WOW! Trump-Zelensky White House Meeting · Page 2

I go to your post in search of a place to respond to the general opinion here as a way to have a serious discourse free of testosterone supplements...and my point comes in the way of a question(s) that your words created in my mind immediately.

Are you suggesting they should have surrendered?
What would be a serious attempt to stop a war from the viewpoint of the victim other than that?

Trump got two standing ovations...one here, and one in the Kremlin.

frankj1 wrote:

I posted this here last year Nov 12 2024.

https://www.cigarbid.com/Forum/c/posts/669822/Ukraine-How-We-got-There

The YouTube video disappeared, but you can still hear the speech here:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1856172877688570095

Even MSNBC interviewed Jeffery Sachs after the White House kerfuffle:

The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#23

frankj1 wrote:

I’m suggesting the Ukrainians should continue to die and kill As many Russians as possible. That is what “Stand With Ukraine” means. That is what they are being paid to do. I’m investing in missiles and drones. I’m doing my part.

The war has been going for three years and after the dust up with Trump the UK and France are going to work with Zelensky to develop a peace plan and present it to the USA. Why not present it to Russia?

Trump got a standing ovation in the Kremlin. Yes, the liberal media is losing its mind and bringing back the “Russian Collusion” lie. We better learn to cook beef stroganoff. Y’all be saying Dasvidaniya real soon.

The only peace plan from the victim (Ukraine) is join NATO, send 300,000 NATO troops into Ukraine and push the Russians out and back to the original borders. At least half those troops will be American. When you say it that way nobody wants to sign on.

Edited by user a year ago | Reason: Not specified

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#24

so you have no idea then.
Okey dokey

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#25

Anybody can join!

LEGIONNAIRES SERVE IN MANY DIFFERENT UNITS OF THE DEFENCE FORCES OF UKRAINE
Since the full-scale Russian invasion began, they have played key roles in many of the most crucial campaigns and battles of the war. Additionally, Legionnaires are embedded within some of the most prominent brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Candidate requirements
18-60 years of age
These are the legal age limits set by Ukrainian legislation
No criminal record
The applicants must have no history of prosecution or conviction
No chronic diseases
All candidates need to pass an assessment by a medical commission
Physical fitness
All candidates need to be physically capable to perform basic infantry tasks
Ability to legally enter Ukraine
Units under the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not provide assistance with visas and travel arrangements
Military or relevant experience is an advantage
Military experience is not required but would increase the chances of being accepted. Other relevant experiences might include law enforcement, paramilitary organizations, firefighting, etc.
Combat experience is an advantage
Combat experience is not required but would increase the chances of being accepted. Combat experience might include paramilitary or militias.

3 steps to apply
Scan your passport
Scan the documents verifying your military or relevant experience (if you have them)
Fill in and submit this form. The units will review your application and reach out to you via contacts that you have provided.
We now accept legionnaires who only speak Spanish.

Edited by user a year ago | Reason: Not specified

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#26

so you have no idea then.
Okey dokey

frankj1 wrote:

And your idea is?

(Orange man bad, do the opposite)?

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#27

maybe honor our word (I understand there is no actual legal force in play) from the Budapest Memorandum?
Honor the borders at the time of the signing (mid 90's)...as a start?

After all, Ukraine did give back all the nukes left behind from when the USSR broke up with the "understanding" they would have the support of all signees.

But one thing we seem to have now is our word means nothing. This could be a bigger problem going forward.

Edited by user a year ago | Reason: Not specified

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#28

The USA has honored its word from the Budapest Memorandum. The USA has not attacked Ukraine. Russia has not honored its word from the memorandum. The problem is the memorandum did not say that if someone violates their word, all other signatories will attack the violator. People are trying to write that in to start a larger war.

Cut to the chase:

Are you willing to sent US troops into combat in Ukraine? Is your definition of “honor our word” going to put 300K US troops in Ukraine? Fluffy statements like “honor our word” and “stand with Ukraine” don’t solve anything when they have no meaning.

The way this war has progressed since it started in 2014 has not left much option other than NATO led by the USA enters the war. That has always been the end game. The only question is what year it happens. The problem now is the USA doesn’t want to lead NATO into the war NATO wants.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#29

"Under the agreement the Russian Federation provided security assurances to Ukraine in the form of promising neither to attack nor to threaten to attack them. The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty[2] but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.[50][51]

The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][51] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[50] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[51] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[52] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[53] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".[23]

Ukrainian international law scholars such as Olexander Zadorozhny maintain that the Memorandum is an international treaty because it satisfies the criteria for one, as fixed by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and is "an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law".[54]

China and France gave security assurances for Ukraine in separate documents. China's governmental statement of 4 December 1994 did not call for mandatory consultations if questions arose but only for "fair consultations". France's declaration of 5 December 1994 did not mention consultations.[2]

For 20 years, until the 2014 Russian military occupation of regions of Ukraine,[55] the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was an exemplary case of nuclear non-proliferation. Since the invasions of Ukraine by Russia the wisdom of Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons has been questioned,[1] even by former president Bill Clinton, one of its signatories.[56]

Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer wrote in 2024 that Ukraine choosing to keep the nuclear weapons that were on its territory in the early 1990s was an unrealistic option, given that all of the infrastructure needed to maintain the operational life of the warheads was located in Russia and that Ukraine itself was facing an economic crisis that prevented it from building such infrastructure in its own country. Pifer also noted that the Ukrainian government concluded at the time that doing so would have been unaffordable. He added that in retrospect, American and Ukrainian officials did not foresee the Russo-Ukrainian War and because of that Ukraine was willing to accept security "assurances" from the U.S. and Britain, which unlike "guarantees," do not require the use of military force if the agreement was violated. Pifer also wrote that in his view it would have been unlikely that such guarantees would have been ratified by the U.S. Senate.[57]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

So, again I say all they had to do was get Trump to sign the mineral rights agreement the Ukranian government agreed to and sign it with their dictator. Done deal. Ceasefire begins there. What did that little tyrant do? Watch the 3 hour version of the event. Seems a lot of people want to focus on the last 10 minutes. That's after the fact Trump told him negotiations were a different manner and not for this event. Zelensky is not authorized to sign a peace agreement. His term is over and he is forbidding elections. He's locking up reporters that aren't in step with his narrative. He has effectively shut down free media reporting. NOBODY wants to deal with this guy...especially in the manner he is currently.

As for the rest of the EU...send your kids there. ALL OF THEM. Exhaust your own "national treasure" before you want the US to "get involved" again. We all know how this plays out. NEVER in our own best interests.

Edited by user a year ago | Reason: Not specified

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#30

Gene363 wrote:

I probably learned a few things, thank you.

But I'm still amazed at the nouveau sense of trust and goodwill for the cold killer Putin. It's mind boggling how our right has warmed to any and all authoritarians be they left or right, which leads me to thinking things like...

I can't shake the suspicion that we are heading toward a plan to cut up the world among 3 or 3+ mega powers...with Authoritarianism being the common thread. Left right no longer matters in the day to day affairs.

And a Standing O from the Kremlin should not be confused with us winning Putin over but very much the opposite is true.
It just feels like we are hearing from Commie's PR agency when our leaders speak.

Just thoughts, maybe fears, no solid proof.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#31

Well seeing as how Zelensky has pretty much said he doesn't want a ceasefire...have at it lil feller. Have at it. I hope the Ukranian people are seeking out regime change.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#32

frankj1 wrote:

There is no nouveau sense of trust and goodwill for the cold killer Putin. That is an irrational fear fed by the liberal media and now it’s making you have terrifying thoughts of needing to learn how to make beef stroganoff. Vodka sales are up 400% in the USA since the start of 2025.

Again, you sending US troops to Ukraine?

Maybe join the International Legionnaires?

Maybe threaten to launch nuclear weapons at Russia if they don’t have all their forces out of Ukraine in 30 days?

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#33

for 51-

it may not be insane to want security assurances in a ceasefire agreement, unless one believes the aggressor is trustworthy.

I suppose that can differ from from case to case, country to country...

I, for one, don't have any reason to trust Putin.

Edited by user a year ago | Reason: Not specified

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#34

HockeyDad wrote:

What reason do you have to speak knowingly about how I came to my conclusion of the rights' admiration for total control freaks? I haven't assigned your thoughts to any wigged out sources.

It's intellectually lazy to constantly turn to the other side's "corrupt sources" as the counterpoint in a debate/discussion.

Commentary aside from news infotainment sources on all sides (one must be disciplined and not seeking validation for preconceived beliefs) one can find plenty of evidence of the infatuation with the Putins and Orbans and Fatty Fats et al of the world...maybe a bit of jealousy (my inference, I understand) in the way those types can get their agendas done without the pesky interference of checks and balances.

Are your "sources" telling you they are our allies now?

It Can't Happen Here is a good read.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#35

When did Putin, the dictator of a country that we have been competing/fighting since the beginning of the Cold War, an assassin of innocent Russian opposition and invader of sovereign nations, become an ally that we value more than a sovereign democracy, a real ally, that has been invaded.

Since the Cold War, containing Russia was a pillar of US foreign policy; we put economic sanctions on the Russian economy in response to their interference in our internal affairs. Are we going to allow that?

Have we adopted and support Russia's agenda to reunite itself as the USSR?

Meanwhile, don't look now but China's influence over the world is outpacing the US.

Are we willing to surrender our status as the dominant nation in the world to both China and Russia in order to pursue American isolationism?

Gene363
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

a year ago

#36

delta1 wrote:

Yes, containing Russia is part of US policy, starting WWIII to do so is not.

It's not an either/or situation. Did Obama dismiss all the terrorism Iran committed, their clear haltered and desire for the destruction of the USA when he took their "side" and sent them this billions in cash?

The escape pod: https://cigarbid.freeforums.net

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#37

frankj1 wrote:

Your conclusion is false. It is however, completely possible that you came to the exact same conclusion that the mainstream media pushed all weekend. Just to add to your fears, I am working on a recipe for Kongnamul Muchim. (That’s Korean. Maybe North Korean!). A-ha.

You gotta admire Trump and Putin playing the long game on Russian collusion. Ten years. That’s some patience but now Trump is back in the White House. I heard the Washington Memorial is going to be converted to a statue of Stalin. Talk about a guy who could get their agenda done without pesky interference!

Again, you sending US troops to Ukraine?

Maybe join the International Legionnaires?

Maybe threaten to launch nuclear weapons at Russia if they don’t have all their forces out of Ukraine in 30 days?

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#38

delta1 wrote:

He hasn’t.
No.
No.
No.

You make a strong case for a rapid military buildup so we can fight a global war against Russia and China.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#39

how is continuation of economic support for Ukraine going to start WWIII?

We've made it clear that our foreign policy excludes US boots on the ground...sustaining US economic support for a sovereign democratic nation actively fighting a Russian invasion will eventually bleed Russia's aggression dry...

The Ukrainian people will fight Russia to their deaths...and without help, they will fail. Where do we draw the line against Russia's overt determination to expand its empire?

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

a year ago

#40

He hasn’t.
No.
No.
No.

You make a strong case for a rapid military buildup so we can fight a global war against Russia and China.

HockeyDad wrote:

We don't need to put boots on the ground or fight a global war. By supporting Ukraine with resources, including weapons, we can bleed Russian resources and military strength and deter future similar threats. Judging by Russia's need to hire Wagner mercenaries and to empty its prisons to send criminals and also older male citizens to fight in Ukraine, this strategy appears to be working.

Russia does not have the resources to have any strategic military advantage over the US.

Edited by user a year ago | Reason: Not specified

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: