Trump urged Zelenskyy to cut a deal with Putin or risk facing destruction, FT reports

[Carjosse]

No amount of wailing can change the fact Finland and Sweden falling for hysterical fearmongering was a terrible move on their parts.

Just answer the question, why can’t you do that?

 

[Paradoxical]

Trump wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and introduced itself.

So, you're the president now and know more than him when he is given intelligence briefings every day. My guess is that you don't know any more than Biden does when he's sleeping at the beach.

 

[multivita-man]

In Afghanistan the US was trying to get revenge for 9-11.

9/11 was the stated reason, obviously, but I don't think that fully explains the 20-year investment (a failed one at that).

In Iraq the US was trying to look tough after 9/11.

It nothing to do with energy dominance, of course.

What point do you think those nations prove

That Russia can respect neutrality, which is apparently impossible in Ukraine. I would submit that it's not impossible if certain conditions are met.

 

[Tigerace117]

Just answer the question, why can’t you do that?

Because it isn’t relevant to what I pointed out.

 

[Jredbaron96]

9/11 was the stated reason, obviously, but I don't think that fully explains the 20-year investment (a failed one at that).

No, that's the result of American mission creep.

It nothing to do with energy dominance, of course.

I mean that may have motivated some members of the Bush Administration, but per Clarke it was mostly just wanting to look tough after 9-11.

That Russia can respect neutrality, which is apparently impossible in Ukraine.

Because none of those countries are Ukraine.

I would submit that it's not impossible if certain conditions are met.

Which are completely subordination to Russia.

 

[multivita-man]

No, that's the result of American mission creep.

I think it's more than that. Afghanistan has been considered as a potential natural gas pipeline transit hub. In tandem with Iraq, it was also likely viewed as a way to box in Iran and gain another foothold in pursuit of global energy dominance. That's why it became our own Hotel California.

I mean that may have motivated some members of the Bush Administration, but per Clarke it was mostly just wanting to look tough after 9-11.

That might be what Clarke thought, but I'm going with the fact that regime change in Iraq had been considered before 9/11. In fact that became an Act of Congress:

Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We just needed the excuse to do it.

Because none of those countries are Ukraine.

That doesn't change the fact that Russia has a history of respecting sovereignty when they have something more than an armistice or ceasefire in hand.

Which are completely subordination to Russia.

Ukraine will probably have to submit to Russia's influence - big deal. We have an entire European continent that submits to ours.

 

[Carjosse]

Because it isn’t relevant to what I pointed out.

That is what the whole thread is about. Just tell everyone whether you support the invasion of Ukraine. Easy yes or no question.

I condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an imperialist war of aggression. I condemn the US invasion of Iraq. I condemn any attempts to start a war with Venezuela. See how easy it is.

 

[Lursa]

It depends on what you mean by "risk." Is NATO a threat to invade Russia? Probably not. Is it a threat to undermine its interests, attempt to weaken and undermine their regimes, and destabilize it, possibly even fomenting internal division and revolution? I think the history of the US speaks for itself.

Give some examples please?

***Now***that it has hit a giant road block (based on a poorly assumed quick victory) and is greatly weakened...it seems some satellites may be readying to take their freedom. Tsk tsk...Seems that the current quagmire encouraged that. Ooops. How far can Mother Russia spread?

For what purpose? What is Russia going to do with Crimea and a sliver of the Donbas?

Good question. Yet that unquestionably is their goal...and more. Then go back and read that history you were just referring to...for Mother Russia.

 

[Lursa]

So, you're the president now and know more than him when he is given intelligence briefings every day. My guess is that you don't know any more than Biden does when he's sleeping at the beach.

That you assume he understands "intelligence" briefings is adorable!

TACO has his own agenda...he doesnt give a shit what happens to Ukraine except in how it reflects back on him...and also doesnt jeopardize his crush on Putin Quite the tightrope for TACO, eh?

 

[multivita-man]

Give some examples please?

Iraq? Iran? The Americas? Don't know where to begin. There was an attempt by the CIA to penetrate Ukraine during the 1950s in an attempt to foment a nationalist uprising when it was part of the old Soviet Union. Not that I'm particularly sympathetic to the Soviets, but if you look at the current situation through that history, then it's understandable why Russia doesn't want NATO rubbing up against the Russian border. That's especially true when you consider US behavior the last 25 years.

****Now***that it has hit a giant road block (a poorly assumed quick victory) and is greatly weakened...it seems some satellites may be readying to take their freedom. Tsk tsk...Seems that the current quagmire encouraged that. Ooops. How far can Mother Russia spread?

Which of us has nearly 800 military installations worldwide on every continent? It ain't Russia.

Good question. Yet that unquestionably is their goal...and more. Then go back and read that history you were just referring to...for Mother Russia.

I don't deny for a moment that Russia has been an empire and that it has competed with the West for influence, and that it will continue to do so. But by any yardstick, we're outdoing Russia in that regard. I think it's fair to say that Russia had wanted a better and closer relationship with Western Europe, but we didn't want Western Europe to have a good relationship with Russia, particularly if it threatened our dominance in the region. Consider the fact that Europe is now locked into pay for more expensive US energy when they could have gotten it cheaper from Russia.

 

[Lursa]

Iraq? Iran? The Americas? Don't know where to begin. There was an attempt by the CIA to penetrate Ukraine during the 1950s in an attempt to foment a nationalist uprising when it was part of the old Soviet Union. Not that I'm particularly sympathetic to the Soviets, but if you look at the current situation through that history, then it's understandable why Russia doesn't want NATO rubbing up against the Russian border. That's especially true when you consider US behavior the last 25 years.

Which of those were NATO offensive movements against Russia?

And going back to the Cold War is a joke...Russia itself was still aggressive and taking over countries.

Which of us has nearly 800 military installations worldwide on every continent? It ain't Russia.

Make a point, dont ask a question.

I don't deny for a moment that Russia has been an empire and that it has competed with the West for influence, and that it will continue to do so. But by any yardstick, we're outdoing Russia in that regard. I think it's fair to say that Russia had wanted a better and closer relationship with Western Europe, but we didn't want Western Europe to have a good relationship with Russia, particularly if it threatened our dominance in the region. Consider the fact that Europe is now locked into pay for more expensive US energy when they could have gotten it cheaper from Russia.

So...Europe should let Russia invade and kidnap thousands of children and steal land for cheaper energy?

 

[Tigerace117]

That is what the whole thread is about. Just tell everyone whether you support the invasion of Ukraine. Easy yes or no question.

I condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an imperialist war of aggression. I condemn the US invasion of Iraq. I condemn any attempts to start a war with Venezuela. See how easy it is.

No amount of flailing can change the fact Finland and Sweden fell for hysterical fearmongering and will undoubtedly be dragged into the U.S’ next war, sorry

 

[multivita-man]

Which of those were NATO offensive movements against Russia?

The point is how they perceive the behavior of their adversary (i.e., us).

And going back to the Cold War is a joke...Russia itself was still aggressive and taking over countries.

It's not a joke. Russia clearly doesn't think it's a joke. The problem is that we're arrogant. To many of us want to castigate Russia and China for reasons when the fact is that we would never tolerate the kind of behavior we're asking them to just roll over and accept. If Russia or China started setting up military bases in Mexico with weapons systems and so forth, I promise you we'd veto it - diplomatically at first, and militarily if diplomacy didn't work.

Make a point, dont ask a question.

It was clear what my point was.

So...Europe should let Russia invade and kidnap thousands of children and steal land for cheaper energy?

Missing the point entirely.

Bye.

 

[Lursa]

The point is how they perceive the behavior of their adversary (i.e., us).

You gave the examples, how did they perceive them? What were the threats from NATO?

It's not a joke. Russia clearly doesn't think it's a joke. The problem is that we're arrogant. To many of us want to castigate Russia and China for reasons when the fact is that we would never tolerate the kind of behavior we're asking them to just roll over and accept. If Russia or China started setting up military bases in Mexico with weapons systems and so forth, I promise you we'd veto it - diplomatically at first, and militarily if diplomacy didn't work.

No, I dont believe we'd attack at all. That's just facile thinking.

We wouldnt initiate a ground war that was ***about taking back land.*** Stick to facts. The "claims" (excuses) are about NATO...the facts are Russia incrementally trying to take back land.

It was clear what my point was.

No it wasnt. Or you wouldnt have deflected. What was your point?

Missing the point entirely.

Bye.

No I didnt. Russia's had a primary, stable energy role providing to Europe for years...who screwed that up? The US? "NATO?"

You keep wanting to gloss over reality. Russia has stolen ~20,000 children. It's not just an 'emotional' talking point...it's a war crime horror. If you cant defend your position...fine.

 

[multivita-man]

No, I dont believe we'd attack at all. That's just facile thinking.

We wouldnt initiate a ground war that was ***about taking back land.*** Stick to facts. The "claims" (excuses) are about NATO...the facts are Russia incrementally trying to take back land.

Read history, or just read the current news lol

 

[Lursa]

Read history, or just read the current news lol

Your "na huh" isnt debate, it's concession.

 

[multivita-man]

Your "na huh" isnt debate, it's concession.

k

 

[Jredbaron96]

I think it's more than that.

Im sure you do, but that doesnt make it true.

That might be what Clarke thought, but I'm going with the fact that regime change in Iraq had been considered before 9/11.

Given that Clark was there for the planning of it Im willing to accept his POV.

That doesn't change the fact that Russia has a history of respecting sovereignty when they have something more than an armistice or ceasefire in hand.

They had a treaty with Ukraine and were open about throwing it out before Yanukovych was forced out.

Ukraine will probably have to submit to Russia's influence - big deal. We have an entire European continent that submits to ours.

See, this is the disingenuous part. The US doesn't go around forcing or even claiming to Europeans that their culture is fake and they need to accept theyre just Americans.

 

[multivita-man]

Im sure you do, but that doesnt make it true.

This response doesn't address the substance of what I posted in my response to you, so I'll take that as a concession that you can't or won't rebut it.

Given that Clark was there for the planning of it Im willing to accept his POV.

His opinion is noted - who cares? Invading Iraq was US law before 9/11.

They had a treaty with Ukraine and were open about throwing it out before Yanukovych was forced out.

Ukraine wasn't necessarily neutral.

See, this is the disingenuous part. The US doesn't go around forcing or even claiming to Europeans that their culture is fake and they need to accept theyre just Americans.

That's a nonresponse. The US absolutely goes around using the threat of sanctions and military force to impose its will on others all over the planet. There is no way we would tolerate Russia or China or any major power putting weapons in our backyard. I mean the Cuban Missile Crisis was about that very thing.

 

[Jredbaron96]

This response doesn't address the substance of what I posted in my response to you, so I'll take that as a concession that you can't or won't rebut it.

Its not, its a recognition that its just your opinion with little actual proof behind. If we wanted to get into detail I could point out that the idea of troops in Afghanistan being a counter to Iran is absurd.

His opinion is noted - who cares? Invading Iraq was US law before 9/11.

The US had fought a war with Iraq before 9/11 too.

But Clark was actually there when the planning for the war was taking place. Im comfortable with his assessment.

Ukraine wasn't necessarily neutral.

Is there no limit of the excuses you'll make for Russian aggression towards Ukraine?

That's a nonresponse. The US absolutely goes around using the threat of sanctions and military force to impose its will on others all over the planet.

Where has the US told Europe their cultural and national identities are fake and they should just accept theyre really Americans like Russia has done to Ukraine?

There is no way we would tolerate Russia or China or any major power putting weapons in our backyard. I mean the Cuban Missile Crisis was about that very thing.

The Cuban Missile Crisis involved putting nuclear weapons in Cuba, there's nothing the US have Ukraine that even remotely comes close enough to make that an apt comparison.

 

[Quag]

Seems things will never change, Trump will always side with Putin. Trump basically used Russian talking points in his meeting with Zelenskyy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/19/trump-zelenskyy-putin.html

View attachment 67594055

F Trump and his Putin loving A**

 

[multivita-man]

Its not, its a recognition that its just your opinion with little actual proof behind. If we wanted to get into detail I could point out that the idea of troops in Afghanistan being a counter to Iran is absurd.

I didn't mean that consideration of proximity to Iran was the only driver, but rather one of several considerations. Afghanistan and the area in general has been considered for decades as a conduit for natural gas. Pipelines through Afghanistan, such as the kind that were considered in a proposed Unocal project in the 1990s, would enable us to move energy while bypassing Russia and Iran. Afghanistan and the region generally also have hydrocarbons and other natural resources. But more than that, it's at a geographic crossroads. Zbigniew Brzezenski described Eurasia as a kind of grand chessboard. We're not putting up air bases in Bagram, Kandahar, and elsewhere because "we wanna look tough".

The US had fought a war with Iraq before 9/11 too.

And routed Saddam's army. And imposed no-fly zones and crippling sanctions in the decade that followed before we willfully lied about intelligence to make up an excuse to invade in 2003.

But Clark was actually there when the planning for the war was taking place. Im comfortable with his assessment.

He was there - so what? He's one person. He's not even that important a figure historically, but he wrote a book I guess. The fact is that regime change in Iraq was policy a good 5 years before we ultimately moved the resources there to do the deed. That's because the US is a global hegemony that has sought global domination of geopolitics and global finance/economics. We're behaving like a classic empire. But we're upset that Russia is telling this to get off their lawn.

Is there no limit of the excuses you'll make for Russian aggression towards Ukraine?

This isn't just about Ukraine. That's what you and other Slava Ukraini bros stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.

Where has the US told Europe their cultural and national identities are fake and they should just accept theyre really Americans like Russia has done to Ukraine?

I'm not aware that we have, but we told Europe, under the threat of removing their security umbrella, that they buy our over-priced hydrocarbons and move their industry here, or else. It's the same thing we're telling Japan, Canada, and South Korea, too. We've gone from free trade to imposing a kind of tribute system now. Elites in these countries are, for now, playing ball (or probably will) because they don't know what other choice they have, but in time, this is going to blow up in their faces (and ours) because there's going to be a popular revolt when their economies tank and realize it's because we forced them to give up their economic and political sovereignty.

The Cuban Missile Crisis involved putting nuclear weapons in Cuba, there's nothing the US have Ukraine that even remotely comes close enough to make that an apt comparison.

Way to stubbornly miss the point, but par for the course. You're myopically making everything about Ukraine-Russia. It's a proxy war between Russia and NATO.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I didn't mean that consideration of proximity to Iran was the only driver, but rather one of several considerations.

"Looking tough" was not the justification for invading Afghanistan, it was to get Bin Laden. The problem with "we stayed there for the mineral resources" is that ISAF never demonstrated any actual strategic intent behind that.

He was there - so what? He's one person. He's not even that important a figure historically, but he wrote a book I guess.

Do you know who Wesley Clark is?

This isn't just about Ukraine. That's what you and other Slava Ukraini bros stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.

This is about you thinking that countries voluntarily joining NATO while downsizing their armed forces and posting missile defense systems that would be useless against an actual nuclear exchange with Russia justifies Russias expansionism, ethnonationalism, and cultural genocide.

I'm not aware that we have, but we told Europe, under the threat of removing their security umbrella, that they buy our over-priced hydrocarbons and move their industry here, or else. It's the same thing we're telling Japan, Canada, and South Korea, too. We've gone from free trade to imposing a kind of tribute system now.

Youre just referring to the Trump Administration now.

Way to stubbornly miss the point, but par for the course. You're myopically making everything about Ukraine-Russia. It's a proxy war between Russia and NATO.

Nobody is missing your point, your point is just very shallow.

You keep insisting that Russian actions are ultimately logic, rational decisions made in response to unprovoked NATO expansionism and in turn expect everyone to just accept that framing.

You seem utterly unwilling to accept that Ukraines eventual pivot towards NATO was very much influenced by Russians own repeatedl willingness to bully Ukaine into towing Moscows line.

 

[multivita-man]

"Looking tough" was not the justification for invading Afghanistan, it was to get Bin Laden. The problem with "we stayed there for the mineral resources" is that ISAF never demonstrated any actual strategic intent behind that.

So all of that investment to get one guy. Right. We got that guy in 2011. We didn't leave Afghanistan until 2021.

Do you know who Wesley Clark is?

Yes, a NATO neocon general who ran for president once.

This is about you thinking that countries voluntarily joining NATO while downsizing their armed forces and posting missile defense systems that would be useless against an actual nuclear exchange with Russia justifies Russias expansionism, ethnonationalism, and cultural genocide.

Forgetting that Russia at one point spoke of Moscow to Lisbon alliances and wanting to be a part of Western institutions in the 90s until the US kept pushing the idea of NATO expansion, then followed by our withdrawal from the ABM treaty in the early 2000s, invading the world's energy nerve center on cooked intel (largely over UN and global objections I'd add), expanding into Afghanistan, expanding US influence into Eastern Europe and going so far as to push for revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and then inviting them to join NATO to boot. Let's ignore all of that. The fact is the US opposed the idea of Greater Europe because we feared losing control over European security and politics and we wanted the permission to do as we pleased from Baghdad to Taipei.

Youre just referring to the Trump Administration now.

Not really.

You keep insisting that Russian actions are ultimately logic, rational decisions made in response to unprovoked NATO expansionism and in turn expect everyone to just accept that framing.

I think I've laid out why Russia views the US in particular with suspicion despite acting under the pretense of the "well each country can join NATO voluntarily" sophistry.

You seem utterly unwilling to accept that Ukraines eventual pivot towards NATO was very much influenced by Russians own repeatedl willingness to bully Ukaine into towing Moscows line.

You're unwilling to acknowledge that pre-war Ukraine wasn't a monolith and that there were factions within Ukraine that didn't want to be caught in a political tug of war between the US and Russia, and rather than defusing that tension between the factions that wanted Westernization and those that did not (or at least wanted neutrality), characters like Victoria Nuland and others ratcheted those tensions up. The result is that Ukraine got turned into a violent chessboard between the US and Russia. I blame Russia, too - nobody made them invade and occupy Ukraine. But I also understand why they regarded the US as a long-term existential threat to their own stability and felt compelled to act somehow, even if those actions are arguably morally and legally wrong.

 

[devildavid]

The Russians stopped the US from holding its war criminals accountable? How did they do that?

The US stopped Russia from holding its war criminals accountable? How did they do that?