He has made statements to this effect. however, real peace is not anywhere on the horizon. as noted previously, even if there is a cease fire it can not be lasting. i played earlier on, here is a blurb:


The war in Ukraine is often called an emergency — a sudden blaze that shocked Europe — but it’s more like a marathon than a sprint, a slow tide that has been rising for decades. This didn’t happen overnight; it built up year by year. Ukraine’s fight for independence stretches back over a century, shaped by empire, famine, revolution and freedom. The events of 2014 sped things up, pushing Ukraine West with American backing — a risky shortcut that skipped steady institution-building and put Kyiv on a direct collision course with Moscow. The tide has come in, and Europe is now knee-deep in waters it once thought were far away. Finland, one of Europe’s strongest militaries, recently said it will not send peacekeeping troops. NATO boots in Ukraine risk direct conflict with a nuclear power. So support remains material — weapons, training, funding, intelligence — but no soldiers who could spark a wider war.

For years, Europe outsourced Russia policy to Washington. NATO promised the idea of Ukraine joining, without providing real guarantees — enough to provoke Moscow, not enough to deter it. The US helped shape the conditions that led to invasion, yet Europe now expects Washington to solve the crisis it helped create. The EU refuses talks with Moscow, yet hopes the US will deliver a peace plan. Washington is pivoting elsewhere, and Europe is still walking a path its guide has already left behind. Europe’s actions show where this is heading. The EU is arming at record pace. Germany aims for the largest army in Europe. Ammunition plants are scaling up for the 2030s. Around €210 billion in frozen Russian assets are earmarked — not for post-war rebuilding, but to fuel the conflict now. Analysts openly speak of a war lasting a decade or more. Europe is preparing for confrontation, not compromise. The question is not if Europe pays, but how much.

The economic cost is already heavy. Energy markets are reshaped, industry weakens, defence budgets swell while households face inflation and austerity. If Europe is a bank and Russia is a depositor, Europe has changed the rules to block withdrawal — and the world is watching. War is a bottomless pit. Instead of investing at home like China, Europe has stepped into strategic quicksand. Every move forward sinks it deeper.

Ukraine remains firm. Its constitution forbids giving up territory or negotiating directly with Vladimir Putin. Pre-2014 borders — Crimea included — are non-negotiable. Russia refuses to retreat but also shows no intent to conquer all of Ukraine. The EU requires unanimity for diplomacy, making compromise structurally unlikely. The United States supplies weapons — for a price — but has no appetite for unlimited involvement. What remains is resolve, not resolution. And even elections will not change the trajectory. There is hope in some circles that new Ukrainian elections might soften Kyiv’s position — perhaps weakening national resolve or empowering voices favouring compromise. But even if political leadership shifts, the fundamentals do not. Ukraine’s political class — across parties — is overwhelmingly Western-aligned. Public opinion is hardened by bloodshed. The constitution forbids territorial concessions. Any leader who proposes them risks immediate collapse. Elections might weaken Ukraine internally, but they will not solve the dispute. They could fracture unity, drain morale, and strengthen Russia’s bargaining position — yet the core problem remains unchanged:

A Western-aligned Ukraine unwilling to concede territory vs. a Russia unwilling to accept NATO on its border. A new president cannot sign away land any more than Russia can accept a NATO-integrated neighbour. The conflict is not about personalities — it is about incompatible goals. And that is why even a peace deal would not bring peace. A treaty would only freeze the frontline, not fix the reasons both sides fight. Like Korea, Kashmir or the Middle East, it would pause the war, not end it. Ukraine would rearm for restoration. Russia would rearm to prevent it. Both would wait for a future moment of advantage. Peace on paper without alignment is just an intermission — a ceasefire with a timer ticking beneath it. As long as Ukraine seeks Nato integration and the Donbass, Luhansk and Crimea etc. talks cannot resolve what neither side can concede. All signs point not toward peace, but toward duration — a long conflict born from Ukraine’s century-long struggle, accelerated by 2014 and Western intervention. Europe let America lead, only to watch it step back when costs rose. Now the EU refuses negotiation while hoping the US finds a solution. The tide is still rising, and Europe continues deeper each year.

This post was edited by ferdia on Dec 9 2025 06:59pm

I dont need to frame them as bad, the russians have earned that reputation all on their own with their wars of aggression over the centuries featuring a ridiculous amount of rape. Just because their pact with Hitler in ww2 didn't work out doesnt absolve them of their past and current atrocities.

Find me a story where you can frame the russian army as good and ill send 10fg right now.


In other news I think we might be in the prewar phase of ww3.


European intelligence agencies have found that a Russian sabotage network was preparing to blow up planes flying to the United States.

According to the Financial Times, the explosives seized were enough to organize mid-air bombings – an attack on a scale not seen since September 11, 2001.

The uncovered operation was part of a broader hybrid campaign that Moscow is deploying in Europe. A series of disparate incidents now form a coherent pattern of escalation.

Analysts note that Russia’s hybrid attacks go beyond a reaction to the war against Ukraine and indicate preparations for a potential major conflict.

Intelligence assessments echo the NATO 2023 report, which predicts Russia’s readiness for war with Europe by 2029.

This post was edited by duffman316 on Dec 9 2025 10:55pm

Sorry Ferdia but this is too much wall of text. As I see right now, the matter is rather simple, Trump wants the war to end but to not be blamed for by stopping all support. He wants to be regarded as deal maker for a peace deal. I don't think he is aware of cares much about much of the content in that wall of text of yours. If it is what I think Europe + Ukraine will be at a huge loss.

in simplistic terms, the US breaking away from this conflict is likely to make this conflict last even longer, and to make it get a whole lot worse.

This post was edited by ferdia on Dec 10 2025 06:17am

A terrorist attack on US Soil, perpetrated by Russia? Why would Russia want full US involvement in the war?

This post was edited by IR0K on Dec 10 2025 09:27am

False flag by Azov/SBU.

Original FT article Ukrainians quote recounts all recent false flags quite well, from fake drone sightings attributed to Russians to this nonsense about blowing up US planes.

Makes you wonder - who stands to benefit?

NATO is not just a military alliance, but also a bureaucratic structure. And like all bureaucratic structures, its #1, 2 and 3 objective is to maintain its funding and relevance. Of course voices from within NATO structures will seize every opportunity to paint a picture of the world in which massive further funding to NATO is paramount for survival of its member states. It's similar to how a climate/inequality/racism scientist will never come to the conclusion that we have solved climate change/inequality/racism because that would mean his chair could be wrapped up.


Also, what would war with Europe even look like in practice? The troop strength and materiel of the Russian military has been significantly depleted by the war in Ukraine, and they haven't even taken 10% of Ukraine's territory throughout the 4 years of war. It's completely absurd to think that they could muster a ground invasion which goes further than the Baltics in 3-4 years.


Furthermore, Europe has nukes of its own, so it's not like a full victory for Russia - with a new Russian Empire stretching from Wladivostok to Lisbon - would ever be on the table even in the best of scenarios (from Russia's pov). And Europe has a significantly larger industrial capacity than Russia - in an all-out war in which their own butts are on the line, Europe could and would outproduce Russia.

Aaaaand last but not least, US investment funds have trillions of dollars invested in the European economy, and US corporations make hundreds of billions of dollars a year on the European market. No matter who sits in the White House, no matter how isolatonist he is and how much he would love to abandon Europe, the POTUS will have no other choice than to send US troops if Europe couldn't win this war on its own. The alternative would be that tens of millions of Americans lose their pension, and that the American billionaire class loses a notable chunk of its total wealth. Political pressure from the bottom and the top would leave no alternative to coming to Europe's aid.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 10 2025 02:31pm

It must be those darn Russians who are pushing for peace- they must of have attacked the people’s soil that are also pushing for peace.

/e it’s a test to see whose peace is bigger

This post was edited by colorful on Dec 10 2025 03:34pm

im away for a few days so here is my final wall of text XD

The U.S. conflict with Venezuela is often presented as a fight against drugs or “narco-terrorism,” but that is a story, not the substance. At a structural level, this is a struggle over oil, sovereignty, and hemispheric control — a modern test of the Monroe Doctrine. The crisis did not appear suddenly; it has been building for more than a century. Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves have long been a source of wealth and leverage, but for decades that wealth was extracted primarily by foreign companies, especially U.S. firms like Standard Oil and Gulf Oil. Early contracts and concessions allowed these companies to profit massively while Venezuela received only a fraction of the value of its resources. From the Venezuelan perspective, this was exploitation: the country’s natural wealth was removed for the benefit of outsiders, while domestic development lagged. Political leverage accompanied economic extraction, as U.S. involvement shaped infrastructure, oil policy, and even domestic governance. This history of resource exploitation and external interference created deep-seated resentment toward the United States — a historical memory that still drives hostility today.

The Monroe Doctrine, announced in 1823, established the principle that the entire Western Hemisphere — North, Central, and South America, plus the Caribbean — was considered a U.S. sphere of influence. European powers were warned against interference, and over time the doctrine evolved to justify U.S. intervention whenever it deemed regional independence or sovereignty a challenge to its strategic interests. In practice, it became a framework through which the United States asserts that no major power may establish a foothold anywhere in the Americas without Washington’s approval. Venezuela, by aligning with Russia, China, and Iran while controlling vast oil reserves, represents exactly the kind of challenge the Monroe Doctrine was designed to prevent — a strategically independent state in the hemisphere operating outside U.S. control.

For decades, Venezuela was a reliable supplier of oil and a relatively quiet partner in the hemisphere. But Chávez’s rise changed the dynamic. He used oil wealth to project influence, fund regional allies, and resist U.S. dominance. The United States responded not with diplomacy alone, but with sanctions, economic pressure, political support for opposition forces, and selective military action. Every measure is designed to enforce compliance — not to eradicate narcotics. The “drug narrative” is a convenient frame for domestic audiences and international justification, but the real leverage comes from oil, geography, and Venezuela’s ability to resist the U.S.-led order in the Americas. Historical exploitation is the root of Venezuela’s hostility: decades of resource extraction, political interference, and U.S. dominance created a memory of intervention and dispossession that Chávez and Maduro have invoked to consolidate domestic support and resist Washington’s pressure.

This is a conflict rooted in the Monroe Doctrine. A large, oil-rich country openly aligned with rival powers is not merely inconvenient; it is a challenge to the U.S.’s historic sphere of influence. Every strike, every sanctions package, every seizure of oil shipments is intended to remind Caracas that sovereignty has limits when it clashes with U.S. strategic interests. Coercion, not persuasion, is the tactic, and it punishes both the government and the population, making the state lean further on allies like Russia and China to survive.

Economically and politically, Venezuela is under tremendous strain, yet the country endures. Oil — the true lifeblood of this struggle — is both a target and a shield. The U.S. seeks to control access, shape contracts, and deny rivals strategic leverage, while Venezuela uses it to sustain itself and resist domination. This is not a battle over narcotics; it is a battle over who sets the rules in the Americas — the entire hemisphere — who controls resources, and who can act independently without Washington’s permission.

Venezuela remains firm. Its leadership will not bow to U.S. pressure easily. Any temporary concessions would not resolve the fundamental conflict: a U.S.-dominated hemisphere versus a Venezuela asserting autonomy through oil wealth and historical resistance to foreign exploitation. Like Korea, Ukraine, or other protracted conflicts, any settlement would be a pause, not a resolution. The strategic tide continues rising, and the U.S. is navigating waters defined not by drugs, but by decades of power, oil, historical grievance, and hemispheric politics, all under the shadow of the Monroe Doctrine.


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


the TLDR here is: If we want to condemn Russia, lets condemn the US as well.

Myrnohrad is turning into a massacre from the looks of online clips, large number of UA troops got encircled without an escape route and there's been no sign of mass surrender but endless streams of videos showing airstrikes and drones picking them off
When every video is just small groups of isolated soldiers being killed by unseen Russians remotely, with no sign of coordination or command at all, I don't know how Ukrainians could even manage a mass surrender to avoid these kinds of casualties.

I think we have to adapt to a future of warfare where strategic failures like these must have their accountability by commanders who aren't on the ground and it needs to be normalized
In the old days, if your army got surrounded and was being destroyed, the general was right there in person and would arrange a surrender with a white flag delegation and order his troops
Now its total chaos with nobody in control. It should be incumbent on officers in Kyiv to get on the phone with their Russian counterparts and arrange a surrender and order the troops in the area by whatever means, even if its just loudspeakers on drones

At this point its just needless butchery. We saw it already in this war in multiple failed retreats, now we're seeing it again. Maybe 1000-1500 men are going to die there. Doubt many will even escape as POWs