What part of exestential threat do you understand? What part of Soviet and Russian history are you aware of. It largely predates the United Nations.

What part of Russian war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine have you paid attention to?

It seems none.

Not too clever.

Ask your spouse about the good old days;1968 in Czeckoslovakia.

Trying to follow who did what to whom and said whichever about it in the leadup to WW I is absolutely nuts. You have to ask, why didn’t….pick a name…get off the stupid bus and just stay home?

Well for the most part because they didn’t see themselves as being on “the stupid bus.” Indeed, a lot of them figured that NOT lining up to join the war would in fact be “the stupid bus”. The Habsburgs and Germans figured that their window for breaking strategic encirclement was dwindling and needed to be seized as soon as possible, with the Sarajevo murders providing a convenient opening to fight more or less the war they intended. The Serbs of various shades had compromised on much to try and maintain peace and agreed with every term in the Habsburg ultimatum except one, figuring that if they compromised any further they’d lose their country and be subjected to foreign occupation again. The Russians saw the prospect of caving in to a Habsburg ultimatum to Serbia again as a fatal weakness that would end their influence in the Balkans and leave them lopsided if the Central Powers came after them. The French were well aware of German war plans and that they were on the target list, and figured that fighting alongside allies like Serbia, Russia, and (99% sure at the time) Britain was the best possible prospect for avoiding a painful defeat and occupation like 1871, let alone actually winning and reclaiming places like Alsace-Lorraine. Belgium simply got jumped with an ultimatum and had to give up its sovereignty or fight. And so on.

Those that didn’t see themselves as so mortally bound to interests to join the war, didn’t. At least at first. The Italians cited the text of the Triple Alliance and included themselves out in the hopes of getting a better deal from one side or the other later, before joining the Allies when they thought they did. The Bulgarians sought to replay their fight with Serbia from the Second Balkan War but win this time, and had to deal with the Habsburgs not wanting them involved due to that meaning they’d share the spoils. And so on.

As horrifying and bizarre as it may be, it tended to be terrifyingly logical, at least when you understand what passed for “logic”.

But then it started as some damned foolishness in the Balkans. So what? Happened before.

Sure, though it had also been stopped from happening before there.

But Germany, which had no beef, decided to get into the game and used its resources and central position to turn the thing into an unimaginable horror. Checked filing cabinet, “Hey, it says here we get to invade France, too!”

To be fair it did have a beef, at least an indirect one. Its leadership viewed itself as committed to the Habsburgs and also in a mortal struggle against Slavs, Capitalists, Democracy, Masons, Gypsies, and so on and that if it did not strike while the iron was hot and the moment opportune it would be eaten away from both sides. They had known (from Conrad von Hoetzendorff’s regular-like-a-clock rantings and proposals of a “preemptive war” in Serbia) that the Habsburgs were looking for an excuse to attack Serbia and figured the the Sarajevo murders were as good an opportunity as any to either kick off the great war or more ideally to fight a more limited war against Serbia and/or Russia alone that would give them better positions and resources to go after the West. So they sent the blank check and when the Habsburgs proceeded to war and faced Russian mobilization, Wilhelm II first tried to talk them down and when that failed accused them of planning to attack Germany to get a declaration of war, and then widened this to declaration of war on France and then an ultimatum to Belgium for transit.

Very few wars, with the exception of some civil wars, have been won as completely as WW II. With this as the standard, consciously or not, few solutions are going to seem satisfactory.

Agreed, and WWII of course saw only one side with nukes.

And the European Usual–lot of young guys die, shove the borders around some, Big Shots don’t miss a meal (the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns are still duking and princing, making the society pages, marrying money and don’t need a 9-5 to keep bread on the table–might be the only answer to the current issue. Unless you want to do a WW II on Russia?

Agreed. Though I do note that while the Habsburgs and Hohenzollern still make the society pages, they pointedly do not make direct government policy any more. In part due to the protracted blockades and economic sanctions that cut them off from meaningful global trade coupled with the failures to score knockout blows on their enemies.

I view regime change in Russia as ideal, but likely not to be obtained by direct force of arms. All the Kremlin really needs is one set of people willing to follow orders with WMD deployment and this cascades into something really, really nasty, as you can probably guess. It’s why while I do view something like the Croat and Bosniak defeats of Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars as ideal, I can understand we can’t stake the future of the world on that outcome alone.

So, now what? The minerals would be an interesting issue; American development in the area might look like an informal security guarantee. Our money doing it. Money for the goodies to Ukraine instead of to China. More dependable.

Agreed, and that’s why I can appreciate what Trump proposed and think It was a good concept, even if one that didn’t go quite as well. I think Trump focused too much on trying to make the hard, strong sell to Zelenskyy and not enough trying to butter him up and badmouth Putin.

Putin thinks, in his way which doesn’t depend on conferring with Turtler, that he “won” and might try again.. Or he doesn’t. But if Ukraine is stable and the surrounding countries are getting back up to their max NATO strength along with some new members or at least good friends in the area–for starters–it’s possible that what Putin thinks won’t be as impressive to his associates this time around.

Agreed, but I also think that at this stage of the game we have to face the fact that Putin isn’t operating alone. Mark Steyn and others sussed out his pro-CCP alignment decades ago and that has only gotten more overwhelming as time goes on. Likewise his ties to Iran through the “Axis of Resistance” means that if I think it was ever possible or plausible to pry him from his pro-Red China policy, it isn’t now. So he might go at Ukraine or others simply to fulfill his real/perceived obligations and to maintain his occupations in Belarus and parts of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, even if his hand is weaker.

And at this stage there’s also the fact that he won’t be around forever, meaning that even if he thinks a certain way that’s only going to be so important as sooner or later he’ll die, and the question is who replaces him, whether they’ll be better or worse.

And while he doesn’t have to consult me on what he views victory as, I can at least try and study and guess what he considers victory to be, as well as the issue that he’s also riding a tiger of heavy military spending and the costliest war in his rule of power. So he is probably not the only one there.

The alternative is shoving Russia clear out of Ukraine and getting reparations. See Versailles.

Which would be ideal to me but I think unlikely, given how unlikely it is the Kremlin to agree to pay reparations directly as the Germans were forced to after both world wars. So that largely involves indirect reparations. Still, I do think it is at least possible – if extremely costly – to retake enough territory using Ukrainian and volunteer manpower and firepower and inflict enough casualties that the Kremlin loses face and feels it has to withdraw.

Having said this, I think that if Trump had kept his fool mouth shut, Z could have looked even worse. Interrupting and disrupting the train of discussion made things a bit unclear. When a guy’s hopping around, drawing a bead on his other foot…. Stand back. He’s not listening, anyway.
Then you explain things.
You won’t surrender your position by using complete sentences.

I can understand there, but Trump is Trump. He also was the host and I think also had to try and uphold the dignity of the office and not be seen to be pushed around. But I do think having this be public was a mistake, in part because the left dominated media would be so quickly to jump down his throat and make him the bad guy, regardless of the truth.

Elites of other countries who like the UN principle, like Macron, should show it by giving more, far more, military support to the Ukrainians. Including non-NATO troops, like a French Foreign Legion, or German. Or any ex-NATO fighters willing to risk death in Ukraine for that principle.

At least part of Trump’s position is to reduce Ukraine aid from the US, which I believe has often gone to corrupt Ukrainians & US grifters.

Comrades to the end….
“…Disaster in the Oval Office: Dems lead Zelensky, Ukraine off a cliff with pressure to reject mineral deal”—
https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/opinion/dems-lead-zelensky-ukraine-off-a-cliff-with-pressure-to-reject-mineral-deal/

Anyone here have a link to such a video

Here’s what I wrote just before that:

Have searched the internet for a video showing Zelensky actually campaigning there for Harris – not the ones of him being there, but one that will show him verbally campaigning for Harris against Trump.

Yes, plenty of written and opinionated news about it, but I want to see Video Evidence of such right-wing accusations. Apparently there is no such evidence…Thanks anyway.

It’s not at all difficult to find information on Zelenksky’s September 2024 visit to Pennsylvania. It took about 5 seconds.

For example, there’s this:

The Biden-Harris Administration recently transported President Zelensky on a Department of the Air Force aircraft to Pennsylvania to introduce government officials to President Zelensky about the Russia-Ukraine war. President Zelensky’s itinerary included a stop in Pennsylvania to meet with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. On September 22, 2024, The New Yorker published an interview with President Zelensky, in which he made multiple critical comments about the Trump-Vance ticket.

“This rhetoric coming from a foreign leader released in anticipation of a U.S.-taxpayer-funded visit about the current Administration’s political opponent is highly concerning.”

Then we have this joint press conference with Harris on September 26:

Kamala Harris criticized her US election rival Donald Trump’s “surrender” policy on Ukraine on Thursday, while the Republican said he would meet Ukraine’s president despite a bitter row over the war with Russia.

Volodymyr Zelensky presented a so-called “victory” plan to President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris at the White House, with Biden announcing a new military aid package worth nearly $8 billion for a struggling Kyiv.

Standing with Zelensky at her side, Harris did not mention Trump by name but said there were “some in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory.”

“These proposals are the same of those of (President Vladimir) Putin. And let us be clear, they are not proposals for peace. Instead, they are proposals for surrender,” she said, referring to the Russian leader. …

[Trump] also suggested he was displeased with Zelensky’s recent comments to The New Yorker magazine in which Ukraine’s leader said he believed Trump “doesn’t really know how to stop the war.”

Republicans have also been livid after Zelensky visited an arms factory in Biden’s hometown in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, accusing the Ukrainian ambassador of organizing a partisan political event and calling for her to be sacked.

Also, Democratic Governor Shapiro welcomed Zelensky.

From the New Yorker interview with Zelensky around the same time:

Q: During the Presidential debate, moderators asked Trump whether he wanted Ukraine to win against Russia, and he sidestepped the question. He just said, “I want the war to stop.” It must have troubled you to hear his answer and to consider the prospect of his winning.

A: Trump makes political statements in his election campaign. He says he wants the war to stop. Well, we do, too. This phrase and desire, they unite the world; everyone shares them. But here’s the scary question: Who will shoulder the costs of stopping the war? Some might say that the Minsk Agreements either stopped or froze the fighting at some point. But they also gave the Russians a chance to arm themselves even better, and to strengthen their fake claim over our territories they occupied.

Q: But isn’t that yet more cause for alarm?

A: My feeling is that Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how. With this war, oftentimes, the deeper you look at it the less you understand. I’ve seen many leaders who were convinced they knew how to end it tomorrow, and as they waded deeper into it, they realized it’s not that simple.

Q: Apart from Trump’s own reluctance to talk about Ukrainian victory, he has chosen J. D. Vance as his Vice-Presidential candidate.

A: He is too radical.

Q: Vance has come out with a more precise plan to—

A: To give up our territories.

Q: Your words, not mine. But, yes, that’s the gist of it.

A: His message seems to be that Ukraine must make a sacrifice. This brings us back to the question of the cost and who shoulders it. The idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine’s expense is unacceptable. But I do not consider this concept of his a plan, in any formal sense. This would be an awful idea, if a person were actually going to carry it out, to make Ukraine shoulder the costs of stopping the war by giving up its territories. But there’s certainly no way this could ever happen. This kind of scenario would have no basis in international norms, in U.N. statute, in justice. And it wouldn’t necessarily end the war, either. It’s just sloganeering.

Q: What does it mean for Ukraine that people with such ideas and slogans are rising to power?

A: For us, these are dangerous signals, coming as they do from a potential Vice-President. I should say that it hasn’t been like this with Trump. He and I talked on the phone, and his message was as positive as it could be, from my point of view. “I understand,” “I will lend support,” and so on.

[Vance and others who share his views] should clearly understand that the moment they start trading on our territory is the moment they start pawning America’s interests elsewhere: the Middle East, for example, as well as Taiwan and the U.S. relations with China. Whichever President or Vice-President raises this prospect—that ending the war hinges on cementing the status quo, with Ukraine simply giving up its land—should be held responsible for potentially starting a global war. Because such a person would be implying that this kind of behavior is acceptable.

I don’t take Vance’s words seriously, because, if this were a plan, then America is headed for global conflict. It will involve Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Taiwan, China, as well as many African countries. That approach would broadcast to the world the following implicit rule: I came, I conquered, now this is mine. It will apply everywhere: land claims and mineral rights and borders between nations. It would imply that whoever asserts control over territory—not the rightful owner but whoever came in a month or a week ago, with a machine gun in hand—is the one who’s in charge. We’ll end up in a world where might is right. And it will be a completely different world, a global showdown.

Gee, I can’t imagine why Trump and Vance might not be overly patient with Zelensky, who seems to have counted on a Harris victory.

As long as we’re renaming agencies (and I like the one you suggested), I’ve seen a meme making the rounds that DOGE should have been named the “Federal Agency for Financial Oversight.”