
JFC - it took the US getting attacked itself to get fully engaged.
Have you read a history book? Ever? This is literally what happened in Czechoslovakia. If Putin double pink swears will you believe him? This is unbelievable and american adult can’t see this.
How does this end where Ukraine, USA, and Nato win without getting in WW3? I have laid out a few scenarios, what do you see playing out?
Same way it did when Finland threatened and then did join NATO.
Who gets to decide whether Ukraine gets to join NATO?
This is the MAGAt version of shock and awe. This is how far the Republicans have fallen.Idea proposed is that Trump and company purposefully pushed for a confrontational, nationally televised meeting with Zelensky as an effective pretext for taking a Russia friendly position and subsequent "deal" to end the war.
It Was an Ambush
Today marked one of the grimmest days in the history of American diplomacy.www.theatlantic.com
Leave aside, if only for a moment, the utter boorishness with which President Donald Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance treated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House today. Also leave aside the spectacle of American leaders publicly pummeling a friend as if he were an enemy. All of the ghastliness inflicted on Zelensky today should not obscure the geopolitical reality of what just happened: The president of the United States ambushed a loyal ally, presumably so that he can soon make a deal with the dictator of Russia to sell out a European nation fighting for its very existence.
Trump’s advisers have already declared the meeting a win for “putting America first,” and his apologists will likely spin and rationalize this shameful moment as just a heated conversation—the kind of thing that in Washington-speak used to be called a “frank and candid exchange.” But this meeting reeked of a planned attack, with Trump unloading Russian talking points on Zelensky (such as blaming Ukraine for risking global war), all of it designed to humiliate the Ukrainian leader on national television and give Trump the pretext to do what he has indicated repeatedly he wants to do: side with Russian President Vladimir Putin and bring the war to an end on Russia’s terms. Trump is now reportedly considering the immediate end of all military aid to Ukraine because of Zelensky’s supposed intransigence during the meeting.
Vance’s presence at the White House also suggests that the meeting was a setup. Vance is usually an invisible backbencher in this administration, with few duties other than some occasional trolling of Trump’s critics. (The actual business of furthering Trump’s policies is apparently now Elon Musk’s job.) This time, however, he was brought in to troll not other Americans, but a foreign leader. Marco Rubio—in theory, America’s top diplomat—was also there, but he sat glumly and silently while Vance pontificated like an obnoxious graduate student.
Putin decided they didn't want Ukraine to join nato. they conveyed this message by telling us that exact thing and then they acted on it by invading Ukraine once the west was talking about admitting Ukraineto nato. It doesn't matter if you and the west believe him, we now have to deal with the invasion.
Same as Finland. Putin wants no part of a war with NATO. His success has been as a puppeteer controlling Trump.
Of course you do, and you’re doing a woman’s job. Now go make me a sandwich.
I did answer your question. Putin stated he did not want Ukraine to join nato. When the west were talking about a path for Ukraine joining Nato, putin put his words into action and invaded Ukraine.
- We don't get to decide what Putin thinks is justifiable.
- It depends on who had more leverage for negotiation. But this is just a hypothetical question, so it is impossible to know. What if Russia occupied Cali and they said if we shoot one bullet at them, they will nuke the entire western half of the country. We could try to call their bluff, but we could also have nukes destroy our country.
- Why do you think he invaded Ukraine? He told the west that he would attack if Ukraine joined nato, He stuck to his promise, what makes you think he wasn't telling the truth. If you claim he is trying to take back the Soviet Union countries, what evidence do you have that this is his goal? He would have to attack nato countries if he were to succeed in putting the soviet union back together, don't you think this action would start ww3? This seems very unlikely imo.
this is part of the negotiation process. My first post in this thread I say I don't know if it was a planned ambush or not, but that doesn't matter. If Trump wants to make a negotiation, he needs to get Russia to trust him, and he needs to get Ukraine to believe they have to make the deal or else they are at risk of losing more land or losing the support of the USA. It may work out, it may not, I don't know. But I don't support the unlimited supply of weapons and money to Ukraine like was happening under Biden. So something had to change. I am willing to see if Trump can make a deal.
I don't think you understand Putin doesn't get to declare WWIII. If he wants to fight NATO it will be a WW over almost before it starts.Putin said, "If somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of a very serious global conflict". Take this to mean what you want, but I would put this threat in the category of ww3.Vladimir Putin threatens World War 3 if NATO troops are sent to Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened a global conflict if the United States deploys troops to Ukraine.www.express.co.uk
I don't think you understand how a negotiation works if you think Russia will just give up all the land they took. Its like losing while gambling and then asking for your money back after you lost.
Putin thinks of the US and Nato as the bully because they continued courting Ukraine joining Nato even after Putin warned them not to. I think Putin would laugh at Trump if he said he had to give back all the land for nothing. That would bring us back to the same place we are today. And then what happens
For one thing, Hitler and Tojo didn't have nukes. You're missing the point, you can't reward the aggressors.
Never heard of the spoils of war?
We aren’t rewarding the aggressors, we are facilitating an end to conflict. How do you see a peaceful end to this happening without giving Russia something?
