the goblin always said he wants to continue the war until russia defeat. thats his deluded definition of a "just peace". Trump has always been vague about the "guarantees" included in the mineral treaty. during the meeting with the ukrainian dictatorlet, he made clear that the only guarantee he was getting was having US companied digging minerals. on the questionable basis the russian wouldnt bomb US civilians.
Agreed. And especially on the questionable. The Ukraine had major US companies invested in it previously and Russia rolled in anyway. US buisiness people simply (and sensibly) stayed away from any fighting or left entirely. Nobody here had any problem acknowledging that Blackrock was buying up vast tracts of Ukranian farmland, ahem, sorry, "licensing". And that it and other companies huge investments into the country were a big part of the USA's involvement. They wanted a return on their investment and Trump is simply saying the quiet part out (very) loud. The oddity is how some of the same people who acknowledged that now think the same situation again - US investment and operations in Ukraine without security guarantees - will lead to a different outcome. That Trump's "it'll be fine" carries any meaningful weight this time.
the goblin survival depends on the war continuing, he will never accept a ceasefire. add to that the neither russia will.
I don't know about Zelensky. At some point the Banderites / Azov have to lose power. They can't hold that gun to his head forever in the face of continued failure before the rest of the country. But I'm not contesting that because there you get into fine insider knowledge I don't have, rather than the broadstrokes we can all take the time to see. But Russia? It is not in Russia's interests to just advance forever. I'd actually argue that inheriting bankrupt and war-torn Ukraine as a whole would be a huge drain on them. Russia's goals were initially its national security. Maybe after the disastrous policies of Ukraine and the West it decides on stretch goals of Odessa because why not. But taking Western Ukraine would be a new Afghanistan for them. The West would keep sending in weapons and munitions. There'd be an endless supply of angry and bereaved Ukranians ready to use them. It would just be one big bucket with a hole in it for Russia. And in addition to discincentives, Europe has things Russia does want. Namely as a customer for its energy but also just an end to sanctions and trade in general. Only for the USA and Kiev elites is it not in their interests for Russia to accept some kind of ceasefire and neutrality agreement.
I read your posts with interest btw. They're some of the most insightful here and often times I might say something but don't bother because you've already articulated it. So I'd be interested to hear why you think Russia would never accept a ceasefire. I suspect just us not sharing a definition. Do you mean some kind of frozen conflict without formal resolution? Yes - Russia wouldn't want that as anything other than a brief stage before formal treaties, but peace? I think they'd happily accept that if it gave them the basics of what they want.
depends on the definition of pull out,
Europe has no tech sector, an evaporating manufacturing base, crippling energy costs, absurd politics, big immigration issues, huge sovereign debt and they are turning into totalitarian states. europe will be buck broken whatever the russians or americans will do because it largely is already.
I feel a little hyperbolic - you still have a large and educated populace that is an excellent basis for growth. But I take your point. The question that is relevant to my point though is whether or not US hegemony over Europe
helps? If as you say Europe is fucked either way, why do we need to be occupied by America? I can point to a hundred examples of ways being the USA's vassals has exacerbated the very things you list out. From the grand scale sabogating of our pipelines to prevent us buying cheaper energy for our industries from Russia, to the subtle undermining of native political opposition. The specific viewpoint I was challenging was that Europe would be defenceless without US military umbrella. And my challenge is to question "from whom?" I see the same people pushing this view point as will elsewhere react with laughter at the Russophobic EU leaders who scream about Russia seizing Berlin if Ukraine falls. I also find the idea laughable. But I don't try to reconcile it with saying the EU will be squashed by its adversaries without US military protection. Who wants us? We have no tech sector, an evaporating manufacturing base, crippling energy costs, absurd politics, big immigration issues and huge sovereign debts(1). Invasion by a foreign power would cure precisely two of those things: Absurd politics and huge sovereign debts. Come to think of it, would anybody like to invade us?
I would not put literally anything beyond the psychos who currently pose as european leadership, including the destruction of the continent in a world war three.
Well, we're back in agreement there. But that's really our problem to solve. Historically the USA has been promoting these leaders in one way or another. Unless you can make a case that somehow the effect of American presence is going to flip and suddenly become a pressure for pro-European leaders, I don't see this as helping. A strong Europe is really a negative to the USA. Didn't Trump or Vance only the other week say something about the EU was created to threaten the dollar?
