- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,442
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
GoldstoneVintage
Well-known member
Seems positive, but he's so slippery and like most politicians, uses ambiguous language. My worry is that he'll somehow get Putin off the hook in a deal that he presents as compromise or even win:win.
To me, this is zero sum. For Ukraine to achieve a fair outcome, Russia has to give back everything and gain nothing.
Surely that’s just the starting point. Reparations + ……..
Cue the first thing that will be quietly forgotten in any Trump/Putin negotiations. Reparations would be an admission of Russian culpability - not many 'interested parties', outside Ukraine, will have them on their shopping list.
Don’t disagree but the West can’t just let it go as Putin ending his SMO.
Interesting, but slippery language
'Can't'? Wish I had your optimism!
I'd expect the entire West to want Russia to pay reparations?
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,442
Why did he use the figure of 700,000? He did it for a reason.
It might be a message to both Putin and a warning of things to come. It may be a sign that this may become the narrative in the peace talks. Play ball or we will talk numbers. Most Russian people will have no idea how high the numbers are. Remember Putin's niece making the 'mistake of accidentally releasing' the number of disappeared Russian troops at 45,000? The real figure is likely to be many times higher than that. Putin wouldn't want to get into a 'you've got/I've got' argument about numbers of dead, injured and missing Russian troops.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 26,330
The strange thing is that, as much as I have no respect for Trump, I do wonder that perhaps he may be quite useful in this situation.
Last edited:
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,442
His early appointments (Hesgeth, Gabbard) were right out there, as if they were made to deliberately annoy the Democrats, but the one that matters in the Ukraine peace talks (Kellogg) was right on point.
GoldstoneVintage
Well-known member
I certainly want to believe that Trump will do the right thing by Ukraine. However, I think this essentially means double crossing Putin, the person who has carefully cultivated him for decades. Now I wouldn't put that kind of disloyalty past Trump, but I don't want to get my hopes up. Basically, I'm hoping for the best while mentally preparing myself for disappointment.
Whatever we think of Trump he has power, a mandate, wants to be a celebrity and popular, but more than anything he wants to leave a legacy. What better than destroying Putin and his regime, freeing Ukraine, then moving on to sort out the Middle East?
We can only hope
We can only hope
Want? - yes. But insist, backed with full military force when Russia says 'No way'?
No chance!
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,442
I think that's sensible. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Trump is unpredictable of course. Who really knows what will happen? But you can still get a sense of his thinking from 'when you lose 700,000 soldiers, it's time to end the war. Putin has lost'. That may just be Trump talking to the American public, or a negotiating position, and/or may never be seen inside Russia. But he is in control of the narrative.
You said not many outside Ukraine would have reparations on their shopping list.
Suggesting it be enforced with military is silly. Obviously the West aren't going to invade Russia to make them pay money. What they could do, is keep sanctions forever, until such reparations are paid. That's what I'd call for.
The West 'talking numbers' doesn't do anything, Russians won't see what Trump et al has to say.
It's what they won't do, sorry. It would cost money, and I doubt if Russia would agree to it unless forced too.
Obviously Russia won't agree to anything unless they feel forced to.
It's really difficult to guess how long Russia and Ukraine can fight for, and how much the West are prepared to do. I wouldn't rule anything out.