Didnt Trump claim he would end the war within 24 hours?

Seems it wasnt so easy after all...

Gotta disagree. If that was the case, every war would end with the destruction or unconditional surrender of the losing side. I'd say for the dominant side in a conflict to accept a non-maximalist peace deal, the uncertainty and risks they are faced with when continuing the war must outweigh the additional gains which they could achieve, relative to the deal at hand.

The big issue with the current conflict is that the pieces Russia still wants (definitely the full Donbass, potentially also Sumy, Kharkiv, Odessa) are worth a lot to them while the risk that this war turns badly is currently low. They know full well that Trump would like to get this over with and has no love lost for Ukraine anyway, just like they know that the European public is increasingly war-weary.

This is also why it imho was such a big strategic blunder by Trump to bet on appeasement and a conciliatory tone to start these negotiations. Russia responds to strength, not weakness. Ostentatiously taking instruments to hurt Russia off the table has weakened, rather than improved, the Western bargaining position.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 29 2025 05:46pm

They didn't invade when Trump was president, though, they invaded under Biden. It's an existential issue for them now, if the regime loses, the regime dies. Trump's problem in this conflict is that he believes it can be solved peacefully, it can't. One side has to decide that the risks of waging war are greater than the costs. I don't think that will be Russia, because negotiating a peace on bad terms is regime suicide, and whereas in the US that might mean a nice retirement to Martha Vineyards, or your ranch in Wyoming, in Russia that means you get thrown from a building and die.

Russia already has the territories it wants.

The problem is Ukraine doesn’t want to negotiate.

Zelensky’s regime is the one that would absolutely collapse after peace is made.

This post was edited by kayko on May 30 2025 02:35am

There’s really no reason for China to have issues with Russia, especially considering they’ve resolved virtually all of their border disputes. It’s simply not rational for neighboring countries to maintain conflicts when the logical and mutually beneficial approach is to resolve differences peacefully. At the same time, an overreach by the West, weaponizing Ukraine and ever escalating this war, now with long range missiles into Russia risks unintended consequences that could escalate the conflict further. but I accept this is an argument you dont agree with, or are not bothered by.

This post was edited by ferdia on May 30 2025 05:44am

It's not that I am unbothered, it's that I deem this doom scenario far more unlikely than you apparently do. Which is perfectly okay.
Imho, we cannot allow a nuclear power to get away with offensive wars just because they wag their nukes. Nuclear threats need to be taken seriously, but they can't be a carte blanche.





Then why do they keep attacking?
Also, Russia's top diplomats are officially demanding the entirety of the 4 annexed oblasts, of which they don't currently control the entire territory. So the very official Russian position is that they do not have all the territories they want right now.


This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 30 2025 07:44pm

Exactly, and a large reason is the glaring display of weakness on the international stage during the horribly botched Afghanistan withdrawal of the Biden admin. Like I've said: Russia responds to strength, not weakness - it has been like that for literally centuries.



What you write here is correct, but the premise seems off. Say a peace deal enshrines the status quo, with Ukraine officially ceding these territories, the West officially recognising Crimea, most of the Donbas and the land bridge connecting the two as Russian territory, rump-Ukraine officially gives up any NATO ambitions, but remains a sovereign country and is free to join the EU - would that be such a bad outcome for Putin that it threatens his regime? I don't think so.

It would be extremely easy to spin such an outcome as a huge triumph of a defiant Russia which, under the glorious leadership of president Putin, has stood up to NATO encroachment, corrected a historic mistake stemming from the dissolution of the USSR and protected the lives of their Russian-speaking brethren from the terror of the nazi regime next door.

The leader who is at greater risk of defenestration or a polonium drink is Zelensky, not Putin.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 30 2025 07:45pm

«no nazis in Ukraine because their president is Jewish” team delivers again.

This time with a classy neonazi photoshop in LA:

Russia would probably consider their war in Ukraine a defensive war. I accept this is a difficult notion for some people to swallow, or rather, would not be able to swallow the notion. A bit like how Israel attacks all its neighbors to defend itself, if that makes the notion more palatable.
Also I am very confused. you say we cannot allow a nuclear power...thats where the argument falls apart - a nuclear power will do whatever it wants and "we" just have to suck it up. Take the US for example. The United states threatened the following countries with nuclear bombs:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1954): “The United States will use atomic weapons whenever it is necessary to achieve national objectives.” and “The Korean War had to be ended, and the Communists had to know that we were prepared to use atomic weapons if necessary.”
John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State, 1955): “[The U.S. would] not hesitate to use atomic weapons.”
General Curtis LeMay (US Air Force, 1960s): “We should bomb the North Vietnamese back into the Stone Age.”
President George W. Bush (2002, “Axis of Evil” speech): Listed Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Libya, and Syria as potential nuclear strike targets. and in 2006 - “All options are on the table.”
During the cold war threats of nuclear response were part of U.S. deterrence doctrine re: Europe.

Its a fact that many countries were allies with Hitler: Italy, Japan, Hungary, Slovakia.
Also Ukraine believed that they could ally with Hitler and gain independence.
Also nazists conquered nearly whole Europe: they showed some good combat skills, this is why others tried to copy their combat tactics.
This is how nazi symbols came to Ukraine, and were adopted by various groups of peoples.
It doesnt make them nazi.