[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Commander]

I think the deal is done subject to Zelensky receiving security guarantees from the U.S. But, there were meant to be security guarantees in place for when Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on their soil ? what happened to that ?

Fast forward to Trump#2 and we see a world leader who simply can't be trusted, I for one, would never rely on Trumps word and I think Zelensky would be mad to agree anything with the US under its current government.

Whilst I totally get the concern in trusting Trump, would Putin want to risk it? The US don't have to actually defend Ukraine, they just need the Russians to think that they will.

 

[raymondo]

I think the deal is done subject to Zelensky receiving security guarantees from the U.S. But, there were meant to be security guarantees in place for when Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons on their soil ? what happened to that ?

Fast forward to Trump#2 and we see a world leader who simply can't be trusted, I for one, would never rely on Trumps word and I think Zelensky would be mad to agree anything with the US under its current government.

Yeah, I agree. I think it is likely to all end in 'tears' (or far worse of course). Trump cannot be trusted and I wonder what he may have said privately to Putin.

 

[armchairclubber]

No guarantee offered by Trump will be meaningful. And no law too rigorous to sidestep.

I think that's probably true.

From your point of view at least.

 

[raymondo]

I know what you mean about not trusting a deal with Trump, but the alternative of not dealing with the US at all is not a good one for Ukraine. Ukraine can survive with help from Europe, but it would be much better for them if they also had the US on their side. If there's a peace at some point in the near future, Putin will probably not want to attack again while Trump is there, and when he's gone (assuming the US stays as a democracy), Ukraine could get better guarantees from a new POTUS.

Yes. And/ Or, by the time Trump is gone () I'd hope that Europe (including UK) has vastly improved its defence capability and mindset, and so can provide a real option if next POTUS isn't a solid ally.

 

[raymondo]

It's just that I feel he ( Trump ) will say anything to try to be the great statesman and be seen brokering a deal that suits his ego but, will he even remember what he said the day after signing anything ? We need a major sea change in the US and I can't see where and when its coming. The new reality is they are untrustworthy and divisive.

I would hope the group around him might slowly morph into something more intelligent, as they absorb the reactions to the last two weeks.
It may take a long time, or may of course not happen.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm not sure what @raymondo has to do with it?

raymondo was the one saying that Trump used 'dictator' lightly, and you thought he should state that's just his opinion.

This is you're final chance.

You know that's a really odd thing to say, right? We're all free to put other users on ignore if we prefer not to read their posts, and by saying I have a final chance you're making out like I'm lucky that you've not put me on ignore. Just put me on ignore if you want, it makes no difference to me.

 

[raymondo]

The minerals deal in full

https://kyivindependent.com/exclusive-the-full-text-of-the-final-us-ukraine-mineral-agreement/

I've finally read it in detail...many thanks for posting
It's certainly interesting.
I guess the desire to secure an effective peace seems to be there, and if US companies and $ are vested in those reconstruction and infrastructure projects, then that increases the likelihood that US would defend a peace somehow...

However, to me, the implication is that the agreement will cover the territory currently held by Ukraine (minus Kursk I'd imagine

Section 10. contains the words still to be thrashed out on security. Here is part of it for those that don't have time to read the whole thing.
"
This Bilateral Agreement and the Fund Agreement will constitute integral elements of the architecture of bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as concrete steps to establish lasting peace, and to strengthen economic security resilience and reflect the objectives set forth in the preamble to this Bilateral Agreement.

The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement."

 

[Eric the meek]

I've finally read it in detail...many thanks for posting
It's certainly interesting.
I guess the desire to secure an effective peace seems to be there, and if US companies and $ are vested in those reconstruction and infrastructure projects, then that increases the likelihood that US would defend a peace somehow...

However, to me, the implication is that the agreement will cover the territory currently held by Ukraine (minus Kursk I'd imagine

Section 10. contains the words still to be thrashed out on security. Here is part of it for those that don't have time to read the whole thing.
"
This Bilateral Agreement and the Fund Agreement will constitute integral elements of the architecture of bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as concrete steps to establish lasting peace, and to strengthen economic security resilience and reflect the objectives set forth in the preamble to this Bilateral Agreement.

The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement."

 

[vegster]

Whilst I totally get the concern in trusting Trump, would Putin want to risk it? The US don't have to actually defend Ukraine, they just need the Russians to think that they will.

Well well, Guardian reporting Trump quoted as saying " The US will not make security guarantees " Beyond very much ".... additionally NATO membership is out. As my previous posts intimate, the current US government is untrustworthy and worthless now.

Well, lets agree to take Ukraine in to NATO and allow the US to leave. Sod him.

 

[armchairclubber]

raymondo was the one saying that Trump used 'dictator' lightly, and you thought he should state that's just his opinion.

You're so obviously a troll, and trying to bring someone else into your argument.
Anyone who can't see that must be blind, however long they've been on this thread.

You know that's a really odd thing to say, right? We're all free to put other users on ignore if we prefer not to read their posts, and by saying I have a final chance you're making out like I'm lucky that you've not put me on ignore. Just put me on ignore if you want, it makes no difference to me.

OK then, I'll just choose to ignore you as and when I like. (Unless the mods decide to intervene)



Back to the thread

 

[Eric the meek]

 

[Triggaaar]

It's so difficult to understand what the hell he's doing. Right there seems positive, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

I've finally read it in detail...many thanks for posting
It's certainly interesting.
I guess the desire to secure an effective peace seems to be there, and if US companies and $ are vested in those reconstruction and infrastructure projects, then that increases the likelihood that US would defend a peace somehow...

However, to me, the implication is that the agreement will cover the territory currently held by Ukraine (minus Kursk I'd imagine

Section 10. contains the words still to be thrashed out on security. Here is part of it for those that don't have time to read the whole thing.
"
This Bilateral Agreement and the Fund Agreement will constitute integral elements of the architecture of bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as concrete steps to establish lasting peace, and to strengthen economic security resilience and reflect the objectives set forth in the preamble to this Bilateral Agreement.

The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement."

This is an interesting bit that contradicts Trumps recent ramblings about Ukraine starting the war

WHEREAS the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022;

 

[Eric the meek]

It's so difficult to understand what the hell he's doing. Right there seems positive, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Indeed. The bloke from the ISW (post 22,039) says he doesn't know what the strategy is. I think he said that twice. This is someone who studies the war. It's his job. He criticised the messaging, saying that the different members of the Trump team have contradicted each other. There is no consistency.

I suppose it is possible it is a deiberate policy, but I think more likely it is a dangerous mixture of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence.

 

[raymondo]

Well well, Guardian reporting Trump quoted as saying " The US will not make security guarantees " Beyond very much ".... additionally NATO membership is out. As my previous posts intimate, the current US government is untrustworthy and worthless now.

Well, lets agree to take Ukraine in to NATO and allow the US to leave. Sod him.

Yep, Europe needs to be developing a European Defense Association, without the US. Fast.

 

[raymondo]

Residents of Dagestan are pissed off enough with Putin to make a protest video. I imagine he won't care much.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yep, Europe needs to be developing a European Defense Association, without the US. Fast.

If the US leave NATO, we have one.

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

If the US leave NATO, we have one.

Presumably Putin would prefer Trump's US to stay in NATO as a destabilising force. Without them we could undoubtedly get our shit together.

 

[raymondo]

Presumably Putin would prefer Trump's US to stay in NATO as a destabilising force. Without them we could undoubtedly get our shit together.

Yep. Similar to having Hungary and Slovakia within the EU, but apparently Orban is starting to fall in the ratings.

 

[Eric the meek]

On the eastern side of the Black Sea at Tuapse, near the Georgian 'breakaway' region of Abkhazia