Her (i.e. America’s) greatest enemy at the moment is the U.S. — Punshhh

Not surprising when a secessionist is put into the Oval Office. America has elected an enemy of the state to lead the state. He’ll work on destroying the state under the pretence of reforming it. Oddly, many people can’t see this.

It will be interesting to see how Putin plays the ball that is ostensibly now in his court. If this discussion succeeds in persuading Putin to temporarily cease fighting and firing weapons into Ukraine then it might have traction. But I would be very surprised.

It will be interesting to see how Putin plays the ball that is ostensibly now in his court.

Yes, Putin will play the idiot Trump like a fiddle. He knows that come the next election and Trump leaves office, that the U.S. might be back to business as usual. That this is his only chance/opportunity to break NATO and the Western alliance. He will probably lead Trump down the garden path right into a trap and champagne corks will be popping in Moscow and Beijing.

I expect the people in the U.S. are surprised at this turn of events, MAGA May feel a bit odd when they realise that they are not MAGA any more, MRGA. And Putin will get his hands on Ukraine’s resources and bread basket ( just as climate change starts to bite).

You are offering reasons which could plausibly be compelling to many Europeans (people and politicians). — neomac

Just look at how the US northern neighbors are taking Trumps nonsense. Most stupid to harm good ties with your neighbors. All this 51st state humbug really worth it?

But the US would not be alone if Russia partners with the US. — neomac

That is quite a hypothetical.

I do have the feeling that not everybody that is in charge of the American foreign policy is so eager as some Elon Musk to withdraw the US from NATO (and the UN btw). And a lot of those critique about NATO that I've read from Americans is usually their anger that it hasn't worked as tool of the US because it genuinely is an international organization where members aren't obligated to follow what the US president wants. This is something that many anti-American commentators forget. A lot of the critique was about the mission: in the 1990's and 2000'stalk of it being a defensive treaty (against Russia or other threat) was totally outmoded. If Finland would have joined NATO when the first enlargement happened, NATO likely would have demanded us to get rid of conscription and have a professional army, that can give forces to outside the area operations. Back then Russia wasn't a threat, you know.

And of course, you might take into account the possibility that Russia, which just last year declared the US being an enemy and it being at war with NATO, might not be so trusting with the US and so eagerly become it's loyal sidekick, but simply might want to fuck the US up as much as possible.

So let's just see how they react to the Trump peace treaty. As Marco Rubio said, the ball is now in their court. Let's just see if there's a 30 cease fire and if the Russians will respect the cease-fire.

And of course, as stupendously outrageous it might seem, Trump's actions have really lead to the European mainstream media to question if "Agent Krasnow":

Deutsche Welle:


France24:

Not surprising when a secessionist is put into the Oval Office. America has elected an enemy of the state to lead the state. He’ll work on destroying the state under the pretence of reforming it. Oddly, many people can’t see this. — Wayfarer

Yes, Putin will play the idiot Trump like a fiddle. He knows that come the next election and Trump leaves office, that the U.S. might be back to business as usual. That this is his only chance/opportunity to break NATO and the Western alliance. He will probably lead Trump down the garden path right into a trap and champagne corks will be popping in Moscow and Beijing.

I expect the people in the U.S. are surprised at this turn of events, MAGA May feel a bit odd when they realise that they are not MAGA any more, MRGA. And Putin will get his hands on Ukraine’s resources and bread basket ( just as climate change starts to bite). — Punshhh

I totally agree with both of you.

I think it would be valuable to think just why all of this can happen. Why are Americans so OK with ruining their alliances and creating themselves misery with the tariffs? This goes further than Trump.

I think at least one reason is that US Foreign policy has been marketed to the American people basically only with fear, with the threat of Communism and later with the threat of Islamic Terrorism. The basics aren't at all put into the minds of everybody like that having international trade creates prosperity, because you aren't making stuff or selling a service just to your own people, but the whole World. Or that international institutions, the rule based order, or things like safety of commerce on the World's seas creates that prosperity. When the income and benefits of globalization have gone to the richest Americans and not to the ordinary people, hatred towards globalization and the international liberal order increases. Yet this is a question of distribution of income inside the US, not because of globalization itself. Yet would this be given as the true reason here? Of course not! Whipping up xenophobia against foreigners is far easier.

And that's why Trump echoes this delusional falsehoods that alliances are a burden, that the EU was created to screw over the US, or that the US would be better with high tariffs. Every other Western country understands that trade barriers aren't good, only if you haven't basically got your own industry or it's in it's infancy. Otherwise it's all about being competitive in the global market and specialization with only the exception of having as safety enough own production for instance to feed the society, if international trade receives shocks.

As these policies are extremely harmful for the US, it's totally understandable that an adversary like Russia would want to promote this kind of populism, where the enemy is the US government itself.

I expect the people in the U.S. are surprised at this turn of events, — Punshhh

They shouldn't have been surprised. In his debate with Kamala Harris, he was asked if he wanted Ukraine to win the war. He refused to answer yes/no; he said he just wanted the war to be over.

It appears he will get his wish- Ukraine is likely to surrender much of the territory Russia has seized. A loss for Ukraine is a "win" for the Trump-Putin coalition.

Markov and Kosachev comments:

Russia's answer to the proposal for a truce may not be "No", but "Yes, But". That is, to agree to the proposal for a truce for 30 days, on the condition that an arms embargo on arms supplies to Ukraine will be introduced for the same period. Moreover, the embargo must be signed by all 52 countries members of the Ramstein group. And first of all, by the countries of Europe.
Europe must support the truce in Ukraine not with words, but with deeds - an embargo on arms supplies to the conflict zone is a well-known formula in diplomacy.
More energy is needed! — Sergei Markov · Mar 11, 2025

The results of the American-Ukrainian talks in Jeddah show only one thing: the "tail wags the dog" plot performed by Zelenskyy with Trump, unlike Biden, definitely does not work.
The conditions are American, not Ukrainian. The Ukrainians agree to what they are told. And at the same time they bow and fawn - what is the formula alone worth "we will sign an agreement on resources when it is convenient for Washington"! Zelensky is in deep defense. Or, as the State Department representative put it, "Trump put Zelensky in his place."
Russia is advancing, and therefore it will be different with Russia. Any agreements (with all the understanding of the need for compromise) - on our terms, not American. And this is not boasting, but an understanding that real agreements are still being written there, on the front. Which should be understood in Washington too.
In the meantime, the most important thing is not to interfere with Russian-American negotiations with third-party comments. Let the negotiators do their job. Victory will be ours. — Konstantin Kosachev · Mar 11, 2025

https://www.youtube.com/live/nNJOUy_luDM?si=Fl5VVUb-z_XgFcFN

Always interesting to hear from the boogeyman.

Seems accurate to me.

Also always funny to hear from people go on about how awful the invasion was, yet was fully supportive of the US invading Iraq back in 2003.

Principle is always the same: when you do it it’s terrorism; when I do it, it’s counter-terrorism.

You are offering reasons which could plausibly be compelling to many Europeans (people and politicians). — neomac

Just look at how the US northern neighbors are taking Trumps nonsense. Most stupid to harm good ties with your neighbors. All this 51st state humbug really worth it? — ssu

What would be more sensible to do for the US to re-balance trade deficits and security issues with Canada? See, to many Americans, if these problems persist from previous administrations, then it means that previous administrations couldn’t do much to fix them with a more conventional and soft approach. So Trump and the US he represents may be persuaded that time is running out for dealing with pressing issues of national interest. And since soft-power didn’t faire well to solve them so far, then it’s time for brute force. This can be as ugly as it gets given Trump’s aggressiveness. The strategy can still fail, but Americans are willing to try it, as much as Putin was willing to try it against Ukraine.
Did Putin succeed or fail? What do the Russians think?

And a lot of those critique about NATO that I've read from Americans is usually their anger that it hasn't worked as tool of the US because it genuinely is an international organization where members aren't obligated to follow what the US president wants. — ssu

Still:

"It is often overlooked, but NATO’s collective strength isn’t just in its ability to defend its members from an attack (Article V of the 1949 Washington Treaty) but also in its requirements to ensure members are undertaking necessary domestic activities to prepare for crisis response and, potentially, military action (see Article III of the Washington Treaty). This allows for resilience, something which, in a dynamic world, needs to be more deeply invested in and more comprehensively approached.”

”Allies should spend 4 percent of their GDP on defense and security annually: States should spend a minimum of 2 percent of GDP on defense, though NATO should continue to explore and allow more flexibility in the way those monies are spent nationally, particularly for states that do not have sufficient absorptive capacity to spend 2 percent on their defense capabilities and programs. The balance—between 2 and 4 percent—should be allocated toward activities that are strategically vital to the alliance but are not accounted for in NATO’s methodologies for defense spending, such as peacetime preparedness and resilience.”

(Source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/burden-sharing-responsibility-sharing)

And remember that what you claim to be holding for the transatlantic relations, it may very much hold also within EU. EU can take decisions, mediate and change rules to facilitate individual EU member states' spending for their defense and implementing a collective strategy. But then it’s still on EU member states to act accordingly, and EU members aren't obligated to follow what the EU president wants.

And of course, you might take into account the possibility that Russia, which just last year declared the US being an enemy and it being at war with NATO, might not be so trusting with the US and so eagerly become it's loyal sidekick, but simply might want to fuck the US up as much as possible — ssu

Maybe one thing is the pre-Trump US , another is Trump’s US, right? I’m not sure Putin dislikes Trump’s US as much as he disliked pre-Trump US. The problem to me is less about who’s liking whom or who is playing whom, and more about the fact that Trump’s power is constrained by constitution and time, and this is what’s complicating Putin’s dilemma about Trump’s trustability, even assumed that Trump’s bargaining chips were appealing to Putin.

If the U.S. really doesn’t want overstretch, all she needs to do is enable Europe to take on the role of policing Europe and Western and Northern Asia. — Punshhh

What should Trump do to enable Europe to take on the role of policing Europe that previous US administrations didn’t do already and still failed?

Putin will continue and increase his efforts to destabilise Europe. Europe will become a thorn in the side of the U.S., while Russia cannot be trusted. Just to deal this is level of global overstretch would require a vast army of spies to keep Europe under check — Punshhh

I don’t doubt that Putin will pursue his goals at the expense of the Europeans and, possibly, of the US.
But here is the thing: Trump may not be interested to keep all Europe under US hegemony.
Trump could just be fine with having Europe as a contested territory for hegemonic competition, because the US could have greater chance to “win” this competition anyways, to the extent Europeans are more Russophobic than USphobic, and to the extent Russia can afford to overstretch even less than the US. Local nationalisms can be played either way to partially appease Russia’s ambition to a sphere of influence at least in Eastern Europe, but also to contain Russia’s expansionism (it’s sort of an updated version of Cold War era, without ideological implications). What Trump may hope for is just to turn enough European states into complacent clients of the US, opening their markets to the US products (including a lot of weaponry), instead of snobbish allies. I think Putin and Trump’s shared wet dream would be a puppetization of Europe.

All your talk of mineral deals is just trade and money, Trump is a used car salesman, he has no idea about the geopolitical implications of his wheeler dealing. He will mess up big time, although it looks as though the U.S. economy will implode before he does too much damage. — Punshhh

Again, Trump has his pool of advisors (see Stephen Miran), He's not alone, nor he enjoys autocratic power yet. The problem is that as long as Trump’s foreign policies are supported by the Americans and his entourage, Europeans have to deal with it as much as they have to deal with Putin.

They shouldn't have been surprised. In his debate with Kamala Harris, he was asked if he wanted Ukraine to win the war. He refused to answer yes/no; he said he just wanted the war to be over.

It appears he will get his wish- Ukraine is likely to surrender much of the territory Russia has seized. A loss for Ukraine is a "win" for the Trump-Putin coalition.

Yes, the signs were there. But what I think is a surprise is that they were now to become supporters of Putin. They were voting to make America great again and all that involved. But now they are having to endure inflation, to alienate America’s staunched allies and support Russia instead. They were actually voting to make Russia great again. MAGA is actually MRGA.

Unlike what Trump says, Ukraine does have some cards. They’ve agreed with Trump - EXTRA BONUS POINTS - plus they have something the US wants namely rare earths. So Putin now has to weigh up whether to agree to a ceasefire or to keep fighting. If he doesn’t agree then he’s undermining Trump’s peacemaker speil. Let’s see.

What would be more sensible to do for the US to re-balance trade deficits and security issues with Canada? — neomac

And you think anything like that can be made with a demented and crazy idea of annexing Canada? They aren't willing to be Americans, it's just extremely offensive. And if by a magical wand Canada would be a part of the US, they'd be hardcore Democrats against the MAGA-cult. And Canada isn't so "white" anymore that the racists would get a response to the "browning" of the US. It's simply utterly crazy and you just sidelining the whole issue as it wouldn't be the reason for the anger in Canada simply shows it.

Still: (About Article III — neomac

Well, what are the Europeans doing? In fact this is the most logical response. When Trump is wanting them to spend more on defense, they are spending more on defense. If the US is leaving NATO -> spend more on defense. This is a no-brainer.

But Trump leaving NATO, perhaps on similar invented reason like the fentanol-issue with Canada, is that they don't spend 5%, which even the US doesn't spend. So Trump can walk away. In fact, it seems that Trump is walking away from every alliance the US has, except Israel.

Yet even the allies of the US on the other side of the World do think that supporting Ukraine is important, like Japan.

Unlike what Trump says, Ukraine does have some cards. They’ve agreed with Trump - EXTRA BONUS POINTS - plus they have something the US wants. So Putin now has to weigh up whether to agree to a ceasefire or to keep fighting. — Wayfarer

Trump's treatment of Ukraine has just increased the support from Europe as without the US, Russia is a real threat to Europe. The largest army that is opposing Russia in Europe is Ukraine.

One thing Putin could do is to agree on a cease-fire, then continue the attacks and blame Ukraine for breaching the cease-fire. Guess on whose side the US would be? Yet this has a lot of disadvantages. Any ceasefire would have a massive effect on the domestic front in Russia. Many Russia do want the war to end and with a cease-fire their hopes would go up. Also it would put the warhawks in Russia in a bad position. Now the call that Russia is winning can be repeated and the war continued as the US and the West have "shown their weakness".

An example of Russian views:

The Deputy Speaker of the Duma: "Our enemies are being tamed by the animalistic fear of our army"

"If you Europeans were capable of looking at things objectively, you would have to admit that you have already lost this war." Always a pleasure, Pyotr Tolstoy. Great-great-grandson of the great writer. But above all, Deputy Speaker of the Duma, head of his country's delegation to the OSCE, a name of some weight within United Russia, Vladimir Putin's party. The depth of his personal curriculum has never prevented him from making statements as a pure hawk, a tough guy among the tough guys. "I say what my people think. We know very well that Europe has now advanced its anti-Russian delirium so far, that you are all rooting for the continuation of the war."

What do you think of Trump's ultimatum to you if you don't accept the truce?
"That any serious negotiation takes a long time, and Russia is certainly in no hurry. It seems to me that there is exaggerated concern for the results of the meeting in Jeddah. While they were talking, our heroes are outlining a new negotiating scenario, completing the cleanup of the Kursk region."

So should Russia go all the way?
"In my opinion, we should give less importance to the well-groomed faces of American negotiators or to the always identical suit of that gentleman in Kiev. We should never again look to the West with hope, always looking for a subtext in the speeches and gestures of their leaders. What difference does it make to us what the Americans think, or the Ukrainians, who said what during their negotiations or how much you Europeans intend to spend? They will not be the ones to end this war."


Who will do it then?
"Us. A simple Russian soldier, capable of walking for fifteen kilometers inside a gas pipeline and then winning (referring to an episode of recent days much celebrated in Russia, ed.). Our enemies are made docile only by their animalistic fear of our army. It has always been this way, it will always be this way."

What a beautiful prospect.
«Russia is proposing peace. We can stop the war on our own, but a return to the previous situation and a return of what we have conquered is out of the question. Once this principle is established, let's make peace».

Do you think Putin shouldn't accept the truce proposed by Trump?
«I'm not speaking for the president. But whatever the enemies propose,Russia must win. I'm sure we will be able to reason calmly, with confidence, and without regard for the programs and timetables imposed from abroad. This is exactly what our army is doing. It would be good for all of us to learn this».

Do you consider Trump an enemy?
«The new American president is as concrete as a real estate agent. He immediately understood what you don't: the regions of the former Ukraine that have passed under Russian control, and which are now part of Russia in accordance with our Constitution, will remain with us, as I said. We are trying to trust him, but you know, trust is always the result of tangible actions, especially in foreign policy. Trump has not yet said anything about what he really has in mind regarding the negotiations. Russia will never agree with certain proposals that are circulating in Western public opinion. Let's wait and see."

What could be the Russian counterparts for the peace offered by Trump?
"Why should we offer anything? Trump says every day that Ukraine has lost. Even Europe implicitly admits it: in three years, you have gone from the desire to bring the Russian aggressor to its knees with two thousand economic sanctions and massive aid to Ukraine, to the proud intention of considering a capitulation by Kiev unacceptable. But if necessary, we can wait another three years, to give you time to understand that, sooner or later, Ukraine will lose."

Do you think Trump wants to give you more time?
"At least he immediately said: let's discuss. He is not doing it for the love of our country or Putin. He simply does not want the West, and especially the US, to emerge as losers from this confrontation."

Are you convinced that Putin’s delaying strategy will lead you to victory?
“Time is on our side. We remain focused on the main objectives: winning the war and ensuring Russia’s security for generations. We don’t need anyone but ourselves.”

What would be more sensible to do for the US to re-balance trade deficits and security issues with Canada? — neomac

And you think anything like that can be made with a demented and crazy idea of annexing Canada? They aren't willing to be Americans, it's just extremely offensive. And if by a magical wand Canada would be a part of the US, they'd be hardcore Democrats against the MAGA-cult. And Canada isn't so "white" anymore that the racists would get a response to the "browning" of the US. It's simply utterly crazy and you just sidelining the whole issue as it wouldn't be the reason for the anger in Canada simply shows it — ssu

.

I’m not sidelining anything. I’m giving you my understanding of Trump-style imperialism as much as I did about Putin’s imperialism a while back. Canada as much as Ukraine may respond to imperialist aggressions the way they see fit, but then they have also to be ready to pay the consequences. If there are no peace agreements, then they have to fight it out. Besides, given the issues I’ve spoken about: the burden of overstretch and the pivot to Asia, I find it unlikely the US will start a conventional war with Canada to occupy and annex it as Russia did with Ukraine.
Finally, your outrage could be more myopic than you seem to realise. Indeed, there could be paradoxical benefits for the US historical allies in Trump’s “crazy ideas”: more security self-reliance and strategic initiative. If the liberal/peaceful West must win against the challenges posed by predatory foreign foes, then it has to earn it also through actual brute force.

Still: (About Article III — neomac

Well, what are the Europeans doing? In fact this is the most logical response. When Trump is wanting them to spend more on defense, they are spending more on defense. If the US is leaving NATO -> spend more on defense. This is a no-brainer. — ssu

Focus. From the US perspective, the problem is that responsibility sharing among NATO members should have happened WHILE the US is in NATO, not after the US leaves NATO. The US would be no longer interested in NATO if there is no responsibility sharing (even more so if the compensation/benefits for the US security support are not equivalent to its perceived efforts). And if Europeans increase their efforts in a defensive alliance which doesn’t include the US, still there are benefits for the US: Europeans may still need to buy for their security from the US to speed up readiness, Europeans will still take the burden of containing Russia (while Trump could still propose his assistance/mediation to Putin), and Trump can still meddle in European national politics via European pro-US populist bootlickers.

But Trump leaving NATO, perhaps on similar invented reason like the fentanol-issue with Canada, is that they don't spend 5%, which even the US doesn't spend. So Trump can walk away. In fact, it seems that Trump is walking away from every alliance the US has, except Israel. — ssu

Why do you think Trump is making such an exception for Israel?

Despite the fact that Imperial Russia under Tsar Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine and march on Berlin, they're rejecting temporary cease-fire deals and insist on a long-term peace agreement.

Hmmm... :chin:

Despite the fact that Imperial Russia under Tsar Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine and march on Berlin, they're rejecting temporary cease-fire deals and insist on a long-term peace agreement. — Tzeentch

Kind of funny that most arguments against peace assume this premise, of which there’s no evidence. Glad Trump, in his own idiotic way, isn’t buying it.

It’s 4D chess.

they're rejecting temporary cease-fire deals and insist on a long-term peace agreement. — Tzeentch

Pax Ruski: i'll kick your ass now, so you'll be finally at peace under my ass in the future

Despite the fact that Imperial Russia under Tsar Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine and march on Berlin, they're rejecting temporary cease-fire deals and insist on a long-term peace agreement. — Tzeentch

I'm kinda amazed that you're managing to spin Russia asking for concessions before they agree to a ceasefire as evidence of their good intentions.

By that logic, Ukraine refusing a ceasefire deal without substantial security guarantees was also them ensuring a lasting peace right?

The Russians actually chose to accept the proposal:

Putin's heavily caveated support for the U.S. ceasefire proposal looked designed to signal goodwill to Washington and to open the door to further talks with U.S. President Donald Trump. Such talks could offer a real chance to end the biggest conflict in Europe since World War Two given Ukraine has already agreed to the proposal.

"We agree with the proposals to cease hostilities," Putin told reporters at a news conference in the Kremlin following talks with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. "The idea itself is correct, and we certainly support it."

"But we proceed from the fact that this cessation should be such that it would lead to long-term peace and would eliminate the original causes of this crisis." — Reuters

Signaling goodwill while emphasizing the need for a long-term peace - typical imperialist shit.

Obviously giving the Russians what they want, long-term peace, would be nothing short of appeasement.

Just imagine it's the US saying these things about a war they started, say in Iran, and see how it sounds in your head.

“We will no longer tolerate criticism of our democracy. Our democracy is the best,” Dmitry Peskov declared at a youth forum in Sochi on the Black Sea coast.
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-kremlin-elections-our-democracy-is-the-best-in-the-world/

Signaling democratic spirit while emphasizing the need for respect - typical authoritarian shit.

https://www.youtube.com/live/nNJOUy_luDM?si=Fl5VVUb-z_XgFcFN — Mikie

Lavrov is just trotting out the same old bυllshιt that everyone has heard and taken into consideration already, more than once.
Right, so, Russia is a fine democracy, and he tops it off with the old Ukraine is ruled by the Nazi Kyiv regime.
Maybe an old dog can't be taught new tricks? :) He should catch up on Shevchenko, ol' influential Ukrainian symbol or folk hero.
Stalin killed the most Slavs in the 20th century. Putin has killed the most Slavs in the 21st century. :death:

By the way, my impression is that the invasion of Iraq doesn't have many defenders, maybe I'm wrong.
Notably after the nuclear weapons threat was shown false?
One of Bush's supposed rationales was plain bυllshιt.

taken into consideration already — jorndoe

Hardly.

the invasion of Iraq doesn't have many defenders — jorndoe

Yeah, now. Not back then. Back then the very people condemning Russia today were defending the US.

Typical good guy bad guy stuff. That’s seemingly the limit of political imagination. Putin is an evil guy by bent on conquering Europe and re-establishing the Soviet Union. “Same old bullshit.”

Canada as much as Ukraine may respond to imperialist aggressions the way they see fit, but then they have also to be ready to pay the consequences. If there are no peace agreements, then they have to fight it out. Besides, given the issues I’ve spoken about: the burden of overstretch and the pivot to Asia, I find it unlikely the US will start a conventional war with Canada to occupy and annex it as Russia did with Ukraine. — neomac

And that's why Canada can see the total bluff of Trump. If the US might be so delusional to occupy Greenland and it's 50 000 inhabitants, then face the consequences. But this Canada thing is demented, delusional and silly. If there are any Americans here, just ask them how many American soldiers they are willing to have killed for Canada and how many Canadians they want to be killed in the process. How much better would they feel about their country? Because that's what you would need to do. They simply aren't given their land without a fight, and especially a non-military fight. So a war of invasion? Would the American troops go through with this kind of nonsense? I'm sure that Trump wouldn't get it through Congress.

But here's some people actually talking about these loony ideas of Trump:


If people have been against the Vietnam war or something... how much would they be against this. With a Trump recession and Trump invading Canada... yeah, I could see a civil war in the US.

Anyway, You can already see what this insane bullshit from Trump is leading the US. There's a global recession starting and the dollar is weakening. Usually in times when there is fear of recession, the stock market sinks and the dollar goes up as people put into safety their investments. Now the dollar is sinking. And that is new.

And those thinking that this isn't because of the political situation, they are wrong. The whole status of the US dollar being a reserve currency was a political decision. And when Nixon ended the Gold standard, the dollar continued it's role because oil was sold in dollars.

Where's the flight to safety?

Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for a western democracy to give something. Yay for free stuff.

The initial move from Ukraine to quickly agree to the ceasefire and the fact it was hammered out in a few hours with the US was excellent diplomacy and cornered Russia to only be able to react in favour of Ukraine (either agree or become the obstacle). From the country that was an obstacle to peace in the narrative in the US, they were now leading for peace. That was handled well by the diplomatic corps in both Ukraine and the USA - and dare I say it: Rubio.

Of course, anybody ever having negotiated with Russians knows the caveats are an effective no to any just peace. There will be no peace unless the Russians get shit for free: Ukraine joining NATO or EU being off the table, annexing land, whatever. It's more important than ever there's a single front and it's impossible due to the orange monkey but also shit holes like Hungary and the Netherlands.

Are you saying there is no means to compare actions by nations because they all get wrapped in political messaging?

I have objected to crappy things the U.S. has done as well as many other nations. If there is no other measure than messaging and agenda, there does not seem to be a point to judgement at all.

Of course, anybody ever having negotiated with Russians knows the caveats are an effective no to any just peace. There will be no peace unless the Russians get shit for free: Ukraine joining NATO or EU being off the table, annexing land, whatever. It's more important than ever there's a single front and it's impossible due to the orange monkey but also shit holes like Hungary and the Netherlands. — Benkei

I also quite plausible that Putin will wring further concessions out of Trump and the deal for Ukraine changes.

But even if they agreed to the 30 days outright, that would still leave open the question of where to go from there, and as far as I can see no-one has much of an idea. This is a risk for both sides but I figure that Putin thinks that he can play the West like he did after the Crimean and Donbas invasions.

Yeah, now. Not back then. Back then the very people condemning Russia today were defending the US.

Typical good guy bad guy stuff. That’s seemingly the limit of political imagination. Putin is an evil guy by bent on conquering Europe and re-establishing the Soviet Union. “Same old bullshit.” — Mikie

So why were they wrong and you're right? Putin's not an evil guy, but Bush of Cheney or whoever we want to select was?

Or is neither evil and it's all relative?

It's just really confusing to me why you feel that Russia's (third) invasion of Ukraine is the case that's in dire need of nuance.

Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for a western democracy to give something. Yay for free stuff. — Benkei

I would correct that:

Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for Trump to bully and pressure to give it over to Russia. Because this is "realpolitik". Yay for free stuff.

I also quite plausible that Putin will wring further concessions out of Trump and the deal for Ukraine changes. — Echarmion

We surely will here after Trump talks more to his friend, Vladimir, how understandable Putin's line is and how much Putin and Trump want peace. But it's that damn warmongering Zelenskyi!!!