Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 21. (Read 80293 times)
Putin is running out of money, he has cut payments to soldiers. His end is near.
Nobody knows what the Trump administration will do about the Ukraine war. But it will be weeks before Trump takes office. However, he is starting now.
Trump Expected To Appoint Ukraine Peace Envoy 'Soon': Fox
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-expected-appoint-ukrainian-peace-envoy-soon-fox
"You're going to see a very senior special envoy, someone with a lot of credibility, who will be given a task to find a resolution, to get to a peace settlement," one of several sources told Fox. The person previewed that the appointment will happen "in short order."
Fox notes that "The job is not expected to be a salaried role - from 2017 to 2019, Kurt Volker had served as special representative to Ukrainian negotiations on a volunteer basis."
This comes amid the last couple days of new members of Trump's future administration being announced. Many Trump supporters have observed that hawks have filled up key posts so far - with most being known especially for their stridently pro-Israel positions, such as Pete Hegseth, nominated for Defense Secretary. Steven Witkoff has also been named as special envoy for the Middle East.
Over the weekend a Washington Post report said Trump held his first phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin wherein Trump warned the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine. Strangely, the Kremlin is denying that the phone call ever took place.
As for what a potential Trump peace plan for Ukraine might look like, the WSJ days ago revealed that a main option being considered would see a 'freeze' on the war, which to Kiev's dismay would involve "cementing Russia's seizure of roughly 20 percent of Ukraine" while imposing a 20-year suspension on Ukraine pursuing NATO membership.
Informal Trump adviser Elon Musk responded to a report about that plan on X, writing that "The senseless killing will end soon. Time is up for the warmonger profiteers."
As for who might be named special envoy for Ukraine peace, it's anyone's guess. Most State Department veterans who have worked on the conflict are likely hawks. Thus the "old hands" are unlikely to back any plan which permanently cedes the Donbass to Russian control.
This means Trump would likely need an 'outsider' for his vision of enacting a rapid Ukraine ceasefire to have a chance. But it would also likely be someone commanding respect and influence among the Ukrainian and Russian sides.
...
Trump Expected To Appoint Ukraine Peace Envoy 'Soon': Fox
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-expected-appoint-ukrainian-peace-envoy-soon-fox
"You're going to see a very senior special envoy, someone with a lot of credibility, who will be given a task to find a resolution, to get to a peace settlement," one of several sources told Fox. The person previewed that the appointment will happen "in short order."
Fox notes that "The job is not expected to be a salaried role - from 2017 to 2019, Kurt Volker had served as special representative to Ukrainian negotiations on a volunteer basis."
This comes amid the last couple days of new members of Trump's future administration being announced. Many Trump supporters have observed that hawks have filled up key posts so far - with most being known especially for their stridently pro-Israel positions, such as Pete Hegseth, nominated for Defense Secretary. Steven Witkoff has also been named as special envoy for the Middle East.
Over the weekend a Washington Post report said Trump held his first phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin wherein Trump warned the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine. Strangely, the Kremlin is denying that the phone call ever took place.
As for what a potential Trump peace plan for Ukraine might look like, the WSJ days ago revealed that a main option being considered would see a 'freeze' on the war, which to Kiev's dismay would involve "cementing Russia's seizure of roughly 20 percent of Ukraine" while imposing a 20-year suspension on Ukraine pursuing NATO membership.
Informal Trump adviser Elon Musk responded to a report about that plan on X, writing that "The senseless killing will end soon. Time is up for the warmonger profiteers."
As for who might be named special envoy for Ukraine peace, it's anyone's guess. Most State Department veterans who have worked on the conflict are likely hawks. Thus the "old hands" are unlikely to back any plan which permanently cedes the Donbass to Russian control.
This means Trump would likely need an 'outsider' for his vision of enacting a rapid Ukraine ceasefire to have a chance. But it would also likely be someone commanding respect and influence among the Ukrainian and Russian sides.
...
Ukraine is not asking for long range missiles to strike Moscow, they can and already have hit Moscow recently, even forcing a closure of the airport. There are also a few reports of military helicopters burning mysteriously in the area.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-launches-drone-attack-moscow-shutting-airports-rcna179485
But no, there are much more juicy targets that are worth billions and are better hit with ballistic missiles than drones (e.g. protected ammo depots and oil facilities).
There is not such a thing as a "point of no return" in population (other than having less than 100 couples of an species), you are making things up. Populations recover well and the Ukrainian army is made of relatively old soldiers in average.
But to the point: Trump has "promised" to end the war in 24 hours, let's take it as "in a short period of time". That is not possible unless both sides agree to stop the fight. While Ukraine would suffer if the US withdraws the aid, but the war would not be over.
For both sides to agree Putin will ask to keep what he got and take a chunk of additional free land. Zelensky may or may not settle with loosing what Ukraine already lost but he is unlikely to give away land.
But regardless of territorial concession from either side, the key for peace is a guarantee of an independent Ukraine. Any deal that means Ruzzia will recover and have all the incentives to attack again, with any of the usual excuses, a defenceless Ukraine is not going to be accepted by Ukraine - there is no benefit in allowing Ruzzia to re-arm and prepare better. Putin may have a similar view from the opposite side - any deal that means Ukraine is not held hostage to a Ruzzian invasion is not valid.
If it comes to brute forcing a solution it means that Ruzzia will have to keep pressing, with or without success for at least another year. That is doable, but it will also cut deep into the economy, the population and the future of Ruzzia. Even the regime may get scared.
As usual, Ukraine needs to make sure there are plenty of expensive and irreplaceable assets destroyed in Ruzzia daily, so that eventually the scale starts weighting more towards a peace in reasonable terms for Ukraine. One billion here in oil, half billion there in ammo, 100 million destroying planes,... etc. There is a lot to choose from and drones are not expensive.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-launches-drone-attack-moscow-shutting-airports-rcna179485
Quote
Ukraine launches 'massive attack' on Moscow, shutting down airports
But no, there are much more juicy targets that are worth billions and are better hit with ballistic missiles than drones (e.g. protected ammo depots and oil facilities).
There is not such a thing as a "point of no return" in population (other than having less than 100 couples of an species), you are making things up. Populations recover well and the Ukrainian army is made of relatively old soldiers in average.
But to the point: Trump has "promised" to end the war in 24 hours, let's take it as "in a short period of time". That is not possible unless both sides agree to stop the fight. While Ukraine would suffer if the US withdraws the aid, but the war would not be over.
For both sides to agree Putin will ask to keep what he got and take a chunk of additional free land. Zelensky may or may not settle with loosing what Ukraine already lost but he is unlikely to give away land.
But regardless of territorial concession from either side, the key for peace is a guarantee of an independent Ukraine. Any deal that means Ruzzia will recover and have all the incentives to attack again, with any of the usual excuses, a defenceless Ukraine is not going to be accepted by Ukraine - there is no benefit in allowing Ruzzia to re-arm and prepare better. Putin may have a similar view from the opposite side - any deal that means Ukraine is not held hostage to a Ruzzian invasion is not valid.
If it comes to brute forcing a solution it means that Ruzzia will have to keep pressing, with or without success for at least another year. That is doable, but it will also cut deep into the economy, the population and the future of Ruzzia. Even the regime may get scared.
As usual, Ukraine needs to make sure there are plenty of expensive and irreplaceable assets destroyed in Ruzzia daily, so that eventually the scale starts weighting more towards a peace in reasonable terms for Ukraine. One billion here in oil, half billion there in ammo, 100 million destroying planes,... etc. There is a lot to choose from and drones are not expensive.
And how exactly do you expect that Russian general, that's tasked with nuclear deterrence/retaliation watching the radar screen, to know if US ballistic missile with possible nuclear payload crossing the Russian boarder from Ukraine, with general trajectory towards Moscow will actually come down from space at some oil facilities before it reaches Moscow? I guess you expect him to know all possible trajectories that are crossing paths with St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, all RU nuclear cites, RU nuclear power plants, nuke early warning radars etc etc etc... Does anyone care to ask the rest of the world if they're ok with that? Stop playing dumb
Look at the Median Age, Fertility etc if the goal is to get to 100 couples they're doing a good job.
Trump has lied and broken tons of promise before, so I wouldn't read much into his "promises". With that said, if he was serious about it he could just say that there will be no new aid for Ukraine, period, and that Ukraine has until January 21 to make the best deal it can. Then have backdoor talks with Russia decide on the compromise and pass to Ukraine what they should agree to. If Zelenskiy decided to ignore that, his inner circle and generals would quickly make Z understand that he's in no position to go against the will of US, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.
Anyone who has ever looked at the globe realizes that Russia is not in it for the territory. Russia cannot allow Ukraine to fall under US's sphere of influence. So securing Russia's influence, culture, granting Russian language official status in UA constitution... , and no NATO would take priority over square kilometers of land. i.e. agree for UA to hold the land for X years and then referendum, in return of putting Yanukovych (or someone like that) back in Kyiv.
Independent Ukraine is impossible, even Switzerland is not independent anymore. It must fall under some sphere of influence, and as we all see, Russia cannot allow Nuland's cookies in anymore.
Everyone realizes that Russia cannot hold on forever, just as everyone realizes that Russia doesn't have to as Ukraine would collapse socially, politically, and militarily way before Russia does. So continuing this is just an exercise in futility
I read that Trump promised to stop this crazy game of blood.;
Can he?
If he does, I will be happy. Humanity can live in peace and harmony. The mother earth is rich enough to provide in abundance to all humanity only if we go away with greed, hatred and hunger for control and manipulation.
Can he?
If he does, I will be happy. Humanity can live in peace and harmony. The mother earth is rich enough to provide in abundance to all humanity only if we go away with greed, hatred and hunger for control and manipulation.
Ukraine is already backpedaling and saying that "territory is not that important"
https://news-pravda.com/ukraine/2024/11/14/851097.html
https://news-pravda.com/ukraine/2024/11/14/851097.html
Trump will want Ukraine and Russia to be quickly done and dusted so he can move onto other election promises. But I think he's wading into a conflict he has little understanding of.
I mean what will Trump do if Ukraine and Russia both reject the "peace" deal?
Ukraine won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want back what was stolen.
Russia won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want all of Ukraine and the current government removed.
What will Trump do then do you think? I really don't know.
I guess stopping the war is kinda easy sort of.
But keeping it stopped is a totally different beast altogether; that's the hard part.
I mean what will Trump do if Ukraine and Russia both reject the "peace" deal?
Ukraine won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want back what was stolen.
Russia won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want all of Ukraine and the current government removed.
What will Trump do then do you think? I really don't know.
I guess stopping the war is kinda easy sort of.
But keeping it stopped is a totally different beast altogether; that's the hard part.
Trump sees China as its biggest risk. As such his priority would be to drive Russia as far away from China as possible.
You're still thinking of this as if Ukraine has any choice in any of this. Wars are expensive, and stopping one is easy. No money = no war. Look up what happened last time Ukrainian aid package made it through US congress. They're trying to rush the remainder of that aid out to Ukraine now, but there's only enough for Ukraine to last few more months after that...? Now consider that republicans got both chambers, and the position of speaker of the house, VP's and president on Ukraine. And now ask yourself if the next aid package will be approved, if so how long will Ukraine have to wait this time without aid, and will it be less same or more than the last one (we all see how much progress Ukraine was able to achieve with the current rate of aid).
This didn't address my question.
What you suggest is a way to get Ukraine to the negotiating table. That makes sense.
Trump could threaten to increase aid to Ukraine to get Russia to the table. That makes sense too.
But what happens if they can't agree? That's my question.
If Trump reduces aid to Ukraine, it emboldens China (and others), increasing the risk to US from China. The very thing you said his priority was to avoid.
If Trump increases aid to Ukraine, according to this forum thread, that will drag out the war. Trumps breaks an election promise of a quick resolve.
If Trump does nothing it's an election promise broken and China emboldened.
You see it easy to come up with simple answers to complicated problems when you're a presidential candidate with no responsibility. But Trump won, and when he takes office it will be his responsibility; simple answers to complicated problems are then not useful.
In wars no one cares about what you want it's what you can get.
Support for sending money to Ukraine is eroding, it's uneven and much lower with republicans than democrats. Discussing what if Trump decides to ignore his party, break his promise and send even more money to the person he blames for starting war and called the greatest salesman on Earth" for having solicited and received billions of dollars of U.S. military aid, is like discussing what if Martians show up and start helping Ukraine. Let's keep the discussion to what is plausible.
Money is running out for Ukraine and everyone at the negotiation table knows it, and all outcomes must be based on this. In politics there's not always a good option available. Most of the time you have to compromise between bad and worse, and on top of that the bad/worse positions often flip between short and long terms.
Also, Ukraine has issues with manpower, North Koreans is sending some troops to Russia, even if Trump could send more money to Ukraine what do you think it would achieve?
So no, Trump will not increase aid to Ukraine and EU cannot compensate that. Zelenskiy would step down, get a cozy spot in US, and let his team negotiate the terms. In a hypothetical where he just goes mad and refuses to accept reality, his generals would find a way to force him one way or the other (as history shows).
You picked the "If Trump reduces aid to Ukraine, it emboldens China (and others), increasing the risk to US from China. The very thing you said his priority was to avoid." option (I think). That's okay, just asking peoples opinion that's all.
Myself, I don't know the answer.
It's odd discussing unlikely hypotheticals, but i'll entertain it:
-"If Trump increases aid to Ukraine" he'll go against the core of his support, and a growing majority of republicans wanting to reduce the aid and prioritize America. This would undercut his political support within his own party, republicans would get a new populists playing on the growing demands of it's base to reduce the aid to UA. This would be considered an escalation and Russia would respond with its own escalation, like getting Iranian, Belarusian and more North Korean to send their troops to help RU. China would also need to respond, and match it by increasing "unofficial" support for Russia. All this and it would do little for the main issue in Ukraine which is shortage of manpower. Sure UA can start throwing money at soldiers, but that would just further exacerbate the shortage of workers in already barely existing UA economy, and put a further dent in UA's demographics, birth rate etc, which already might be beyond the point of no return. So ton of downside and a little chance on upside.
-"If Trump does nothing" continuing the current rate of aid would lead to continuation of the current dynamics at the front. Bleed out Russia a bit more, for an inevitable total military loss of Ukraine. Achieves little, with huge financial loss, political loss, and still a total Ukrainian loss. Again no up side only downside.
That's why UA is asking for permission to use long ranges US missiles on Moscow. Not that it could change anything in the militarily sense for UA, but that's the only way for UA leadership to drag US/NATO directly into the conflict. What better way to achieve this than to give some Russian general responsible for nuclear deterrence few minutes to somehow make a decision if the US ballistic missile heading for Moscow has nuclear payload or not
, and if he should respond accordingly. Luckily US doesn't seem to want to start a nuclear war, despite how much Z is asking for it.Ukraine is not asking for long range missiles to strike Moscow, they can and already have hit Moscow recently, even forcing a closure of the airport. There are also a few reports of military helicopters burning mysteriously in the area.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-launches-drone-attack-moscow-shutting-airports-rcna179485
Quote
Ukraine launches 'massive attack' on Moscow, shutting down airports
But no, there are much more juicy targets that are worth billions and are better hit with ballistic missiles than drones (e.g. protected ammo depots and oil facilities).
There is not such a thing as a "point of no return" in population (other than having less than 100 couples of an species), you are making things up. Populations recover well and the Ukrainian army is made of relatively old soldiers in average.
But to the point: Trump has "promised" to end the war in 24 hours, let's take it as "in a short period of time". That is not possible unless both sides agree to stop the fight. While Ukraine would suffer if the US withdraws the aid, but the war would not be over.
For both sides to agree Putin will ask to keep what he got and take a chunk of additional free land. Zelensky may or may not settle with loosing what Ukraine already lost but he is unlikely to give away land.
But regardless of territorial concession from either side, the key for peace is a guarantee of an independent Ukraine. Any deal that means Ruzzia will recover and have all the incentives to attack again, with any of the usual excuses, a defenceless Ukraine is not going to be accepted by Ukraine - there is no benefit in allowing Ruzzia to re-arm and prepare better. Putin may have a similar view from the opposite side - any deal that means Ukraine is not held hostage to a Ruzzian invasion is not valid.
If it comes to brute forcing a solution it means that Ruzzia will have to keep pressing, with or without success for at least another year. That is doable, but it will also cut deep into the economy, the population and the future of Ruzzia. Even the regime may get scared.
As usual, Ukraine needs to make sure there are plenty of expensive and irreplaceable assets destroyed in Ruzzia daily, so that eventually the scale starts weighting more towards a peace in reasonable terms for Ukraine. One billion here in oil, half billion there in ammo, 100 million destroying planes,... etc. There is a lot to choose from and drones are not expensive.
Trump will want Ukraine and Russia to be quickly done and dusted so he can move onto other election promises. But I think he's wading into a conflict he has little understanding of.
I mean what will Trump do if Ukraine and Russia both reject the "peace" deal?
Ukraine won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want back what was stolen.
Russia won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want all of Ukraine and the current government removed.
What will Trump do then do you think? I really don't know.
I guess stopping the war is kinda easy sort of.
But keeping it stopped is a totally different beast altogether; that's the hard part.
I mean what will Trump do if Ukraine and Russia both reject the "peace" deal?
Ukraine won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want back what was stolen.
Russia won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want all of Ukraine and the current government removed.
What will Trump do then do you think? I really don't know.
I guess stopping the war is kinda easy sort of.
But keeping it stopped is a totally different beast altogether; that's the hard part.
Trump sees China as its biggest risk. As such his priority would be to drive Russia as far away from China as possible.
You're still thinking of this as if Ukraine has any choice in any of this. Wars are expensive, and stopping one is easy. No money = no war. Look up what happened last time Ukrainian aid package made it through US congress. They're trying to rush the remainder of that aid out to Ukraine now, but there's only enough for Ukraine to last few more months after that...? Now consider that republicans got both chambers, and the position of speaker of the house, VP's and president on Ukraine. And now ask yourself if the next aid package will be approved, if so how long will Ukraine have to wait this time without aid, and will it be less same or more than the last one (we all see how much progress Ukraine was able to achieve with the current rate of aid).
This didn't address my question.
What you suggest is a way to get Ukraine to the negotiating table. That makes sense.
Trump could threaten to increase aid to Ukraine to get Russia to the table. That makes sense too.
But what happens if they can't agree? That's my question.
If Trump reduces aid to Ukraine, it emboldens China (and others), increasing the risk to US from China. The very thing you said his priority was to avoid.
If Trump increases aid to Ukraine, according to this forum thread, that will drag out the war. Trumps breaks an election promise of a quick resolve.
If Trump does nothing it's an election promise broken and China emboldened.
You see it easy to come up with simple answers to complicated problems when you're a presidential candidate with no responsibility. But Trump won, and when he takes office it will be his responsibility; simple answers to complicated problems are then not useful.
In wars no one cares about what you want it's what you can get.
Support for sending money to Ukraine is eroding, it's uneven and much lower with republicans than democrats. Discussing what if Trump decides to ignore his party, break his promise and send even more money to the person he blames for starting war and called the greatest salesman on Earth" for having solicited and received billions of dollars of U.S. military aid, is like discussing what if Martians show up and start helping Ukraine. Let's keep the discussion to what is plausible.
Money is running out for Ukraine and everyone at the negotiation table knows it, and all outcomes must be based on this. In politics there's not always a good option available. Most of the time you have to compromise between bad and worse, and on top of that the bad/worse positions often flip between short and long terms.
Also, Ukraine has issues with manpower, North Koreans is sending some troops to Russia, even if Trump could send more money to Ukraine what do you think it would achieve?
So no, Trump will not increase aid to Ukraine and EU cannot compensate that. Zelenskiy would step down, get a cozy spot in US, and let his team negotiate the terms. In a hypothetical where he just goes mad and refuses to accept reality, his generals would find a way to force him one way or the other (as history shows).
You picked the "If Trump reduces aid to Ukraine, it emboldens China (and others), increasing the risk to US from China. The very thing you said his priority was to avoid." option (I think). That's okay, just asking peoples opinion that's all.
Myself, I don't know the answer.
It's odd discussing unlikely hypotheticals, but i'll entertain it:
-"If Trump increases aid to Ukraine" he'll go against the core of his support, and a growing majority of republicans wanting to reduce the aid and prioritize America. This would undercut his political support within his own party, republicans would get a new populists playing on the growing demands of it's base to reduce the aid to UA. This would be considered an escalation and Russia would respond with its own escalation, like getting Iranian, Belarusian and more North Korean to send their troops to help RU. China would also need to respond, and match it by increasing "unofficial" support for Russia. All this and it would do little for the main issue in Ukraine which is shortage of manpower. Sure UA can start throwing money at soldiers, but that would just further exacerbate the shortage of workers in already barely existing UA economy, and put a further dent in UA's demographics, birth rate etc, which already might be beyond the point of no return. So ton of downside and a little chance on upside.
-"If Trump does nothing" continuing the current rate of aid would lead to continuation of the current dynamics at the front. Bleed out Russia a bit more, for an inevitable total military loss of Ukraine. Achieves little, with huge financial loss, political loss, and still a total Ukrainian loss. Again no up side only downside.
That's why UA is asking for permission to use long ranges US missiles on Moscow. Not that it could change anything in the militarily sense for UA, but that's the only way for UA leadership to drag US/NATO directly into the conflict. What better way to achieve this than to give some Russian general responsible for nuclear deterrence few minutes to somehow make a decision if the US ballistic missile heading for Moscow has nuclear payload or not
, and if he should respond accordingly. Luckily US doesn't seem to want to start a nuclear war, despite how much Z is asking for it. I don't speak Ukroid; They are saying "Nazis go home!", right?
Seriously, I never judge things like this at face value because it is super easy to do false-flag play-acting to make one's enemies look bad. Some people are highly adept at it, and take a special kind of pleasure in doing so if they fool 95% of the people which is, in fact, quite easy to do. I just don't think such a feat is not a result of having been 'chosen' and God having blessed one's soul some 'sacred spark' to bring light unto the nations or whatever; it's more just a matter of being a scum-bag.
Judging by your post history, you'll probably understand this translation
Also:
https://x.com/SorokoffSorok/status/1856467306563444979
^^^ paxmao plays around a lot. My thought was that Branko was simply playing back with something that makes sense at the same time. I think that many of the Ukrainian people who fled before or at the beginning of the war, would love to kick the Nazi's out of Ukraine... so they could go back home in peace.
I don't speak Ukroid; They are saying "Nazis go home!", right?
Seriously, I never judge things like this at face value because it is super easy to do false-flag play-acting to make one's enemies look bad. Some people are highly adept at it, and take a special kind of pleasure in doing so if they fool 95% of the people which is, in fact, quite easy to do. I just don't think such a feat is not a result of having been 'chosen' and God having blessed one's soul some 'sacred spark' to bring light unto the nations or whatever; it's more just a matter of being a scum-bag.
^^^ dumBAss, do not be an idiot and go back to post about Trump being named King.
I like that type of news that say "could" because it means that, on the other hand, may not. So it is basically as if I say that Trump may die tomorrow, but he may as well not. BTW the Vice president of the US does not really do much.
Marco Rubio seems to be a possible Secretary of State (see "could") but there seems also to be some denial from Trump. BTW he would not be able to travel to China, he is sanctioned
On the rest of the people who are being chosen, the are not anti-Ukraine. From the scale from 0 (BA) to 10 Zelensky, they are around 4 or 5s.
I like that type of news that say "could" because it means that, on the other hand, may not. So it is basically as if I say that Trump may die tomorrow, but he may as well not. BTW the Vice president of the US does not really do much.
Marco Rubio seems to be a possible Secretary of State (see "could") but there seems also to be some denial from Trump. BTW he would not be able to travel to China, he is sanctioned
On the rest of the people who are being chosen, the are not anti-Ukraine. From the scale from 0 (BA) to 10 Zelensky, they are around 4 or 5s.
Since the points you make are simply tiny parts of what is going on, you are back into strategizing. Keep it up. You just might distract people from the war long enough, that it won't hit them so hard when they suddenly find that the war and Ukraine are gone.
On the contrary, the points I am making are actually much more relevant than the latest of Vance's deranged blabber. What is key to Ukraine at the moment is Trump's future plans. Those plans are not really known, probably he has not given much thought to it other than:
- Zelensky comes and ask for money. Then more money. That is not good.
- There is a war, it is bad for business (I would disagree from his perspective).
- I will end the war in "24 hours".
Well, what we do know is who is he appointing and believe me he could have chosen people much more opposed to a free, denfensible Ukraine.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2m1ey10rxo
Quote
...deport millions of undocumented migrants living in the US is no exaggeration.
mmm... I wonder if the Quote
The president-elect picked Florida Congressman Mike Waltz,... has said the US is in a “cold war” with China ...
Quote
Musk to work with... Vivek Ramaswamy in a "department of government efficiency"
My view... Trump is about to find out how different is leading a government from leading a company and all the in-built bullet-proof glass walls that are there.
Ramaswamy... a hustler in a suit is still a hustler.
^^^ dumBAss, do not be an idiot and go back to post about Trump being named King.
I like that type of news that say "could" because it means that, on the other hand, may not. So it is basically as if I say that Trump may die tomorrow, but he may as well not. BTW the Vice president of the US does not really do much.
Marco Rubio seems to be a possible Secretary of State (see "could") but there seems also to be some denial from Trump. BTW he would not be able to travel to China, he is sanctioned
On the rest of the people who are being chosen, the are not anti-Ukraine. From the scale from 0 (BA) to 10 Zelensky, they are around 4 or 5s.
I like that type of news that say "could" because it means that, on the other hand, may not. So it is basically as if I say that Trump may die tomorrow, but he may as well not. BTW the Vice president of the US does not really do much.
Marco Rubio seems to be a possible Secretary of State (see "could") but there seems also to be some denial from Trump. BTW he would not be able to travel to China, he is sanctioned
On the rest of the people who are being chosen, the are not anti-Ukraine. From the scale from 0 (BA) to 10 Zelensky, they are around 4 or 5s.
Since the points you make are simply tiny parts of what is going on, you are back into strategizing. Keep it up. You just might distract people from the war long enough, that it won't hit them so hard when they suddenly find that the war and Ukraine are gone.
^^^ dumBAss, do not be an idiot and go back to post about Trump being named King.
I like that type of news that say "could" because it means that, on the other hand, may not. So it is basically as if I say that Trump may die tomorrow, but he may as well not. BTW the Vice president of the US does not really do much.
Marco Rubio seems to be a possible Secretary of State (see "could") but there seems also to be some denial from Trump. BTW he would not be able to travel to China, he is sanctioned
On the rest of the people who are being chosen, the are not anti-Ukraine. From the scale from 0 (BA) to 10 Zelensky, they are around 4 or 5s.
I like that type of news that say "could" because it means that, on the other hand, may not. So it is basically as if I say that Trump may die tomorrow, but he may as well not. BTW the Vice president of the US does not really do much.
Marco Rubio seems to be a possible Secretary of State (see "could") but there seems also to be some denial from Trump. BTW he would not be able to travel to China, he is sanctioned
On the rest of the people who are being chosen, the are not anti-Ukraine. From the scale from 0 (BA) to 10 Zelensky, they are around 4 or 5s.
Karma is a bitch.
Someone from UK should avoid saying that like plague
Seems like paxmao is finally realizing that Ukraine is lost. He is gradually moving from the actual war into general war theory and strategy.
In case you missed it, JD Vance said the United States could drop support for NATO...
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/linasbeliunas_in-case-you-missed-it-jd-vance-said-the-activity-7261350882582163456-sUKB?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
In case you missed it, JD Vance said the United States could drop support for NATO if Europe tries to regulate Elon Musk's X
? "It's insane that we would support a military alliance if that military alliance isn't gonna be pro-free speech. I think we can do both but we've got to say American power comes with certain strings attached, one of those is respect free speech - especially in our European allies" - now Vice President-elect JD Vance (September 2024) The US/EU relations are about to enter a very new world. Wild times. P.S. for more interesting stuff, check out ?linas.substack.com?, it's the only newsletter you need for all things when Finance meets Technology. For founders, builders, and leaders....
Karma is a bitch.
Someone from UK should avoid saying that like plague
Interesting news... the crisis in China is now full blown, which means lower oil demand. I wonder what countries could be very oil export dependant, are selling to China in a large percent and have a war ongoing that they would need to finance. Which countries could be I wonder? Trump is very likely to impose tariffs. I wonder what is going to happen to global growth and price of oil in that scenario? I wonder which country could be selling for less while having to pay for more?
BTW now that the US elections have finished, the band on destroying oil facilities is lifted. I wonder which country is at war, cannot defend it's skies and has many, many oil facilities...?
BTW now that the US elections have finished, the band on destroying oil facilities is lifted. I wonder which country is at war, cannot defend it's skies and has many, many oil facilities...?
Dictator’s reliable rear: Russian economy at the time of war
Quote
Its general conclusion is that Russia has been able to withstand the blow caused by the Western sanctions due to a combination of factors, including its well developed market economy, its indispensable position as a supplier of primary commodities to the global market, highly professional responses by its government officials, and the West’s inability to isolate Russia on the international stage.
Translation: While the price of crude is above 50 a barrel, Ruzzia can keep going (burning through stored war material) for a while.
That is the truth about petro-states, even Saudi Arabia has sometimes difficulties balancing the budget and paying bonds when the oil price goes down. The Biden administration until now has prevented the worst types of strikes on oil production, but there is now no reason not to hit the oil exporting facilities, Ukraine has sufficient technology to achieve roughly 1500 km range and since Ruzzia decided to destroy the electrical infrastructure of Ukraine, there is no reason to contain or de-escalate.
This is March
https://www.ft.com/content/98f15b60-bc4d-4d3c-9e57-cbdde122ac0c
Quote
The US has urged Ukraine to halt attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, warning that the drone strikes risk driving up global oil prices and provoking retaliation, according to three people familiar with the discussions.
But we are in November and since Trump will "end the war in 24 hours", it is better to hurry ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6aDtShxNt4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6n_AWrMByk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDwpQtOnF5U
Karma is a bitch.
Interesting news... the crisis in China is now full blown, which means lower oil demand. I wonder what countries could be very oil export dependant, are selling to China in a large percent and have a war ongoing that they would need to finance. Which countries could be I wonder? Trump is very likely to impose tariffs. I wonder what is going to happen to global growth and price of oil in that scenario? I wonder which country could be selling for less while having to pay for more?
BTW now that the US elections have finished, the band on destroying oil facilities is lifted. I wonder which country is at war, cannot defend it's skies and has many, many oil facilities...?
BTW now that the US elections have finished, the band on destroying oil facilities is lifted. I wonder which country is at war, cannot defend it's skies and has many, many oil facilities...?
Dictator’s reliable rear: Russian economy at the time of war
Quote
Its general conclusion is that Russia has been able to withstand the blow caused by the Western sanctions due to a combination of factors, including its well developed market economy, its indispensable position as a supplier of primary commodities to the global market, highly professional responses by its government officials, and the West’s inability to isolate Russia on the international stage.
Note that if Trump wants to shut the war down really fast, all he has to do is see to it that the US sends $200-billion to Russia. [Video included at the site.]
Vlad Putin: “We Are Ready to Speak with Trump – His Behavior When There Was an Attempt on His Life, I Was Impressed
[...]
Vlad Putin: “We Are Ready to Speak with Trump – His Behavior When There Was an Attempt on His Life, I Was Impressed
[...]
Quote
Quote
Kremlin says reports that Trump and Putin spoke in recent days are 'pure fiction'
That is the problem when two compulsive liers meet uh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyEOo1fqUCI
Seem the phone call did take place, but Putin is not interested in Trump's peace plan ideas.
“Donald Trump is realising how complicated this is going to be.”
Donald Trump’s reported call to Vladimir Putin backfires as the Russian leader “signals a willingness not to move on this issue”, says Julia Manchester, reporter in Washington DC for The Hill.
So what happens in the situation if Ukraine plays ball and sits at the negotiating table and Russia doesn't?
Well, if Putin was going to take Ukraine in three days and it seems that he has reached around 10% in three years, my guess is that Trump will reach peace in around...two years or so?
When you make a stupid promise like Trump either you are stupid or you are not and know you will not deliver. Alternative C is that he know something we do not. The way to end the war is conceed a lot but also threaten with providing real and decisive support to Ukraine. Trump is usually about carrot and stick, it is the way he has done shady family business all his life.
Note that if Trump wants to shut the war down really fast, all he has to do is see to it that the US sends $200-billion to Russia. [Video included at the site.]
Vlad Putin: “We Are Ready to Speak with Trump – His Behavior When There Was an Attempt on His Life, I Was Impressed
[...]
Vlad Putin: “We Are Ready to Speak with Trump – His Behavior When There Was an Attempt on His Life, I Was Impressed
[...]
Quote
Quote
Kremlin says reports that Trump and Putin spoke in recent days are 'pure fiction'
That is the problem when two compulsive liers meet uh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyEOo1fqUCI
Seem the phone call did take place, but Putin is not interested in Trump's peace plan ideas.
“Donald Trump is realising how complicated this is going to be.”
Donald Trump’s reported call to Vladimir Putin backfires as the Russian leader “signals a willingness not to move on this issue”, says Julia Manchester, reporter in Washington DC for The Hill.
So what happens in the situation if Ukraine plays ball and sits at the negotiating table and Russia doesn't?
Jump to: