What Rubio has to say about the meeting with Zelensky
I just saw this post at Legal Insurrection which features an interview with Rubio and a transcript. Well worth watching or reading.
Here’s an excerpt from Rubio’s remarks:
… [Y]ou guys only saw the end. You saw what happened today. You don’t see all the things that led up to this, so let me explain. The President’s been very clear; he campaigned on this. He thinks this war should have never started. He believes – and I agree – that had he been president it never would have happened. Now here we are. He’s trying to bring an end to this conflict. We’ve explained very clearly what our plan is here, which is we want to get the Russians to a negotiating table. We want to explore whether peace is possible. They understand this. They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which, to me, as I’ve explained and I think the President alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way because we’re involved; it’s now us, it’s our interests.
That was all explained. That was all understood. And nonetheless, for the last 10 days in every engagement we’ve had with the Ukrainians there’s been complications in getting that point across, including the public statements that President Zelenskyy has made. But they insisted on coming to D.C. This agreement could have been signed five days ago, but they insisted on coming to Washington and there was a very – and should have been a very clear understanding: Don’t come here and create a scenario where you’re going to start lecturing us about how diplomacy isn’t going to work. President Zelenskyy took it in that direction and it ended in a predictable outcome as a result. It’s unfortunate. That wasn’t supposed to be this way, but that’s the path he chose, and I think, frankly, sends his country backwards in regards to achieving peace, which is what President Trump wants at the end of the day – is for this war to end. He’s been as consistent as anyone can be about what his objective is here. …
. But again, when you have comments that deliberately – appear to be deliberately – I mean, after having discussed this repeatedly, deliberately appear to be geared towards making the argument that peace is not possible. Again, I turn to the – he turns to the Vice President: What kind of diplomacy are you talking about? Almost as if to say, these people, you can’t deal with them; we can’t – you can’t have any negotiations with Putin because he can’t be trusted and you’re just wasting your time on negotiations. Well, he’s directly, basically, undermining everything the President has told him he’s trying to do.
Look, there’s no need for that. You start to suspect, does he really want an end to this war? Does he just think that we have to do whatever he says and give him anything he wants without any end game? That was the Biden strategy. That was the Biden strategy. We were funding a stalemate. We were funding a meatgrinder. And unfortunately for the Ukrainians, the Russians have more meat to grind, and they don’t care about human life. …
What I have doubts about is whether he’s willing to say and do the things that we need in order to get a negotiation. Again, you – this has been going on for 10 days, and to see things in the press saying we’re not coordinating with the Ukrainians, that’s absolutely false. Over the last 10 days the Ukrainians have met with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, the Vice President of the United States, had a phone call with President Trump, and he was in the Oval Office today. I’ve talked to the foreign minister of Ukraine three times in the last 10 days. The argument that we’re not engaging – but yet you keep reading these press accounts about, oh, well, they’re leaving us out, we’re not involved, we’re not engaged. None of these things are true and it continues.
So all that led up to today and a deep sense of frustration, and my hope is that this all can be reset and maturity can kick in and some pragmatism, because this war – tonight, people will die in Ukraine. Tonight, people will die in this conflict.
Of course, the usual coverage will skip all of this. It will just be clips of Trump and Vance being mean to poor Zelensky.
OK Mr. Zelensky, what’s your plan for winning the war?
Speaking of guarantees:
We’ve had maybe 300,000 troops in Europe since the end of WW II. We had our own society with K-12 education, extra curriclars, pediatricians, and in the last few years, eighty four guys coming back from down range and passing at Landstuhl have donated organs to Yurps.
And we had more ready to go. While a lot of my training in 69 had to do with SEA, we always had serious time on conventional warfare, combined arms, so forth. Foe Europe in case the balloon went up.
And for sixty years, American cities were on the Russian’s nuke target list. Maybe just in case they didn’t think they could carry it off conventionally.
You’re welcome.
J*F*M:
What is Vlad’s plan for retaking Kursk?
What is Vlad’s plan for the next cleanup of that pinacle of USSR nuclear reactor engineering, aka, Chernobyl? They attacked the contamination control enclosure with an explosive-armed drone. Russia shitting in their own bed, again?
Inconceivable to you?
Occam might suggest that this was a Democratic Party op. (perhaps in cahoots with the Europeans…or at least Starmer and Macron, who’ve been—notably—softening up Trump over the past several days).
A farce in three acts:
1. Zelenskyy DEMANDS a WH venue to announce the agreement and sign it.
2. He then proceeds to blow up the deal.
3. The Democrats, Yurps and Rabidly Anti-Trump media take it from there…
This is independent of whether one believes that Zelenskyy was justified in doing so…though if one does believe this, the question is, “Why, then, the GLOBAL theatrics?”…which is a question that answers itself (see 3, above).
That was good statement from SoS Rubio. He isn’t Blinken for sure.
Just why might Occam suggest this?
1.
“America As Republic, Not As Empire – Europe’s ‘Sound And Fury’ After Jaw-Dropping Pivots In US Policy”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/america-republic-not-empire-europes-sound-and-fury-after-jaw-dropping-pivots-us-policy
2.
“Trump, Vance, & The New New World Order”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-vance-new-new-world-order
File under: “The Swampire Strikes Back” (with apologies to George Lucas)…or, one hopes…(with apologies to Alfred E. Neumann) “The Swampire Strikes Out”…
Das right…
“The Resistance”(TM) is ramping up.
BIG TIME!!
For their very survival.
A veritable fight to the finish.
File under: The Global Corruption State Uber Alles!!!
Zelensky, and most rich UKR oligarchs & supporters, are not yet ready to trade UKR territory for peace, and most virtue-signaling elites in world are ok with peons dying over principles.
Nobody answers, or even asks, of Lincoln: how many have to die before it’s not worth it to keep fighting? 60,000? Like Vietnam? Or WW2? Or in %, WW 1?
Putin was wrong to invade, and should be punished, and his country is being slightly punished by not winning. The world, and the US, is better off with more kids dying for their countries—but those dying are much worse off.
This looks like a Dem-Trump hate setup, using Zelensky against Trump and to protect Biden & US & UKR bribery corruption. And continued fighting & dying. Putin can likely get Peace whenever, by agreeing to leave, or maybe just accept Crimea. Ukraine can’t get the land back without costly slow winning.
Maybe the EU will increase their support of Ukraine. Maybe they can draft more recent young, unmarried male immigrants and send them to fight the Rooskies. I’m not holding my breath.
Let’s also recall that Trump, unlike Z (or most Dems), never insults those he’s trying to make deal with. Which quickly changes if the other disses Trump first, like so many Dems do so often to most Reps.
Trump wanted a deal, and Peace. Z isn’t ready to give up territory, so isn’t ready.
It’s wrong & sad to give up to a Putin bully who has nukes, so who’s willing to fight and maybe die? How many is too many.
Let Z decide … and give his side more ammo & guns & maybe non-NATO fighters, until he’s ready, or Putin is ready. Mostly aid from Europe… mostly missing since 2014.
The New York Post is reporting that Zelensky had a meeting with the Democrats before going to the White House. How many people have ever heard that this meeting took place ????
https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/opinion/dems-lead-zelensky-ukraine-off-a-cliff-with-pressure-to-reject-mineral-deal/
As if the US Civil War was an apt analogy or metaphor. Not by 600 km.
@om
The brutal equations governing the outcome of this war can be summarized in the question “Will the Russians run out of money before the Ukrainians run out of men?”
I would really like to link to Rubio’s interview for my democrat friends, but it’s probably a waste of effort that would just draw vitriol. When 80% of what they read comes from Occupy Democrats, I know they would reject anything coming from the other side as being pure lies. I’ve read several articles since Friday saying the divide in the country is once again growing. As Derek Hunter said in his column this morning:
“But make no mistake, it is a short walk from “I can’t speak to you anymore because of your support of X” to “If you didn’t want to be arrested/beaten/executed, you shouldn’t have supported those bad people.” The “otherization” of half the country has begun; the only thing missing for the powder keg to blow is a spark, and the leadership on the left is playing with matches.”
Oblio:
That appears to be why Ukraine has been attacking and burning Russian oil installations hundreds of km inside the pre 2022 Russian border. They have been doing it for a few months now. Some reports claim that Russia is using 50 year old men as soldiers; yes Russia is that poor if you get away from Moscow/St. Petersburg, IIRC.
Oblio: A key consideration – I believe that Russia’s Chinese ally will provide it with money. (China is absolutely interested in humiliating the US in Ukraine.) On the other hand, Ukraine’s western allies are not willing to provide it with men.
Also, NYPost is reporting this morning that Zelensky took a meeting with Congressional Democrats prior to the Oval Office meeting, where Congressional Democrats advised Zelensky to reject Trump’s deal. Zelensky appears to have taken their advice, and then Democrats got the “Trump is a Russian agent” feeding frenzy that they wanted.
Snarky comments about how the Logan Act only seems to be a talking point when a Democrat is in the White House aside – if this is indeed what happened, it should permanently put to bed any suggestions that Zelensky is a smart politician. Zelensky is a fool.
(Update – it was the editorial page of the NYPost, but here’s the link: https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/opinion/dems-lead-zelensky-ukraine-off-a-cliff-with-pressure-to-reject-mineral-deal/)
Money from China?
Why. China has longer standing claims on parts of the far east in The Russian Federation. Land, minerals, petroleum, access to the Arctic is what China wants from The Russian Federation IMO. The Russian Federation is already their vassal.
“Yet, far more consequential than most of the happenings of the past few days was when Trump, speaking with Fox News, after attending Daytona, dismissed Zelensky’s canard of Russia wanting to invade NATO countries. “I don’t agree with that; not even a little bit”, Trump retorted.
Trump does not buy into the primary lie intended as the glue which holds this entire EU geo-political structure together. For, without the ‘Russia threat’; without the U.S. believing in the globalist linchpin lie, there can be no pretence of Europe needing to prepare for war with Russia. Europe ultimately will have to come to reconcile its future as a periphery in Eurasia.”
The last paragraphs of the Zerohedge article Barry Meislin linked. (Great article.)
Reminds me of the European embrace of Napoleon as depicted in Tolstoy’s War and Peace–if only Russia could be dealt with, Europe would be so much better off.
physicsguy,
There is a definite attempt to ramp up “the resistance” technique deployed during Trump’s first term. Several loud and open protests lately in my area, far from D.C.
As many have pointed out, however, it may be difficult to sway public opinion as the Left advocates for 20/80 causes. Let’s hope so.
om – It’s kind of like the pro-Ukraine argument that it was worth spending our money there to degrade Russia’s capabilities. (Which was completely amoral, BTW.) For China, it’s may well be worth spending money in Ukraine to humiliate the US. Again, this is completely amoral, but when did China even claim to have a foreign (or domestic) policy based on morality?
I haven’t watched the news conference. I’ve only read about it. It actually doesn’t interest me all that much. Anyway, here’s Holman Jenkins’ take. I think he’s a consistently good WSJ editorial writer.
https://archive.md/WSlVF
“Strangely”.
That’s a good editorial, Mike Plaiss. Yeah, the WSJ editorialists aren’t big Trump fans, but they can see here what he’s trying to do.
Has anyone else noticed that Trump is seemingly making Vance his apprentice? Vance is much more involved in a more prominent way that previous VPs. If someone were to succeed in killing Trump (which God forbid), Vance is learning the ropes of the Art of the Deal. Also, it looks like they do the Good Cop, Bad Cop routine, with Vance, for the moment, in the Bad Cop role.
Here’s redstate’s take on that same meeting with democrats that Zelensky held just before he strolled over to the oval office:
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/03/02/democrats-encouraged-zelensky-to-scoff-at-a-peace-deal-setting-up-oval-office-blow-out-n2186178
physicguy, Thank you for the reference to Derek Hunter, a columnist and podcast person that I somehow missed. He summed up the current radical left pretty well, and they are definitely not capable of being friends any longer.
The whole thing seemed weird like it was staged to me. Why have a meeting like this in front of media cameras?
This just in (I think…):
Mark Steyn on some of the more subtle and nuanced aspects of that rather spirited Zelenskyy-Trump-Vance coffee-klatsch…
(…wherein gentle reader may end up learning more Ukrainian in three minutes than he/she/it/they ever thought possible…)
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.steynonline.com%2F15074%2Fsuitless-in-sukatown%3ANqHiPk_jkqIR_bwv_yrwDHxQ6us&cuid=932296
H/T Blazingcatfur blog.
Every shell every missile we have employed in ukraine means we are out of pocket in a chinese confrontation tell il wrong the uk is dangerous underarmed and the odds thst starmer will what it takes
I would imagine putin subscribes to some variation of mackinders heartland theory? There was always speculation of a chinese russian confrontation, that maybe once they gotten rid of the far enemy that would be us, where turkey and iran falls in this list ymmv
Why do I suspect the former PTB in this country egged Z on to fight DJT in public with the idea to embarrass him? Didn’t work – DJT is not FJB and crew. The Ukraine has been a D laundromat for so long (Burisma? “secret” labs?), DJT’s opposition doesn’t want to give it up … and ANYTHING DJT does is bad to those people.
I don’t think the Russians want more than they have – the Russian majority east part of Ukraine (which it seems that population agrees) – but NATO won’t let the war end. It’s more than time the US pulls out of NATO (and UN) and establishes relationships with Russia at least as friendly as we have with China and Saudi Arabia. Even a better relationship than those would be preferable.
After WWI and WWII, it’s past time to let the Europeans hate us for free instead of paying them for the privilege. Let the Europeans pay for their own defense if they still fear Russia so much.
Rant, rant, rant … 🙂
@Jon baker at 9:02:
I also saw the NY Post article last evening, and thought “wow”. Quote:
Disaster in the Oval Office: Dems lead Zelensky, Ukraine off a cliff with pressure to reject mineral deal
By Michael Goodwin March 1, 2025 | 9:27pm
Why is this not big news?
@DT
Agreed. It was a horrible miscalculation and a wannabe slick move that backfired.
Point of order: it hasn’t just been the D’s laundromat. It has been a massive cess pit of corruption much like Russia (see: Obama’s idiotic idea to make a “Russian Silicon Valley”) and elsewhere.
Also the “secret labs” weren’t that secret, but they were more secret to the American taxpayer and Congress than they were to anyone else, being authorized in a deal during Yuschenko’s term, and carrying on straight through Yanukovych’s. Which means A: Putin knew basically everything going on, B: they almost certainly weren’t for weapons like the “anti-Slavic WMD” horse crap that got sold, and C: while dealing with dangerous stuff they weren’t for military applications but to play skeevy and skirt US health regulations and congressional oversight.
Agreed, and that is one reason why while I’m one of Trump’s critics here I am also critical on Zelenskyy.
And here we get to the just plain nonsense.
Firstly: if you don’t think the Kremlin wants “more than it already has” you haven’t paid attention to what the Kremlin has said. Namely that they have annexed a good chunk of Ukraine and demand recognition of that from Kherson (which they no longer control) to Crimea without plebiscite (as Zelenskyy offered then). They also demand the “Denazification” (keep in mind Russia’s Vice President Medvedev has a Neo-Nazi past and a lot of Russian military forces and auxiliaries are as well, so this basically means whatever the Kremlin says), “Demilitarization” (which should be obviously a problem), and “neutrality” (in spite of the fact Ukraine was neutral when this conflict began in 2014).
B: The idea that the populace in “Eastern Ukraine” wants to be part of the Russian Federation is mostly bullshit. Even at the high point of separatist sentiment support for pulling away was a minority (which is one reason why the Kremlin had to outright rig elections even in Crimea, where I think there’s a decent chance they’d have actually won, and hold them in conditions where they were literally leaving the tortured and murdered bodies of local opponents in full display).
And that was a LONG time ago. I don’t have a high opinion of former President Poroshenko, the “Chocolate King”, but this was the real context of his often misquoted statements about children in unoccupied Ukraine going to schools while those in the Russian controlled areas were forced into shelters: namely that in addition to the war the Kremlin’s dogs of war took what were mostly already rust belts and drove them into the ground, with unstable and unaccountable warlord governments. This caused what support there was for annexation to drop off a cliff. Kharkiv voted for pro-Russian Yanukovych and might have only stayed in loyalist control due to happenstance (and the likes of Azov), but after years of fighting and now periodic rocket attacks they are probably the loyalists’ Eastern Bastion, while the Kremlin is dealing with widespread partisan activity in areas it and its clients have held for years.
C: If Russia had only wanted what they already held, they could have accepted Zelenskyy’s offer for a demilitarized plebiscite to divide the Donbas based on voting. They did not, and on Russian state TV you have regular talk of unity with Transnistria and future conflicts in Poland and Moldova.
Even if you think this is mostly bullshit and bluster like I do, the fact that this is being allowed on the airwaves in a system that will jail you for calling the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact an alliance says a lot of the regime’s attitude. And that’s before we get into the fact that you might have middle management or subordinates in the system taking it seriously like Prigozhin and Rusich apparently did or do.
D: NATO didn’t start this war, and NATO can’t meaningfully end it.
So I take it you haven’t paid attention to US attempts to do that for the past several decades, like W Bush’s “looked into his eyes” or Clinton’s “Reset”, and might not be that savvy on diplomacy, history, or politics in general. Ok, let me give you the basics.
Firstly: the dream of a Russian-American alliance has been around since at least the late Cold War and arguably goes back further. It was considered by both sides during the Yeltsin and early Putin years, but on the Russian side that mostly dropped off after Putin was told entry into NATO would involve adhering to the guidelines for the org, including political reforms that would undercut his power. Unsurprisingly he rejected that. So it has mostly been a very one sided romance kept alive by the dreams of the Foggy Bottom diplomatic corps and wishful thinking, with basically every President coming into power promising to fix relations with Russia and decrying their predecessor(s) for ruining them, and getting backstabbed. In Trump’s case during his first term this came from Putin’s support for Assad shutting down U.S. led attempts to confiscate his gas wmd and for the PSUV led Cartel of the Suns in Venezuela, but it goes back a ways.
I have no faith whatsoever in Trump 2.0 being able to meaningfully change that due to how entrenched the pro-PRC vent is among Russia’s secret police, bureaucracy, and military elites, as Mark Steyn and others noted near the start of this century.
Secondly: Our relations and alignment with Saudi Arabia would actively limit how touchy feely we can get with Russia precisely because the Saudis recognize Iran under its current dictatorship as an existential threat to them (revolutionary Shiite terrorist apocalyptic “Republican” theocrats vs reactionary Sunni monarchist oligarchs with side businesses in terrorism and others), and likely the world. This is probably correct and the attempts to give outreach to Iran under its current regime by the leftist deep state were among the very worst of their abuses of power.
Unfortunately Russia and Iran are Allies, at first largely due to being friends of the same friends with the post-Soviet tin pots like the Assad Regime and the “Bolivarian” Socialists in Hispanic America, but now they have been escalating their cooperation, as shown by the Shaheed Drones.
Under many circumstances I would agree. But these are not those, and frankly after Afghanistan fucked with our prestige and credibility and the PRC-Russian alignment has only hardened over decades of cooperation this is not one of those.
So I had an opportunity to link the Rubio interview to the democratic friends….the result was so predictable. They all responded that it just showed that Rubio is also a Putin bitch. The blindness brought on by pure hate is really amazing. There’s a really good PhD thesis there but the psych departments themselves have the disease.
Trying to wrap my head around Trump’s seeming sincerity in trying to end the killing in Ukraine, the thought occurred that guilt may play a part. He’s said repeatedly that he just wants the killing to stop which is THE overriding issue with him. Zelensky doesn’t want a ceasefire, or even a negotiated settlement, unless it’s somehow to his advantage. Stalemate. The killing goes on.
So here’s my wild speculation which could explain Trump repeatedly saying he simply wants to stop the killing. In his old age, having avoided military service during the Vietnam War but still a witness to the death and destruction from a very safe distance, is he now trying to make amends? You can’t look into a person’s mind or soul of course, but something about his singular focus on the killing makes it almost a personal crusade. Hence the real anger with Zelensky.
Just a guess here, but I’m Trump’s age, and am dealing with regrets. Trump probably is too.
The brutal equations governing the outcome of this war can be summarized in the question “Will the Russians run out of money before the Ukrainians run out of men?” – Oblio
Worth repeating. This appears to be the bet the Ukrainians are taking.
With the new incentive programs, increased volunteers plus conscription minus deserters could be equal to or higher than casualties.
@The Other Chuck
That does seem likely, and I can believe it. I have my deep issues with Trump but he’s been a much better man than most give him credit for. Also, while I have exceptionally dim views of the chances he has to actually succeed where generations of pols and diplomats have failed in coming to a modus vivendi with Putin, he DID do a lot of yeoman’s work hammering out the Abraham Accords, bridging often decades of political and military conflict and more than a thousand years of theological conflict to help obtain a more durable peace between Israel and many of its neighbors, especially the more conservative Sunni monarchists and military dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If the Nobel Committee were worth a goddamn that would have given him a Nobel Peace Prize and would give some of the most justifiable of buffering to his admittedly massive ego.
The issue is, he patently failed to bridge the gaps between say Israel and the likes of Iran and Syria’s then-Baathist government, in part due to which sides they were backing. That I think should be a caution that there are limits that even the greatest of dealmakers can’t bridge, and some other gaps that can’t be bridged without giving up more than what a deal is worth.
And it’s a tragedy because I do think Trump has done far far more good than bad, and he is one of the people least responsible for the outbreak of the wars in Ukraine.
Zelensky in his post-meeting brief, said he was working for a just and lasting peace.
It seems few note the problem: no Peace that Putin will accept is just. To fight for Justice means fighting, killing, and dying, without peace.
It’s good to fight for justice, but maybe altruistically good for society despite being bad for the fighters.
Trump haters don’t talk realistically about Peace, Trump supporters don’t talk enough about Justice.
War is Hell— no US decision results in Peace, nor Justice, much less both.
Yet peace depends on bad guy Putin, whose possible use of nukes means he can’t be “brought to Justice”. Disagreement on how to deal with the bad guy doesn’t make any good guys bad, tho it makes dealing worse.
The Ukrainians are dealing with inadequate troops to man defensive positions in the Donbas and Luhansk parts of the front which Russia identifies by sending infantry to attack and find weak sections. Hence the ever growing Russian casualty tally. See Military History Not Visualized on youtube for a short explaination.
However, Russia can’t seem to do anything else; no combined arms, operations no big advances that aren’t enabled by Ukrainian tactical blunders; such as botched turnovers by units on the line.
So Ukraine appears to be focused on drone surveilance of the contact line and suppression of Russian units trying to get to the contact line so that Russian squadies can find the “softer spots.”
Infiltration tactics (WWI).
The Russian army did not survive 1917, just sayin’.
The old, worn out, “He will nuke the world.”
This X comment by David Sacks seems pertinent:
https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/1895971755648233940?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1895971755648233940%7Ctwgr%5E4afacedda8fb807b245336122d06a4b0f42f4df7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F705837%2F
According to Sacks, Zelensky has many internal problems that will arise if a deal with Russia happens.
If true, (and I don’t know) Zelensky has reasons to avoid peace talks other than his dislike/distrust of Putin.
It seems simple. Stoop the needless killing and destruction. It’s not. And for many reasons.
The failure of the minerals deal has seemed to unite Western Europe into actually stepping up to the plate. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Here is a fair assessment of some of the Ukrainian proposals during the Istanbul talks and the effects they might have had.
No Peace, No Guarantees. Istanbul Ukraine-Russia War Talks Details and Results
https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/articles/2022/03/30/7136915/
Well thats one view Another is what did the last string of wars profit us we havent won a war since 45, korea was charitably a stalemate vietnam afganistan who did we lose what part of our soul was besmirched by the same gang of never do wells the current generation are all in on this the same new york times that never retracted duranty or matthews or any other totalitarian who grovel in nc 17 ways to china and iran
@J.J
It seems pertinent and has been going around, but I think there’s much less to it (both in validity and wisdom) than there looks. Especially when you realize how deeply Sacks has drunk into the Kremlin’s kool-aid (to the point of sometimes claiming ISIS did not do an attack they claimed credit for and that the Russian government itself pinned on them in favor of blaming Ukrainians and the CIA).
That’s true as far as it goes, but what Sacks is underestimating is just how monumentally unpopular major territorial concessions to Putin are (EASILY less popular than Zelenskyy is, no matter your opinion of him).
Agreed.
Anyway, I fisked Sacks in response to Cornflour raising him, and I think that covers most of the bases I’d do. So I’ll repost it down.
——————-
Ok, thesis so far. Though I note that Zelenskyy’s bigger issue was less making peace and more the terms involved.
But let’s get to the meat of it.
This is POSSIBLE but Iffy at best, and couched in omissions so gigantic I have to chalk them up to lises.
Firstly: It’s true that Zelenskyy cancelled elections, but he didn’t do it alone. The legislative body of Ukraine (the V. Rada) also passed the law there, and in part because of how the Constitution of Ukraine makes it very hard if not impossible to host elections during wartime. Elections were held in 2014 amidst the outbreak of the first (unofficial) Russian invasions and various rebellions, but that was because the balls were rolling before after the legislative removal of Yanukovych and the shift to a caretaker Rada to oversee new elections.
I view this as a structural weakness in the Ukrainian Constitution (one of several), and lamentable. But it isn’t Zelenskyy’s fault.
As for whether or not Zelenskyy would actually lose power in an election? I dunno. I would give this a coin flip or the like. It’s certainly true that even popular war leaders or parties are often not those trusted to make peace, and Zelenskyy might fall victim to that (much like Churchill). But I think that is a lot more dubious than the author is making it out to be; whether or not he’s straight up “unpopular” is harder to grasp but I think there’s a decent chance of a “Rally around the Flag” effect – especially after the White House visit.
I also think what Sacks is ignoring is the fact that Zelenskyy was among the *MORE DOVISH* of Ukrainian politicians and parties, having defeated his predecessor Poroshenko in elections by claiming he could bring an end to the wars and the territorial disputes and that he would negotiate a deal with Putin, and he burned a lot of political capital trying with things like proposing local votes to divide the Donbas, which were condemned by his countrymen and ignored by Moscow.
So it is likely whoever replaced him might or might not be more amicable with Trump, but at least as hawkish.
This alone I think disqualifies this post of Sacks’s from being “perceptive” in any way. I want to put up that modified picture of the Cat supposedly saying “Huh? Huh?” It’s like Sacks doesn’t even realize the implications of what he is saying.
But to break this down: If Ukraine were already among the most corrupt (Sacks says “most corrupt” but in reality the “crown” is contested between a few others like Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Moldova, and now Serbia) countries in Europe before the war, why on EARTH would we assume that an end to the war would see an end to the gravy train?!?
Hunter Biden’s no show job at Burisma was from before the 2014 invasion. Ditto Fauci and the unethical (but probably not WMD worthy) agreement with Ukrainian labs to run biological experiments that probably wouldn’t past US safety regs or legislative muster (and Putin and his client Yanukovych did not object to this at the time, since Yanukovych inherited the agreement from his pro-Western anti-Russian predecessor Yuschenko and raised no notable objections to it during his entire time in office, including during Euromaidan).
And as someone who did work in charity, you would not *BELIEVE* the kinds of corruption opportunities in civilian sector jobs.
So this is basically a contradiction bordering on double think. Sacks wants us to believe Ukraine is corrupt (and to be fair it is) and that Zelenskyy and/or his supporters are implicated (at least some of them are), and that post-war audits would expose many of them (more doubtful; Poroshenko the “Chocolate King” has evaded almost all legal trouble, but ok)……
… but that at the same time all the corruption flowing in from foreign aid would vanish with the war.
Because apparently the same companies, governments, financiers, and so on that were making bank on hydrocarbons, credit, building materials, agribusiness, and frauds of the aforementioned *before* 2014 would have nothing at all to do in a country that still has those things and is still suffering from corruption and now has to engage in peace time rearmament and reconstruction (aka, construction, the famously-devoid-of-organized-crime industry that Trump had to butt heads with)?
Yeah no. This is gibberish.
If I were being far more generous than Sacks deserves, I’d say there’s a good chance the gravy train wouldn’t END but would diminish as military support tapers off (though I have to stress the chances of it going away ENTIRELY are basically nil) and the overall form of aid comes more in things like construction work, food and medicine, farming, and both NGO and governmental “Foreign Aid.”
But even THAT ignores that a diminishment from the wartime excess would still be a lot. And that even if Zelenskyy lost power he would still be in a superb position to capitalize on at least some of this, whether directly or through appreciative patrons at home or abroad. And former Ukrainian Presidents tend to have a good track record of high standards of living. Even Yanukovych is having a fairly affluent exile. And even if Zelenskyy were audited, found wanting, and convicted he’d probably receive significant clemency due to his role.
So Sacks is basically tying himself in knots and hoping nobody notices. And it’s understandable why; I didn’t notice the inherent contradiction here (“The corrupt globohomo that helped make Ukraine the most corrupt country in Europe before the war will no longer do so in spite of the myriad opportunities for it after the war”). But I hope now that I have you can see why this was such a WTF for me.
This is half-true, and mostly half-true because of how Sacks is framing this.
Because the truth of the matter is that according to his definition, *Most polled Ukrainians and most Ukrainian parties would constitute “Ultra-Nationalists.”*
Now, let’s cut through the BS and posturing on both sides. Does Ukraine have an “ultra-nationalist” problem? Yeah, it does. Indeed it has an outright Neo-Fascist problem, in part due to the legacy of Stephan Bandera, the most successful Ukrainian guerilla fighter and nationalist leader in Ukraine’s modern history…. but also a mass murdering Fascist and terrorist who killed his political rivals within his own organization to consolidate power, engaged in ethnic cleansing and reprisal killings, and who wanted to be a Nazi collaborator and briefly was until they betrayed him for declaring an independent (if still pro-Nazi) Ukraine.
Most Ukrainians have at least SOME fond opinions of him, if only because he was the bastion of the Ukrainian resistance in the face of the Soviet Holodomor and other mass murders, the Nazi regime and their mass murders, and the lighter-but-still-ugly forced Polonization of both the pre-war authoritarian “Second Republic” and the post-war Stalinist “Peoples’ Republic.” And his legacy is claimed by a bunch of parties and movements like Svoboda, and after Euromaidan the Yatsunyek Caretaker Government invited some of these Neo-Fascists into Cabinet positions.
But then they fell out with “Yats” and his successor, Poroshenko, and made a gamble that they would be able to rally public support with a calculated mass resignation of all cabinet positions. This backfired *BADLY.* Their legislative representation had already peaked under Yanukovych before Euromaidan, but the followup 2019 Election that got Zelenskyy in (and created the Rada we see today) basically wiped them out.
All of the Neo-Fascist parties have a grand total of one Rada member. They are somewhat stronger in local elections but still a marginal force. Now, if Zelenskyy were seen to be making a “Bad Deal” I imagine they’d probably have a surge in popularity, but I doubt moreso than we saw before during Euromaidan’s leadup.
Which brings us to what Sacks is “conveniently” ignoring. When Zelenskyy ran against Poroshenko in 2019, Zelenskyy was the *MORE DOVISH* Candidate, and was willing to do things like broach the topic of territorial concessions in the Donbas to have a permanent peace. This was unpopular. Most Ukrainians may not like Zelenskyy and may want the war to end, but they generally are opposed to any territorial concessions to Moscow. Especially those as vast as Moscow is demanding (such as a return of Kherson).
This has slumped somewhat as the war went on but has remained pretty broadly consistent. And it’s not surprising when a lot of people know people still stuck behind Russian lines and who may or may not be operating as guerillas. One may not be a Neo-Fascist or a Svoboda voter but still be a guerilla who wouldn’t happily settle for the territorial concessions Putin is demanding, and this does I think fit with what I believe that Zelenskyy’s more at risk of being killed if he is seen as making a “Poor” Peace Deal than from not making one.
This is the same “Anonymous Source Says” shit with all the issues that applies, even if it is in TIME or the Daily Caller. But for what it is worth this is one I can see and believe (certainly a lot more than “the gravy train of corruption present in Ukraine throughout its post-independence and pre-war history will not show up again in post-war Ukraine”). And I can’t entirely disagree with Zelenskyy if he DOES feel this way for the reasons I’ve mentioned, given what a monumental position he is in.
Niketas Choniate handled this one quite well, and I’ll add in that I flatly believe that this is Sacks outright bullshitting and gaslighting again. This myth of what the Istanbul Deal would have been pops up a lot in pro-Kremlin or isolationist propaganda, but it doesn’t really have much to merit it since the negotiations didn’t go that far (in part because of the Kremlins’ demands). And moreover I’ll note how debilitating even the terms were.
This is true to a point, but what Sacks is “conveniently” forgetting to mention are
A: Zelenskyy *tried to cut a deal with Putin earlier.* Indeed, it was outright something he campaigned on for his dark horse electoral win in 2019. And he hit a brick wall and public humiliation culminating in the Kremlin refusing to come to the table for his proposal, countering with a different and more draconian series of ones including Istanbul, and then ultimately launching its three day Special Military Operation. All of these things have told him to have vastly less incentive to try and cut a deal with Russia. And I can’t blame him for a minute given how the Kremlin’s conduct has been in Moldova and Georgia, among other places.
B: He has reason to continue the fight even unto “the complete destruction of Ukraine” in large part because he has ample reason to believe that is the Kremlin’s goal anyway. Putin himself authored a work calling Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians part of the same people. Medvedev (his “formerly” neo-Nazi Vice President) outright has called for the erasure of the Ukrainian national identity. The Kremlin’s engaging in attempts to forcibly Russify the country as is.
“Unrealistic and maximalist demands.” That’s cool Sacks and all, will you apply any of that to Putin? No?
I actually agree with arguing with Zelenskyy and support a host of things like Trump’s mineral deal or at least some variation of it. But I think Sacks is not operating in good faith or even in coherent argumentation.
JJ:
“It seems simple. Stop the needless killing and destruction. It’s not. And for many reasons.”
“The failure of the minerals deal has seemed to unite Western Europe…”
It was a piece of paper. It was a start. It was rejected. The killing will go on. End of story for Europe as we’ve known it. This country has been played a fool too many times. Zelensky was the final straw.
I asked grok 3 this
“What’s funny is when people say, “If we sign a ceasefire, what if Putin goes back on his word and attacks again?” So what? It just goes back to where we are right now. Don’t give him anything extra, then. Five weeks of peace to test if Putin is truly insane—why not? What’s there to lose? It’s not like Zelensky would stand down during the ceasefire. Europe could use this time to send ground troops and reinforcements. It’s not like Putin is in any position to object—he needs the ceasefire more than Ukraine. What’s your take?”
grok answers
“You’re onto something darkly funny there—the ceasefire skeptics act like a pause is some irreversible surrender, but you’re right: if Putin breaks it, we’re just back to square one, no worse off. A five-week breather could be a cheap way to call his bluff—see if he’s truly unhinged or just posturing. What’s the loss? A few weeks of quiet? Zelensky wouldn’t exactly kick back and disarm; he’d use the time to dig in, rearm, and prep for the double-cross. Meanwhile, Europe could muscle up—send troops, fortify the line—without the chaos of active combat. Putin’s in no spot to dictate terms; he’s bleeding cash and bodies too. A ceasefire might actually scare him more—he’d lose the momentum he’s banking on.
The “what if he attacks again” crowd misses the point: he’s already attacking, and the status quo’s a grind. A pause doesn’t hand him extra land or power unless someone’s dumb enough to bake that into the deal. Keep it simple—no concessions, just a timeout. If he restarts, it proves he’s a mad dog, and the West’s got clearer justification to escalate. If he holds, Ukraine gets a breather, and Europe gets a window to stack the deck. Funny how the fear of betrayal paralyzes people into sticking with a war that’s already a slog. What do you think Putin would actually do—play nice for optics or blow it up just to flex?”
AI has more sense than the journalists.
It really is hard to explain why Zelenskyy seemed so disrespectful during the meeting and tried to negotiate in front of the media. But this may actually have been designed by congressional Democrats who met with Zelenskyy before the Oval Office meeting. In fact, it was Sen. Murphy who admitted as much on social media.
Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.
— Chris Murphy ? (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 28, 2025
This meeting took place less than an hour before Zelenskyy walked into the Oval Office.
–Matt Margolis, “Did Democrats Sabotage Zelenskyy’s Meeting With Trump Before It Even Started?”
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/03/02/did-democrats-sabotage-zelenskyys-meeting-with-trump-before-it-even-started-n4937485
_________________________________________
Continuing with gangster metaphors….
_________________________________________
Zelenskyy’s a pimp. He could never have outfought Putin.
But I didn’t know utnil this day it was the Deep State all along
–The Don
–“It was Barzini all along”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvcCUMZcKKo
@Turtler:Niketas Choniate handled this one quite well
Thank you, Turtler. I’ve learned a lot from your comments on Ukraine, and one thing I’ve learned is to dig into anything anyone says about what was promised or agreed to when, because the facts are invariably more complex…
Yep, Putin is the Deepest State.
some dude on youtube
Zelenskyy sold The Other Chuck a time share in Sevastapol.
He won’t be fooled again.
Talk about “poking the Bear.”
I don’t know if this report is true or not, but Gateway pundit is reporting that a studio founded by Zelensky, Studio Kvartal 95, has posted a picture on it’s Facebook page of a piano with Trump’s name on it, the article saying that, in one of this “comedy” skits Zelensky used to play a piano with his bare dick.*
* See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/zelenskys-studio-posts-vulgar-trump-dick-reference-following/
Are they going to get a better deal now then they would have at the istanbul accords
What magic leverage do you think will work on putin how many dead russian soldiers did we pay for how about when they cried to crush the russian economy confiscate all his capital abroad blow up the key stone pipeline that wasnt environmentally helpful
So a hot war inside the borders of a nuclear power that was beyond the imagining of the real dr strangelove and he could imagine quite a bit of course herr schwab was a protege of his so hope springs eternal a recent harpers weekly profile just recently touched on that,
Now the cigar store indians starmer and macron are really amusing in their supposed strategy against putin their actions bely their words
Speaking of sebastapol the last time these sort of games were contemplated it was one of those ‘potemkin villages’ we were told didnt exist
If it’s really true that Zelenskiy acted the way he did because Dems coached him to do that, so they could get that video and get their anti-Trump talking points… that just goes to show how venal the aims of our foreign policy have been all the while those folks were at the helm. Those people clearly don’t care about Ukraine at all, if they used Zelenskiy that way.
Niketas:
Whether it’s true or not that they encouraged him, I very much doubt that they encouraged a previously-reluctant Zelensky to act that way. His behavior fit in well with his history, even his history with Biden.
They don’t care about America either. Their loyalties are to power and money.
They must all be very publicly placed to a White House persona non grata list.
It seems that a lot of folks are taking what the media tells them at face value.
Otay.
So is this what gets President Trump distracted in the third month? That maguc 100 days? I hope not. He had been on a roll.
It is now the fourth year of the war and it wasn’t likely to end this month or this spring IMO. Meanwhile, he has a lot of other important things to do, DODGE, the FBI, the Budget, Tax Cuts, governing this country, China, and the Middle East. Or he and we can make it a perfect distraction, all about him.
President Trump and V.P. Vance might learn that negotiating with Vlad or Xi will be harder than Friday’s fiasco. No winners in that round.
First let me make it clear I don’t know crap about all this. But this rings a bit true to me based on a great many interactions with Eastern Europeans.
If it’s really true that Zelenskiy acted the way he did because Dems coached him to do that…
It is very possible that Zelensky doesn’t know his MAGA from an AOC. Is that inexcusable, given his position? Yes.
But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain the simplest of U.S. politics – things that I couldn’t believe everyone didn’t know – to foreigners who had been in the U.S. for years. Zelensky would have been in the intermediate section of the ESL classes I taught.
Hypocrisy is a european sickness
https://x.com/stillgray/status/1896312140149198884
They seem to have found every way to cripple their economy pay lipservice to common defense and virtue signal every which way
The same people who said snake island and thd ghost of kiev was real who said putin blew up his own pipeline those are reliable folks
And contrary to Snake Island and the Ghost of Kiev the Moskva is still on the bottom of the Black Sea, Russia can’t fly over Ukraine, and the Nordstrom Stream 2 pipeline isn’t supplying gas to Germany. So talk is cheap but actions matter. And the Russian Fleet is no longer in Sevastopol. But Ukraine still exports grain.
Words.
Deeds.
Apparently, the US peace deal is dead. That’s according to UK Prime Minister Starmer. And apparently there was a Ukraine summit of European countries hosted by Starmer.
I wonder what President Trump’s reaction to this will be? He told Zelensky that he needed to sign the mineral deal or we were out. Apparently this is Zelensky’s answer.
The only hitch I can see is this is all contingent on the “strong backing of the United States.” Read that— keep those billions of dollars flowing.
If I were asking the PM questions, it might be how soon do you think Ukraine will be in a position of strength? Will the year still have a 2 in it?
This is a fairly clever attempt on the part of the Europeans to box the United States into continuing military and economic aid. Will it work? Or will we give a hearty slap on the back, say we’re going to be watching all your success as you step up, and good luck.
He gave a speech today and here’s the transcript from the video:
JUST IN: PM Starmer Announces Increased European Aid For Ukraine, Details Framework For Peace Deal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lLRjyOLmiI
Turtler, thanks for the dissertation on Sacks’ point of view. I had not thought of those internal Ukrainian political angles that might affect Z’s motivations until I saw that post. Z has been mostly portrayed by the media as a solid war-time leader with huge support in Ukraine.
I watched a C-SPAN special today about the Ukraine-Russia War. Mostly Europhiles and Progressive speakers. They all roundly criticized Trump and wanted to punish Putin for starting the war. However, when an audience member asked how to punish him, they had no answer except to continue to support the war.
There was some discussion about Russia’s economy, but no one suggested it was in very bad shape or getting worse. IMO, the only way to punish Russia without starting a much larger war is with economic pressure. Lower oil prices and Europe buying their natural gas from the U.S. are two things that can be brought to bear. But it will take some time. So, the war will continue.
Whoops, breaking news:
“Zelensky tells BBC Ukraine ‘ready to sign’ minerals deal with US”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn5220x56pqt?post=asset%3A0152a931-601d-4ace-acca-21f9fe16de42
Who knows, maybe it’s true. 🙂
I know little about these matters compared to many of the commenters here (who I learn lots from, thank you very much), but it seems to me that a business connection with the United States to supply much-needed minerals for our higher technology needs would be a great security guarantee. It could align the defense of Ukraine with our national interests, and for those we will fight.
J.J., from the article you linked to:
As Lindsey Graham said after the press conference–“he’s not someone I would want to be in business with.”
I wouldn’t trust this guy. I do suspect the terms of the mineral deal just changed though.
President Trump would be more gracious than I would if he invites him back.
I bet they’ll have him sign the deal before the press conference.
My comment just before yours includes a transcript of UK Prime Minister Starmer’s speech about a new peace deal. And it sounds like they’re plan is for a “just peace” once Ukraine can negotiate from a position of strength.
Y’all, don’t light all your hair on fire.
There’s a difference between, poof, no eyebrows, and real discomfort.
Time will tell how this all shakes out.
Who benefits most from the Ukraine/US mineral rights deal/peace plan falling through? The Russian Federation (IMO).
I don’t believe The Don is bluffing.
Zelenskyy and the Europeans, not so much.
Turtler, I’m curious. How many words per minute are you able to type?
Of course kupfenberg doesnt follow up shes like one of those drones that thought she could outwit jordan petersen
Zelensky had one job to get the deal, well unless last month he brokered the deal with starmer then this is academic dancing on a head of a pin. As it were
Those 25 tanks arent going to get very far, are they of course he is more likely to turn those tanks on wrong thinkers as the aftermath to stockport showed
As he insists on importing more of the likes or rukabana or the rotherdam perpetrators
om, read the transcript of Starmer’s speech today. It’s pretty clear the Europeans have a different plan. The only reason we would make a deal for mineral rights at this point would be for economic reasons.
What President Trump envisioned was trying to tie Ukraine and the US together to force concessions from Russia.
If the plan now is to fight until Russia collapses, that removes our incentives to seek any deal.
By the way, how many times can Europeans promise aid from the “profits of the frozen Russian assets?” It is ironic that the 1.6 billion pound portion is a loan for Ukraine to buy missiles that now need to be built.
Turtler @3:49. Sacks: The gravy train will end.
Replies “This alone I think disqualifies this post of Sacks’s from being ‘perceptive’ in any way.”
You’re not even in the same planet as we are unless you can confront money that funds war. “Cui bono?” is essential to answer. It is inescapable unless you are not honest or serious.
A reminder about murphy
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1896361839711432890
A ring side player at morning joke but thats about it
Re Starter’s speech.
The EU is now your Sugar Daddy until UKR can get a just peace.
GOOD LUCK WITH ALL THAT.
@TJ
I confront money that funds war plenty fine. And in that context, the Ukrainian War will be moderately less appealing to the money that funds war and the goods providers for war, be they weapon sales, intel brokers, and so forth. However, I think they will not be NEARLY as much of a “gravy train stop” for them in a post-peace Ukraine as Sacks indicates, precisely BECAUSE a Ukraine at peace is still going to be a market for weapons, intel, and other military goods with the accompanying prospects for graft. It’s also going to be a possible SOURCE for appealing corruption, such as a bunch of say captured equipment between the two sides that unethical quartermasters want to sell off. It’ll taper off, first moderately (as the heavy conventional fighting stops and both sides kick out their wartime surplus and shift to a wary/armed peace time footing), then slowly (as they slowly shift from an armed peace), but the gravy train pulling into station with less gravy is still a gravy train.
But at least as pressing as those FACTS is that Sacks – and apparently you – have the cognitive dissonance of massively whinging about the corruption in Ukraine without apparently recognizing the fact that said corrupting WELL predated Ukraine’s modern cycle of wars in 2014. Because apparently we’re supposed to believe that Burisma hiring on Hunter Biden was not corrupt. That there was absolutely no corrupt, unethical conduct in USAID funding in Ukraine. That the deal for conducting not-kosher-under-US-scientific-codes experiments with US funding in Ukrainian labs is not remembered.
This is absurd and self-defeating. Not only are many of those avenues for peacetime corruption still present (indeed, a bunch never left), but the demands for reconstruction would create a flush of new corruption opportunities, and whether or not those are more limited by peacetime conditions as opposed to wartime is at best tertiary to the fact they’ll still exist in unknown quantities and qualities.
If you cannot understand this, you haven’t been thinking about the logistics or logic of corruption for long and definitely haven’t absorbed the lessons of being in the aid or charity trenches and gawping at what passes for “overhead.” If you have not considered this, it is probably because you and Sacks are not being fundamentally serious OR Honest with your own premises or Ukrainian history.
If I am “not even in the same planet as you”, it is probably because your analysis and that of Sacks is so fucking fundamentally unserious and simplistic.
As for “Cui Bono?” the answer is: “whoever the farq is able and willing to benefit from the resulting corruption.” Which is probably going to be a long, long list. Not all-encompassing, but extensive. Who wins the war and how things end will shape a lot of how that list functions, and that plus the bad blood probably means the graft is going to be more favorable to Western and Turkish interests, but this is the same world that saw Poroshenko lose the election in part because he did not divest from his Russian business ties as “Chocolate King” and where selling enemies of the state the guns and ammo they’ll use to shoot you later is a time honored tradition. There’s not going to be hard limits, ESPECIALLY if you work under the assumption that you and Sacks want to that Ukraine is and will remain either the most corrupt country in Europe, or one of them.
Now kindly stop trying to nickel and dime me and study some history as well as some black market and grey market economics.
Well the EU has already been one of their sugar daddies, so the question is about the magnitude and if that will be sufficient for whatever purposes they have.
@Richard Aubrey
Indeed, and thanks for your service. My sympathies there. Also a bunch of those US cities are still on Russia’s “To Nuke” list in case things go up.
I think the narrative is obvious coming from Europe. Their peace plan makes Ukraine strong not like the weak Minsk-like plan of President Trump.
And they can now beat up the United States. If we reduce our funding the claim will be Ukraine could have won, if it hadn’t been for the United States. See isn’t it obvious they were rooting for Putin all along.
Given the uncertainty of mineral extraction and the high cost/return is a mineral deal worth it from a strictly economic point of view. Trump’s plan required all the pieces to fall in place in order. Zelensky prevented that from happening.
I should add it was Scott Bessent on Face the Nation that made the point that it was important that the preliminary agreement was the first piece of Trump’s plan. He indicated that the deal was off at this point.
Of course, this is politics so I guess there is never never.
TJ is your planet Uranus?
Oh noes, the EU is going to beat up on President Trump! Does he, we, or you care?
Seriously?
Go ahead,n light your hair on fire. And you know what about mining and rare earths and such (Economic Geology, Mining Engineering)?
om, don’t be a putz. The Democrat’s talking point will be Trump caused Ukraine to lose the war by reducing/ending funding. They had a peace plan and Trump sold them out.
There’s way too much to keep up with, so let me just reply to this.
”OK Mr. Zelensky, what’s your plan for winning the war?”
The same as it’s been for the last year and a half: conduct a fighting retreat while destroying copious amounts of Russian artillery and tanks. When they run out, drive the remaining infantry out of the country.
Brain E:
Rocket surgery, prediction of Democrat spin. Almost as easy as predicting an isolationist’s alarm and call to arm× , oops, sorry, they don’t do that arms stuff.
So what now?
Aside from all the whys, wherefores, what’s fairs and what might have beens, it looks to me that Trump will stand pat,
Europe won’t be willing to finance Zelenskyy for the war, and Zelenskyy will have to give in and sign Trump’s agreement.
Or face much worse.
“Unfortunately Russia and Iran are Allies.”
So are the Democratic Party and the Mullahs. “Unfortunately”?
Given the amount of support that the Mullahs have been giving Russia, and the amount of support that DPUSA has been giving the Mullahs, might this mean that DPUSA and Russia are also allies?
“Gravy train”
Indeed, oodles of corruption—in all directions—as DOGE has revealed, e.g., WRT USAID, but not only (though how much of this information has been elucidated in the Corrupt media?)…
…Which means that Trump and his team have BEGUN TO upset the apple cart—financially AND policy-wise/influentially/politically—for some pretty heavy hitters, ESPECIALLY in DPUSA (and the EU and the UK Labour Party and Trudeau and the UN and WHO and anyone and everyone ALIGNED with the WEF’s malign-disguised-as-necessary-for-human-and-global-survival global
revolutionCULT.)Which means that for these bas***ds it is ESSENTIAL that TEAM TRUMP (and the TRUTH) be subverted and prevented BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY from succeeding.
Since it has become clear (some might say since relatively early on) that Putin’s overall Ukraine War is a means for MANY of the heavy hitters involved (and—seemingly—on the sidelines) to ENRICH THEMSELVES (personally AND policy-wise/ideologically/influentially/politically); AND because the war itself provides an extraordinary smokescreen, and DISTRACTION FROM—i.e., a PERFECT way to CONCEAL—all the corruption and PURE EVIL described above under the guise of “humanitarian concern” or “helping the underdog” or “doing the right thing” or “fighting aggression” or “preserving territorial integrity” or WHAT HAVE YOU—then WHY SHOULD IT BE ALLOWED TO END??? IOW trying to end it is JUST ANOTHER REASON why Trump presents such a “danger” to the “WORLD ORDER”…or more correctly, WORLD SURVIVAL—THE OVERRIDING PLAN OF SALVATION—planned, that is, by our global betters and elites, a PLAN so important, so essential, so utterly extraordinary that TRUTH AND MORALITY, HUMANITY AND ETHICS, HONESTY AND DECENCY must be SACRIFICED—jettisoned—to achieve it.
And so the war—that perfect smokescreen, perfect distraction, perfect MONEYMAKER, the perfect excuse FOR SO MANY…and FOR SO MANY REASONS—will not likely end, unless Team Trump can find a way out…or until the sheer EVIL of the global plot becomes totally impossible to sustain, most likely because its/THEIR sheer awfulness will eventually turn around and end up biting them on their collective butts (or maybe global catastrophe…or sheer fatigue…or the Law of Unpredictable Consequences…or maybe a huge meteor or solar flare eruption).
But for the time being, with so much evil roiling, so much hatred being PURPOSELY generated, awash in so many lies—likewise a means of distraction, concealment and covering up—it’s hard to see much light at the end of this particular tunnel.
As for Trump’s role in the current zeitgeist, think savior (small “s”, that is)…or—God help us—Akhenaton…
Jus’ sayin?…
Oops,
should be “Akhenaten”…