Ukraine vs Russia III

He’s a major failure as a political operative and a lobbyist. The only thing he’s succeeded at is sucking up to Trump. He has no qualification for any job beyond cleaning toilets.

So he’ll be executing Trump’s whims.

 

"Working with Trump is like teaching the foxtrot to Charles Manson. You teach him a few steps, he does them reasonably well and you tell yourself 'we're making progress here'.
Then he'll pick up a pencil and stab you in the eye with it, because he's Charles Manson."
Mike Murphy, veteran GOP consultant - before the 2016 election

 

Well, yes, therefore the if in my statement.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3nv7j1xkxo

Russia losing 1,500 men a day.

 

The Wall Street Journal is saying that the US has supplied the E variant of the AGM-88 anti-radiation missile to Ukraine. While older versions have been used by Ukraine for years and they are regularly fired from the ex-Soviet fighters Ukraine has, those aircraft cannot take advantage of any of the newer features of the AGM-88E. This has to mean Ukraine has gotten comfortable enough with the F-16 to move them from only anti-drone operations to attacking ground targets.

 

Crimea is an indefensible peninsula….impossible to resupply under unencumbered warfare. It’s only gone if we make it gone.

 

Yeah but they’ve held it for a decade, and there will be an eventual peace treaty. If they cede it under any peace treaty they will sort out the water supply issues as part of that deal.

Anyway a different Trump adviser has apparently come out and said Lanza doesn’t speak for Trump on Ukraine, so we’ll see.

 

Well of course he has to check with his handler.We just didn't know that was the case for all these people in 16.Now it's totally cool because at least Putins white.
-Mindy Rogers Cadwallader,Security Analyst,Hudson Institue

 

The big deal there was that Flynn denied the discussions publicly. And lied to the FBI when confronted about it. That gave Russia kompromat over him.

 

I don’t recall…but I’m pretty sure during the transition from Trump to Biden…Biden had calls with world leaders during the transition…out in the open. I certainly wouldn’t have been upset at the time if it had happened. Now if it did and he…or others in his transition team had them and then denied to the FBI and to the public that it didn’t happen..well…I would have had a problem with it.

Trump is going to be President on Jan 20th. He gets to set our foreign policy agenda. Whether that agenda is based on what benefits him personally or the nation is something the American voters had the opportunity to contemplate and they’ve made their decision.

 

I doubt that there will be a peace treaty that officially cedes territory to anyone. Russia's other land grabs haven't been recognized by anyone other than Russia and a few of its allies, even as they've clearly maintained de facto control in those territories. I don't see any Ukrainian president deciding to explicitly surrender sovereignty, even if the Trump administration pushes for it. I also wouldn't expect Putin to give up his claim to the rest of the Ukrainian territory that he farcically "annexed" two years ago.

More likely is a cease-fire where both sides halt their forces and agree to stop bombing each other, perhaps accompanied by a face saving agreement on holding some sort of internationally monitored status referendum in the disputed territories (even though everyone knows that will never happen).

 

You are most likely correct.

But it has suited Russia to freeze the conflicts in its other land grabs. It prevents those other countries from being able to join military alliances.

And geographically as the areas weren’t contiguous with Russian territory it was not able to annex those other land grabs without facing a Kaliningrad situation.

The Ukrainian land is different - it is contiguous with Russian land and it has been formally annexed by Russia. It might suit the Russians to have a formal peace treaty rather than a frozen conflict.

 

Trump and Putin - along with a certain Ceandian - have a problem understanding that 1) there are limits to America's ability to give orders and have other countries salute and execute 2) American failure to exercise its power makes other countries decide "there's vacuum now and we're going to fill it."

Two shoes about to drop if Trump sells Ukraine down the river: Europeans not buying American weapons and making their own versions and not presenting a common front with China

1856082244210962830 is not a valid tweet id

 

Only?

 

Treason doth never prosper for if it prospers, none dare call it treason
Sir John Harrington, Elizabethan courtier, writer and poet.
Also invented the flush toilet

 

I hope everyone in the United States understands the consequences of allowing European nations to rebuild their armed forces.

 

Narrator:
They didn’t.

 

Isn’t that a good thing?

 

Europe was sure peaceful pre-WW2, huh?

 

I’m not overly concerned about Germany and France going at it again. But, the US wants to pivot more to the Pacific. The Europeans should be able to defend themselves against Russia without relying too much on the US.

 

Describe your argument. Walk me through how you approached your conclusion. Understand that I know waaaaaaay more than you on the topic, understand that I'm definitely in the right and you are in the wrong, but please, go ahead.

Explain it to me.