Trump just wants to say he ended war and get a Nobel Peace Prize. Should Ukraine Award Russia for aggression? Give up and lose land and rare earth minerals or continue to fight with new weapons given to them by Europe?
A surrender a this point is just giving russia a total war win. Which is probably what trump wants tbh.
Of course not fighting and killing is better than fighting and killing, but surrender is the same as just gifting your country to an oppressive dictator. That is not better than a war.
There needs to be peace but the result needs to be a pre war boarder situation. Anything else is just saying attacking other countries is a good thing to do and worth it. Russia needs to be punished in international trades and more until there is a successful revolution.
Trump is obviously on putins side. "Birds of a feather flock together."
Trump isn't the one who has to tell the mothers if the fallen it was all for nothing.
From a European perspective it very much looks like America is now firmly on the Russian side which is raising serious questions about whether we should be allowing you to have bases here in case you attack us or at least help the Russians too.
America has many armed milita, your constitution allows arms in case of invasion, I suspect most Americans would want to play their part. Yet you've a president who'd roll over and make a shitty deal should Russia invade.
Maybe the Europeans should have coughed up some bodies and more money for Ukraine's defense.
We've coughed up a considerable penny. We can't allocate troops because that would trigger ww3
Spend more.
@chickychickyparmparm Europe is quite literally providing more than the US by now
@ThisDudeHere How many countries to match what the US is spending?
@chickychickyparmparm bruh you're not cooking, this isn't some gotcha moment. Obviously many but that does not change the point that, collectivelly, the countries of Europe are supporting Ukraine more than the States.
@ThisDudeHere Yes, so stop acting like it's one entity. Great. I'm ready for US contributions to be $0.
@purplepoppy Is Zelenski the one who has to tell those same mothers that more deaths are coming... All for nothing? As someone said before, not fighting and killing is better than fighting and killing. If Ukraine had any real chance to win this war, it would be a different story. However, they do not have any real chance to win it. Their human reserves are basically depleted already, they are now dragging disabled people into the grinder. Unless Zelenski want to literally genocide his own nation, the war must end soon. Should the terms be better than the ones proposed by the USA? Probably yes, Russia did lose a lot in this war. However, after all is said and done, it is a half-proxy war between two world powers and they will realistically be the ones who reach the deal. It's just Yalta then and again.
Better 6ft under than under foot.
@purplepoppy OK, but now You are running in circles. In Your initial statement, You claimed that Trump is not the one to tell the Ukrainian mothers that all those deaths were in vain. When I pointed out that any more deaths in this conflict would be in vain, since at the moment Russia simply cannot be beaten (I mean, the only force that could beat Russia is the US military, but that would mean World War III that would quickly turn nuclear - a. k. a. "everyone dies, the end"), You became the one telling the Ukrainian mothers that even though all those deaths (and more) were in vain, it's better than submission.
Now... I'm Polish, so I really know what I'm saying - You can very much survive under occupation, and then even regain independence. You cannot survive if Your entire nation is wiped out. You are clearly emotional in Your take on this matter, choosing the "more noble" option against the more logical one.
@CalmUntilAbused What do you mean by Russia being "beaten"? Ukraine taking over Russia, or Ukraine regaining it's sovereignty? The whole world would be satisfied with the latter.
@goaded It does not matter, since neither is currently possible. Even if Ukraine regained its territory, it's so deep in debt You could not consider it to be a sovereign country for decades to come.
Oh, and taking over Russia is absolutely impossible, if any foreign soldier enters Russian territory and there is no immediate conventional response possible, nukes will fly.
Basically, no outcome of this war that would be favourable for Ukraine is currently possible, unless the USA join the war officially, and that would trigger World War III that would likely get nuclear soon.
@CalmUntilAbused Britain only stopped paying off slave owners a few years ago, after a couple of hundred years, do you think it wasn't a sovereign country in all that time? It took decades to pay off the US for aid in WWII, as well. Same question. A country is sovereign and democratic as long as its citizens can vote for change.
@goaded I mean... I don't know about the slave owners, but as for the WWII aid, the USA obviously was and mostly still is the sovereign over all of Western Europe. It will not change unless the European part of NATO is capable of self-defence without relying on the US military. Whoever defends the territory naturally claims the power to bend its population to their will.
@CalmUntilAbused No they're bloody not sovereign over all of Western Europe.
@CalmUntilAbused Russia couldn't even successfully invade Ukraine, why are you pretending it could take all of Europe?
@goaded The only reason Russia could not successfully invade Ukraine is the huge supply of modern Western weapons, mostly the American ones, that were given to Ukraine by the Biden administration. If not for this supply of weapons, the Russian troops would have already entered Kyiv several times over. We all remember the Javelin memes about Ukraine and Russian tanks... Well, guess what, Javelins are American weapons. Now, the European NATO is basically out of artillery ammo due to the donations to Ukraine, in general disrepair, and almost out of industrial capacity to catch up to Russia. The only European NATO country that could potentially hold off a Russian invasion on their own at this point is Turkey, known as the only serious NATO army except the US military, and that's if they are lucky.
@CalmUntilAbused No. Russia failed to take Ukraine in a few days because they fought back. Before they got extra weapons. I'm sure European countries have done nothing in the three YEARS since.
@goaded Ukraine was provided with those basic American weapons like Javelins since day one, or rather since before the invasion started. Sure, the more fancy stuff arrived in bulk later on, but that was also when Russia started treating the invasion more seriously. The initial happy-go-lucky trip to Kyiv was very much stopped through US-shared intel and modern American weapons.
As for Europe... Sure, they have been producing some stuff... mostly with the intention to donate it to Ukraine. They were literally leeching off the US military for their own security. My country, Poland, since it was easy to raise anti-Russian sentiments here due to our painful history, was one of the few exceptions, but since we have next to no industrial capacity regarding modern weapons, we actually ordered some from the USA... and the due dates might be long after a potential conflict (since we have also donated most of our stockpile of military hardware to Ukraine, so it would be real quick - unless You are counting guerilla warfare, which would be the only thing that might bring Russia to its knees).
@CalmUntilAbused Oh, right, those were the weapons Trump wanted to withhold from them if they didn't lie about Biden. Reminder: Russia couldn't take Ukraine, why are you pretending it could take all of Europe?
@goaded I already answered Your question. Europe is basically out of weapons against a powerhouse like Russia. But You know what? You actually reminded me of one more reason. The Russian men know what and who they are fighting for. Well, the European men do know this, too. The problem is, the European men would be fighting to protect hordes of women who absolutely hate them and would like to see them die. What man in their right mind would do that? I mean, they could do it for some non-man-hating European VTubers, but those VTubers could easily just fly away, and so could the men who would be otherwise fighting in this supposed war. There You have it - the morale issue. The only men willing to stay and fight for Europe would be barely capable of miitary service. If any of the capable men were left to fight, the only thing Russia would have to promisebmost of them to switch sides is a loving girlfriend/wife - funnily enough, they are pretty unlikely to find one in Europe. 😆
@CalmUntilAbused "a powerhouse like Russia." that still hasn't taken Ukraine. Now you're going on a misogynistic rant to cover for that fact. Pathetic.
@goaded You are the one failing to understand that Ukraine was only capable of standing their ground due to large shipments of mostly American weapons. If You cannot understand that, I should not really be surprised You do not understand what "misoginistic" means. If You were a little bit less ideologically brainwashed and a bit more perceptive, You would realize I am mostly friendly towards women. Speaking up about Western feminist women's actual (not even made-up ones) shortcomings is not misoginistic at all.
@CalmUntilAbused goaded claimed Putin would take over Europe if the US didn’t spend billions in tax dollars, now he’s calling him a pussy. Take what he types with a grain of salt
@chickychickyparmparm Oh, thank You for the intel!
@chickychickyparmparm the point from which you're arguing isn't even consistent. What do you want from me? Am I supposed to list out every single European country in NATO for you, so as to 'not refer' to them as one entity? There's not enough space in the comments for that, so 'Europe' is the more convenient shorthand.
Also, the US gave reassurances to Ukraine when it gave up it's nukes tho. Also also, I'm pretty sure a lot of the French thought the same way back when they were basically carrying your rebellion against the UK all those years ago.
@ThisDudeHere the French only wanted payback. It wasn’t any altruism towards the us. The point is that my tax dollars have been taken from me to change nothing. Ukraine’s higher ups siphoned off millions while their citizens died for nothing. And so has “Europe’s”
@chickychickyparmparm a lot of russian talking points there
@ThisDudeHere lots of reality you mean.
@ThisDudeHere I'd say it's a lot of uncomfortable truths. There is currently a huge corruption scandal in Ukraine that not even Zelenski is trying to hide anymore. While it's pretty obvious Russia will use such scandals to their own ends... Let's keep calling the truth "the truth", not "Russian talking points"... Pretty please?
@CalmUntilAbused The talking point was: "Ukraine’s higher ups siphoned off millions while their citizens died for nothing. And so has “Europe’s” "
The very first part is true (€100m fraud), the latter two parts are the lies.
Another inconvenient fact is that the culprits have been caught at it, stopped from doing it any more and will face severe criminal charges, possibly to the level of treason. Ukraine has a working independent justice system tackling corruption, unlike Russia and the US.
www.independent.co.uk/.../...l-putin-b2874743.html
@goaded So... Given that the war is apparently going to end with a peace deal with undefeated Russia, ceding some Ukrainian territory to it... I'd say the "dying for nothing" part is true as well. And "Europe" (or rather the EU) is incredibly corrupt, too. Have You heard of the recent COVID vaccine corruption scandal? Once again, You are proven wrong. All three parts are true. And if we get the fourth one, Europeans dying for nothing, it will be true as well, since it's going to be mostly men, dying in defence of a system that hates them and kind of wants them dead. Some Europeans were actually killed/captured by the Russian forces in Ukraine, I don't think they survived, and their deaths, just like the Ukrainian deaths, were ultimately for nothing.
As Churchill said, those nations that go down fighting rise again. Those who kneel and surrender never do.
@CalmUntilAbused Oh, FFS. Not fighting would have meant Ukraine being entirely overrun by Russia in days, five years ago (how's that going for Russia?). WTF does COVID vaccine corruption got to do with Ukraine? Every country has corruption. In Europe and Ukraine the culprits are being punished, in the US they're buying pardons so they don't even have to pay back the money they stole.
@goaded The Russians only attemted to get to Kyiv, to remove the OUN-UPA-celebrating government and put another one in its place. The war itself was about preventing Ukraine from joining NATO... And it looks like this goal will be achieved anyway. So there is not really much difference, other than hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Ukrainian lives lost.
As for the corruption being punished in "Europe" (or rather EU) and Ukraine... I wish it was true. It might get actually punished in Ukraine this time, since it got them to lose the US support they absolutely need to even have a bargaining card in any peace negotiations. As for the EU... I know it first-hand from Poland that corrupt politicians face no real consequences at all. And all the COVID corruption scandal perpetrators in the EU got was a slap on the wrist, especially given their attempts to enforce actually harmful vaccines. Again, You are wring about all Your points. Maybe except the corruption in the USA, I could believe that. How do those Boeing guys stay out of jail after that one quality control scandal is beyond me.
@CalmUntilAbused So the "only" attempted to overthrow the sovereign country's democratically elected government? Of course that's what they're saying now they totally failed.
No, the war was not "about preventing Ukraine from joining NATO", because that was achieved by the annexation of Crimea, NATO won't accept a country already invaded. There is documented proof that Russia was negotiating with Trump's people to carve up the country back in 2016.
"At its core, the Mariupol Plan was a land-grab smuggled inside the language of diplomacy. It was a Russian-led scheme to fracture Ukraine by carving out its industrial east and reinstalling pro-Kremlin figurehead Viktor Yanukovych as the ruler of a new pseudo-state.
According to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report, Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort discussed the plan directly with Konstantin Kilimnik, a known Russian intelligence asset, during the summer of 2016 while Manafort was actively managing Trump’s presidential campaign.
Mueller’s findings were chilling in their specificity: “That plan,” Manafort later admitted, “constituted a ‘backdoor’ means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine.”
...
It was fact, supported by testimony, emails, and intelligence assessments. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee went further, outlining that Manafort and Kilimnik continued work on the plan even after Trump took office, until at least 2018."
www.milwaukeeindependent.com/.../
And guess what? Trump has been and still is following the playbook.
"At the heart of their communication was a quid pro quo wrapped in plausible deniability. Kilimnik suggested that all Trump needed to do was signal that he supported “peace” in Ukraine, a rhetorical fig leaf that would unlock Russian support, grease diplomatic wheels, and help Putin consolidate control over the very territories he would later invade."
Opinion
30Opinion
If russia stops fighting and leaves, the war is over. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine is over.
Should have decades ago. ㅤ
What makes you say that?
Russia has stated its terms.
Territorial claims: Ukraine must recognize Crimea and the other occupied territories as Russian and must also withdraw from territories that Russia claims but does not fully control.
Demilitarization: Ukraine's military must be drastically reduced and its access to military aid restricted.
Neutrality: Ukraine must officially end its plans to join NATO and not enter into any other military alliances.
International recognition: The United States and other countries must also recognize the territorial gains Russia has made.
It doesn't want to annex all of Ukraine and it has no interest in invading or occupying any other countries. Europe has nothing that Russia needs or wants.
Anyone who has studied the history since 2014 knows that the west is responsible for the war. Ukraine gave Russia no other alternative.
Ukraine has already lost. The war is a fait accompli. Ukraine is committing suicide by refusing to accept Russia's terms.
I don't know why the west was obsessed with destroying Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia showed no signs of aggression and could have been a normal trading partner. But Russia has beaten the west. The U. S., EU and NATO are helpless unless they want a nuclear war.
Nope , Ukraine messed up giving their NUKES at the Beginning. Which US told them to do.
Pretending that there is one "innocent government" and that only one side is responsible for atrocious wars and the other didn't contribute to its formation, is autistic. But not as autistic as moaning about nukes. If Ukraine nukes, ukraine gets nuked. Be glad that the crack head doesn't have them. This is textbook example of what caused the war in the first place. Irresponsible, immoral tantrums "we need nukes", analogous events have been going on all throughout 2014 and since.
At this point, I think I would attempt to save as many lives as possible. Ukraine is basically bled dry. Fighting on would be paramount to a national suicide. Then they might actually give up on their OUN-UPA "heroes" and join some kind of federation with Poland, like with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Belarus would be willing to join, as well. Now with the Polish-Belarussian-Ukrainian Commonwealth restored, having a fighting chance against any big power would obviously be more realistic. For now, though... Not ending the war is basically the same as committing a national suicide. It would not hurt to bet on better allies next time, too. Like... What did the Ukrainian people think all those loans for military hardware would be paid off with? Control over those resources You are talking about was always the goal for the West, including the USA.
France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, England will end up doing whatever it takes to prevent Russia from taking that land as it would be only step one in a plan to take total control of Europe. Trump is already the laughing stock of the world and the filthiest, dirtiest, scum President this country ever came close to having.
Russian offensive = stalling
Ukrainian deep strike capability = growing
Russian economy = creeping
Ukrainian economy = completely dependent on handouts but EU can surely finance this war longer than Russia, especially when EU can produce majority of arms without US components so the money remains in house.
I think the symmetry is given and Trump's plan is unacceptable.
I don’t agree with giving up. But as unhinged as Putin seems to be. He would probably fulfill his promise of using nuclear weapons. Then no one is going to win.
If the NATO countries would stick together. Trying to put Russia to their knees economically. Then Putin could possibly lose his reign of power!
Nope. Giving a bully what they want always escalates to them demanding more. They should fight until the cost of escalation exceeds the rewards for victory. If the US is unwilling to stop the bully, then they should stay out of it completely.
I wish they would fight to the last "man" amd disappear to become 100%Russia, but America wants so. e Ukrainians to stay alive. I dont get it, dont care, amd dont agree but who am I to argue? God willing they reject Trump amd Russia turns the Ukrain 100% into a footnote in ancient history.
Ukrainian humans aren't completely at fault that their gay clown jewish dictator whose public use of profanity surpasses Rodrigo Duterte's, wants to kill them. Don't give zelensky what he wants, the death to slavic people.
he wants to stop the death and destruction, it would be a feather in his eternal cap. he doesn't care where the line is.
that's up to them, they don't want to, but they don't have the troops.
@goaded Putin's "walls" went up after a degree of patience for decades with the West. So he won't stop without being satisfied. I don't even know if the west putting troops in would do it, probably spread the war.
Trump "kisses a$$" to those whom are powerful, it's his only ploy left to "control" them. If they are weak, he will just beat them down. I don't think Russia has somethign on him, don't buy that. I think it's whom Trump is moreso. It's the less deathly way to draw the lines and end it. Obviously, it's difficult to achieve. Giving all of Donbas... might work... for a while. But, probably, not long unless both sides have some kind of stalemate drone/bot cold war. It remains... a very large border to defend... Ukraine is not well... losing so many people, and large border w Russia. Maybe just call it "Greater Germany" and be done with it. Ukranians may not like it, but that could be reality... they cannot stand on their own two feet for long without using nukes and that didn't fly, ain't gonna fly.
Yea I know they are doing well on battlefield.. because were supplied w weapons. but they are low on males. What else do they throw into the fire...
"Walls" keep people out or in, they don't involve invading another country. In fact it's an old adage that Russia tends to lean on it's neighbour's walls until the fall over and rebuilds them slightly further out.
Trump should realise that he's the most powerful man in the world, he doesn't have to "kiss ass". But of course he owes his position to Putin, and Manafort negotiated splitting up Ukraine with the Russians in exchange.
@goaded "Walls" Im referring to are emotional. He attempted to engage the west, they denied. I saw him make speeches upon speeches, there was no political will. Thats one view as to why some say the west instigated the fight.
Trump is trump, you aren't gonna change him, people don't change without a strong motivator, usually great suffering and pain. This is how he does things, it seems obvious. Smashing Green not long ago is a fine example. If she was strong and powerful, it wouldn't have gone that way.
He's just playing that old game maybe you never played... "smear the queer" and "king of the hill".
@goaded and the west didn't go one inch past where they promised back int he 90s right? no, they went all the way across ukraine... democratically. was a bridge too far, and then they didn't listen to the complaints.
it's a long sordidhistory and this where it ended up. you decide how to end it. if want to get into a war, go ahead.
@goaded If you don't like his approach, that is fine you have every right to that. Then do share in a "my take" what you or you would have the president to do. The prior had a difficult time with this issue and made no progress and his replacement expressed no plan either. The current admins approach is dialog, which is usually how wars end other than annihilation. Annihilation seems impractical when the other power has nukes, quite a bit more risky.
@goaded no... which I later read about. Both made promises, this is the conflict, it's west to east and ukraine caught in middle.
Yes and that's the problem, or part of it. You'll have to ask Putin.
This is all pointless, changes nothing. It's a relationship, and it's sour. Only way to fix it is talk. Leads to stability, which it'self is temporary. Ukraine shrinks, maybe becomes part of another country and becomes NATO. Only path I see, right now...
I answered askers question... Bulb out.
by the way www.milwaukeeindependent.com/.../
@goaded there's no elections in ukraine now, if they wanted to change leader, they couldn't. he will decide on their behalf. Putin will more than likely take the better chunk, not all. Trump will try to work a deal to get access to it in the aims of "peace".
Seems predictible.
The other option as I said is yours, explain how it should go? WWWIII. Fight til the last ukranian?
Shouldn't you be dating a ukranian woman now to rebuild the population?
@goaded That gets to motive and why h e's so hard nosed about it. You derive your own conclusions since you are smart, but suffice to say he won't be offering a vote until he controls it. There were no problems when it was controlled and and he had control. Rich people control from the top, you know that.
In my view, it is and was rooted as a security issue, and there's other values and benefits in his view to justify it. I don't need to explain any of that to you, you know that.
China isn't going to allow a vote of Hong Kong either, nor Taiwan.
bulb out
They absolutely should. Cause there's absolutely no point in that war. It only massively wastes ressources and human life's for no benefit whatsoever. Like do you really see a possible future where Russia doesn't get the krim? It's not gonna happen. We should stop wasting ressources to make the impossible happen.
And I'm not speaking about unconditional surrender. Of course they should negotiate a good deal with Russia. Not be stubborn about things they can't get.
Zelenskyy should tell Trump to take along walk off a short pier.
If they agreed to the given terms it would just be an opportunity for Putin to re-group and re-supply. The hostilities would resume at Putin's whim, so there is nothing to be gained by dealing with him.
No because I have a feeling Russia might start attacking other countries if Ukraine surrenders.
And with forcefully recruited Ukrainians as their foot soldiers then! Everybody should remember what happened to Chechnya.
I´d say they should rather fight as they have nothing to gain from that peace treaty.
Of course, Ukraine should surrender to Russia to end the killings and return prosperity to Ukraine.
I predict you will be a trad maga wife, pumping out kids, in a few short years.
@loveslongnails that sounds very creepy. Why mention something sexual out of the blue?
@Hardon-Collider It's not sexual, it's a stab at the whole "trad wife maga" thing based on her comment.
Yes they lost. Even with all the money that the Biden and Trump Administration gave them and all of the volunteers that went there to fight, they still lost.
time to give up and end that corrupt government.
So Putin then turns his troops towards Poland , then what?
@loveslongnails He sounds like screw them and doesn't care. I dare say if China took part of US via Canada and took part of US via Mexico , I doubt if he would throw the towel in so easily.
Probably a repeat of the Cold War. And maybe world war 3. In Europe.
I just don’t think the USA should not be involved in European politics anymore. As our population becomes less European we should be less involved. Indeed even many European countries have high populations of non European people living in them. So why should they fight wars based on ancient boundaries or religion or even old clan traditions.
Putin can't be trusted and I don't know what to do. I understand the Ukraine is running out of men that will fight...
Ukraine doesn't need to surrender per Trump's terms, but Ukraine needs to cut their losses and work towards ending this failed proxy war that serves no purpose other then enriching defense contractors while inflicting damage to Russia.
Why now? Orcistan used to be in a way better position both militarily and economically.
It's not "surrender" they keep their independence, and there will be peace.
Historically and ethnically speaking - Crimea was not Ukrainian anyway, it was given to them by the communist dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954.
Yes, they should. If they don't, Putin will make them an offer they can't refuse.
Would the USA surrender to Russia if Zelensky told them to? Question answered.
Nope. Russia should surrender and be broken up, while Putler gets plugged in to the mains.
Simples...
People were asking the same thing about Czechoslovakia in 1939.
As long as we stay out if it I don't care what happens. I am not sure why we are so concerned with it in the first place.
So Trump will have ended the war if the fighting stops. It's not "alleged" or whatever weird spin you're trying to put on it.
just wants to say Heh. Are you sure?
nope must be independent
Fight on as long as somebody else pays for it.
Keep fighting that aggressor
Absolutely not. Russia attacked first!
Should the U. S surrender land in a war?
Fight on!
Yess
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions