Plans are afoot for trilateral Ukraine talks
Well, well, well:
Trump called Putin after discussing security guarantees for Ukraine during multi-phase talks with European leaders at the White House.
“I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself,” Trump said, calling it a positive “early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years.”
Well, it’s not happening on the first day of Trump’s administration, as promised in typical Trump hyperbole that was preposterous on its face. But I repeat my previous statement that if he can pull this one off, I’ll be tremendously impressed. I’m already impressed by so many things Trump has done, but this problem seemed intractable.
Of course, time will tell.
One prediction I will make is that most Trump-haters will give him no credit no matter what he does.
NOTE: I think that some European leaders may be getting accustomed to Trump and his style.
I’d say that’s a pretty safe prediction. Sure, there may be a tiny minority who may grudgingly give him some credit, but I certainly wouldn’t expect a NYT headline blaring “Wow! Looks Like We Were Wrong!” or anything of that sort. Not that it would really matter IF (and this is a colossal “IF”) he actually manages to achieve this.
“This man makes historic photos.”
X.com via Instapundit
https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1957782598387704103
As Trump, himself, posted on Truth Social (via Ann Althouse at 9:02 AM:
RIP Gonzalo Lira.
Silenced in a Ukrainian jail for speaking out.
I would be surprised if Putin would agree to terms that allow for troops from NATO countries to be positioned inside the Ukraine.
”As Trump, himself, posted on Truth Social…[yada, yada, yada]”
For so many people the Ukraine War has nothing to do with Ukraine, or Russia, or liberty, or oppression. It exists in their minds solely to showcase the “greatness” of Trump and no other reason. Sigh.
Who would you rather go up against in a bar fight?
Hopefully something good comes from them meeting.
Not an expert, or even well informed. Zelensky is stubborn but Putin is genuine tough guy.
While concerned about loss of lives, loss of face seems more important to each, Zelenski more so.
Zelynski’s black T-shirts make him seem un-serious to me. Ok around the house or neighborhood but when going out in public or taking care of business, dress appropriately.
T posted exactly what I was going to….Trump has the right of it with regard to the rampant TDS.
mkent…I think it says more about your mind than others.
Said it before; the only consideration is whether Putin thinks it’s a win for him/Russia. The costs are….worth it and recoverable. Or not.
If he thinks it’s a win against the power of the West; land taken, resources, transportation hubs, handy borders against the next victim, so forth, whatever western military geniuses on various blogs say will be irrelevant.
He’ll try again. Or his successor if of his kidney.
“For so many people the Ukraine War has nothing to do with Ukraine, or Russia, or liberty, or oppression. It exists in their minds solely to showcase the “greatness” of Trump and no other reason. Sigh.”
Kinda validated Trump’s statement.
*Sigh*
Paging Mr. Neville Chamberlain. Mr. Neville Chamberlain, please call your office.
“Paging Mr. Neville Chamberlain. Mr. Neville Chamberlain, please call your office.”
So, Trump will negotiate a peace deal, but he will be at fault if Russia, or Ukraine, does not honor it?
”So, Trump will negotiate a peace deal, but he will be at fault if Russia, or Ukraine, does not honor it?”
To those of us who understand 20th-century history, long-standing Russian doctrine, and the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog, yes.
past is prologue
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/9/what-is-the-minsk-agreement-and-why-is-it-relevant-now
I am curious what would be your solution, and how would you plan to implement it,
@fullmoon:Zelynski’s black T-shirts make him seem un-serious to me.
Not T-shirts, they are quite serious, by which I mean expensive. Shop his look here, straight from the designer. Only $198 USD. His pants will cost you $291 though.
From March:
Niketas Choniates on August 19, 2025 at 7:59 pm said:
@fullmoon:Zelynski’s black T-shirts make him seem un-serious to me.
“Not T-shirts, they are quite serious, by which I mean expensive. Shop his look here, straight from the designer. Only $198 USD. His pants will cost you $291 though”.
Even worse. Pretending to be a man of the people, living paycheck to paycheck, wearing his same work clothes every day.
mkent on August 19, 2025 at 6:53 pm said:
”So, Trump will negotiate a peace deal, but he will be at fault if Russia, or Ukraine, does not honor it?”
To those of us who understand 20th-century history, long-standing Russian doctrine, and the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog, yes.
Makes sense. What’s the time frame on that? Treaty broken in
5 years, Trump’s fault.?
10 years? Trumps fault?
20 years Trumps fault.?
Any expiration date on blaming Trump?
How long did it take to break up the Soviet Union? Short term thinking on the expansionist imperial Russia will not be a favorable legacy for President Trump. I am hoping that he and Rubio are focused on the long term.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
I wonder if “mkent” is related to another Kent (George?), whom Mark Steyn characterized as the Deputy Assistant Undersecretary In Charge if Paperwork, who IIRC testified at Trump’s impeachment over the phone call to Zelenskyy, which Adam Schi*t lied about, and “Colonel” Vindman ratted Trump out about. That Kent had his briefs in a bunch because President Trump was trying to practice foreign policy.
Bill O’Reilly has some interesting comments on the Putin / Ukraine war.
Can listen for free on YouTube.
Trump and the hapless, incompetent NATO, can look back to 1938 and hopefully learn that a Hitler or Stalin or Putin can not be trusted.
Certainly this is the attitude that Sweden and Finland and Poland have taken, as well as the Baltic nations.
Chamberlain did not have this sort of historical precedent to inform him, but in his defense, the horrors of the War to End All Wars was still fresh in his mind and he obviously believed he had avoided another war. He tried, but he guessed wrong.
Today’s leaders – I would think – if they can get Putin/Stalin to end the war, would take measures to ensure that Putin does not violate any “peace ” agreement that is reached.
There is no doubt that Putin will violate any peace agreement the minute he believes there will be no consequences he cannot tolerate.
Unfortunately, NATO has to step up to the plate to somehow guarantee Ukraine’s independence, and that will be the weak point in any peace deal that is reached.
The Europeans / NATO are all talk and no action and certainly Putin knows this.
@JohnTyler:a Hitler or Stalin or Putin can not be trusted.
So sorry, that Hitler card was maxed out in 2003 on removing Saddam Hussein. Do you have another argument with some credit remaining? Putin is taking just about as long to take a slice of Ukraine, as the entire Eastern Front of WWII did from Barbarossa to the taking of Berlin, and he’s trying to do it with a population mostly over 40 that has 1.4 children per woman. This is not the world of 90 years ago.
NATO has to step up to the plate to somehow guarantee Ukraine’s independence
Why? NATO was intended to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union. That no longer exists. Instead, NATO has become a giant suck of taxpayer money from the US to provide security for the EU, which has 50% more population than US and about the same economy, so is big enough and strong enough to defend itself from Russia, which has 1/3 of the EU’s population and 1/4 of its economy and even has its own nuclear arsenal.
If a country is in NATO, that is saying “America (and Europe) will send their boys to die there and take a nuke for it if necessary”. The more countries get added to NATO, the less likely that is, and NATO just becomes a paper tiger, its bluff will get called eventually, and then we either get a real war we never wanted, or NATO ends up on the ash heap with the League of Nations.
All the people saying “Neville Chamberlain”: do you or do you not support sending US troops to Ukraine, taking a nuke for it if necessary? If yes, awesome, convince the rest of us that Ukraine is worth dying for. If no, don’t pretend that we can fight half or a quarter of a war with no risk to us at home. Russia is not Iraq or Iran, that we can work our will on with no consequences at home. Keep pushing against red lines, and finally you’ll cross one, and then we WILL have years of flag-draped coffins and possibly some nukes. If you think the risk is worth it, have the integrity and the courage to say so.
Nick parrots the NATO is no longer needed since the USSR folded in 1991 card. That card expired in 2022, dumb a**, or hasn’t Nick paid any attention to Russian actions in the Baltics? Hybrid warfare, Nick, it is a feature not a bug.
The Soviet Union was a regime of a different character then what the current one is today think of Putin like a Wilhemine Sovereign like the Kaiser how did we stumble into the Great war
This tripwire of alliances that we didnt seriously consider there were the naval dynamics of the Great Powers that Massie explored
Some treat him like unnamed character in ‘seven percent solution’ who was the kaiser played by joss ackland but that is a mistake
Orban who will sponsor the event was one of the youngest dissidents against the Soviets in Hungary now hes the old man he was once a protege of Soros but he quickly realized his noxious influence on the West but since the stage and the microphone was bought the latters influence is rather prodigious
He opposes the immigrant invasion and the veneration of the skydragon that leads to a very fragile power grid
By contrast macron is all in those two flimsy pillars he was also the middleman in the minsk accord sam
Starmer is similarly unfocused on what should matter and instead focuses on more ephemeral things
Putting things in perspective
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/ursula-von-der-leyen-told-to-leave
Not hearing anyone say “Yes, Ukraine is worthing sending American boys to die for and potentially getting nuked over”.
Anyone unwilling to say that does not actually believe in NATO, because that is what NATO has always meant. In 1949 NATO had a lot of credibility, because its member nations had just got done with a war, and everyone understood what they were agreeing to. In 2025, according to the Independent, the UK has 25 working tanks.
“Lessons of history” are too often an exercise in cherry picking. History didn’t start with Hitler and Munich. The League of Nations collective security agreement lost its credibility because Ethiopia was in it, but no one wanted to send their boys to die for it. In 1935 Italy called the League’s bluff, the League folded, and Hitler paid attention, and kept escalating: Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, finally Poland until there was a war and everybody’s boys (as well as their women and children) had to die. Might have not have happened if France and Britain had been willing to go to war with Italy in 1935.
Extending NATO to new countries makes no sense unless we are literally willing to die for them. Are we? Awesome. Say so, persuade your fellow Americans of it, then the bad guys will believe it and won’t test it. If we’re not, and we turn NATO into the League of Nations by extending “guarantees” we don’t really intend to keep, thinking that the NATO label is going to magically keep them safe, bad guys will call our bluff and we will get the war we didn’t want. But this time with nukes.
”@JohnTyler:a Hitler or Stalin or Putin can not be trusted. So sorry, that Hitler card was maxed out in 2003 on removing Saddam Hussein.”
Huh? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait so therefore we can trust Putin? That doesn’t make any sense.
”NATO was intended to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union.”
Yes, NATO was intended to defend Europe from Russian invasion.
”That no longer exists.”
Huh? The Russians have invaded Europe with 700,000 troops in a genocidal war of conquest, proving the threat exists. This blog post and its whole comment thread are all about that threat.
”NATO has become a giant suck of taxpayer money from the US to provide security for the EU…”
That’s not how NATO works.
”…taking a nuke for it if necessary…”
Nobody is taking a nuke over Ukraine. Enough with the straw men.
”…convince the rest of us that Ukraine is worth dying for.”
Another straw man. Nobody is asking you to die for Ukraine. The issue is providing Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win.
”Might have not have happened if France and Britain had been willing to go to war with Italy in 1935.”
So you *do* understand the concept! Yet you still advocate surrender to Russia. The logical conclusion is that you *want* Russia to win in Ukraine and the rest of Europe. I should have known.
”…taking a nuke for it if necessary…”
Besides being a straw man — no one is taking a nuke over Ukraine — this is the coward’s argument, and it has no end.
“Let Russia have Ukraine, Moldova, and Romania, or Putin will nuke us all.”
becomes “Let Russia have the Baltics, Poland, and Germany, or Putin will nuke us all.”
and “Let Russia have Finland, Sweden, and Norway, or Putin will nuke us all.”
Then it becomes “Let China have Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines, or Xi will nuke us all.”
then “Let China have Southeast Asia, Australia, and Africa, or Xi will nuke us all.”
and “Let China have South America, Mexico, and Canada, or Xi will nuke us all.”
and finally “Let China have California, Oregon, and Washington, or Xi will nuke us all.”
Our cowardly friend here understands this — he even supposes stopping Axis aggression in Ethiopia in 1935 could have prevented World War II — yet he still argues against it. He knows the implications of that.
@mkent:Nobody is taking a nuke over Ukraine. Enough with the straw men.
lol, right on cue. You want me to cosign a loan and assure me that nothing in the fine print is actually going to happen. I know what “collective security” means, though.
So you *do* understand the concept!
Yes.
Yet you still advocate surrender to Russia.
No more than you advocate being nuked for Ukraine. Some things are not our business. We cannot defend everyone from everybody, we have to pick and choose. The League of Nations failed to pick and choose, and by its failure something much worse ended up happening.
The logical conclusion is that you *want* Russia to win in Ukraine and the rest of Europe
OK Tailgunner
@mkent:Our cowardly friend here understands this — he even supposes stopping Axis aggression in Ethiopia in 1935 could have prevented World War II — yet he still argues against it. He knows the implications of that.
No point in lying about what I wrote. Everyone can read for themselves, and see how dishonest you are. You are not doing your case any favors if you have to lie like that, and lie so obviously.
You are not clearly not living in reality if you think China is taking California or Russia is taking Norway, with their increasingly geriatric populations and demographic collapse.