an almost 80 y/o doesn't think long term xD

other old people do think long term though. its not his age that does not make donald think long term, its his world view.

Russia had basically been spitting in Trump's face until now, answering all his talk and initiatives for peace with stalling and even more missiles raining down on Ukraine. Less than a week after Trump threatened tariffs on India over them buying Russian oil, and after his admin started mumbling about doing the same for China, Putin is suddenly willing to begin direct talks - where the diplomatic and PR pressure to come out with at least something will be extremely high.

Basically, as soon as these direct negotiations begin, it's only a matter of time until the war has to wind down at least somewhat. As I've already argued 3-5 months ago (can't quite remember), Russia was fully aware of this fact and therefore delayed and stalled as much as they could. It's of course not a coincidence that things got moving now. China and India might back Russia in some broad sense, but they clearly aren't willing to sustain painful damage to their own economies just so Putin can have an additional 100km of Ukraine. Ultimately, neither China nor India give a rat's ass, one way or the other, about what happens in Ukraine.


------------------


All that being said, I actually agree with you that strongarming India like that is a short-sighted move and a strategic mistake with regard to the longer-term geopolitical conflict between the Western bloc and the China-led bloc.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 8 2025 08:45am

Could you please elaborate on “Trump initiatives rejected by Putin”?

30 days unconditional ceasefire to resupply UA forces idiotic and was dead on arrival.

Lets turn the tables, if Ukraine had a massive advantage in resources / manpower and was winning on the battlefield while Russia suffered from lack of resources / equipment, poor morale, 400K desertions and people doing everything to dodge mobilization, do you believe Ukraine would except a ceasefire if the Russians demanded it?

This post was edited by Djunior on Aug 8 2025 10:44am

Im going to take the agree (at the end) and run. im not greedy.

Yeah none of us really know where both sides stand behind closed doors. I think Russia ultimately wants something permanent and long lasting solidifying their hold and preventing continuing NATO creep, while Trump probably just wants the quick end without much in the guarantees on no NATO for Ukraine or other things.

No, and this is why

https://ds-int.org/down-syndrome-awareness-month/

IN MY OPINION:

Russia's Goals:

Russia’s primary goal is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO or allowing Western ballistic missiles on its soil. It also aims to permanently annex Crimea (to prevent a Western foothold there) and parts of eastern and southern Ukraine—regions where, in Russia’s view, Ukraine abandoned the people living there by bombing those areas for eight years. This position is rooted in the 2014–2022 conflict in Ukraine’s east—a de facto civil war triggered by the US-backed coup in Kyiv in 2014 and the political rejection of that event by Eastern Ukraine. By mid-2025, over 6 million Ukrainians were registered as refugees across Europe under temporary protection or UNHCR status, while more than 1 million fled eastward to Russia. This large-scale displacement in both directions highlights not only the intense violence but also the deep political and cultural divisions within Ukraine, with significant populations rejecting Kyiv’s post-2014 authority. What is often overlooked is that, beyond territorial aims, Russia seeks a formal, binding security framework with the US to prevent future NATO expansion and military threats near its borders.

US Goals:

The US aims for Ukraine to remain independent and aligned with the West, while halting or reversing Russia’s territorial claims in Ukraine as much as possible. It seeks to secure and potentially expand NATO’s influence in Eastern Europe as a strategic buffer—efforts that have been actively pursued in both Georgia and Ukraine. The major obstacle to any peace deal is Russia’s insistence on a binding security framework with the US to keep NATO and Western military forces away from its borders. Since the US refuses to agree to this, lasting peace in Ukraine remains unlikely as long as Washington continues to pursue NATO expansion around Russia—mirroring its approach toward China. While the US has gained access to Ukraine’s valuable rare minerals and resources, this is secondary to its primary goal: to destabilize and weaken Russia over time, using the war and sanctions as tools to that end.

Not until all of their own territory is under their control again. But that's the fundamental asymmetry here, the fundamental difference between aggressor and defender: Ukraine never had any aspirations of annexing Russian territory, while Russia wants to seize half of Ukraine.


If Russia was losing badly on the battlefield, calling for a ceasefire in which they get to keep Ukrainian territory which they seized illegitimately, but cannot hold by military means, would be preposterous.
Ukraine or its allies proposing a ceasefire which enshrines the current status quo, a proposal in which Russia is basically asked to "take the win and go home", is far less outlandish.


And that's already touching on one of the big points imho: Trump will presumably negotiate something along the lines of the current status quo and present Ukraine with a fait accompli - will they actually swallow it, or will they act up?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 8 2025 03:25pm