Russia and Ukraine Current Events

And there's little reason to believe that pieces of paper, even ones with security guarantees, do prevent world wars.
That's why Zelensky was mentioning "contingents", as in troop contingents from the guarantor states stationed in Ukraine.
NATO has always had both: paper, and troops in vulnerable countries, and that has been very successful at preventing war in Europe.
 
It was that the Donbass experience 2014-2022 shows that a ceasefire agreement with Russia is not worth the paper it is written on
The Trump administration's decision to terminate 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts slammed humanitarian projects worldwide on Thursday
It would appear, sadly, that an agreement with the USA is also no longer "worth the paper it is written on" under Trump's administration.
 
That statement is not covered by evidence.

It is if you actually watch the entire conference. It is quite clear that Trump is not linking 'security guarantees' to the deal that was to be signed...and it is security guarantees that Zelensky was trying to push for. Trump is basically saying this is just stage 1...and then comes talk of security guarantees. It is even quite clear from the exchange between Zelensky and Vance that security guarantees were not part of the deal to be signed that day....otherwise that exchange would never have occured.
 
It is if you actually watch the entire conference. It is quite clear that Trump is not linking 'security guarantees' to the deal that was to be signed...and it is security guarantees that Zelensky was trying to push for. Trump is basically saying this is just stage 1...and then comes talk of security guarantees. It is even quite clear from the exchange between Zelensky and Vance that security guarantees were not part of the deal to be signed that day....otherwise that exchange would never have occured.
Yes, I agree.
That is exactly why I'm saying that there is no evidence of Zelinsky "using the Whitehouse conference to add criteria to what had already been agreed", which you're claiming.
Zelinsky never indicated that he wouldn't sign the agreement as it stood.

What you should do to support your point is to quote what Zelinsky says, or give a time in one of the videos when he says it, that indicates Zelinsky links the security guarantees that Ukraine requires as part of a multilateral peace agreement to the Ukraine-USA minerals deal.

I contend you can't find a link like that, and that Zelinksky never put his signing of the minerals deal in question.

If you watched the long version, I think the point came up because one of the reporters asked Trump what assurances he had that Putin would stick to a peace deal, and Trump's response is basically "I know Putin, and he wouldn't break a deal with me", and I think after that is when Zelensky brings up guarantees and contingents. Edit: that's actually at the end, Zelensky didn't get a chance to reply.
Article:
Reporter: "What if Russia breaks peace talks? What do you do then?" [...]

Trump: Okay, what if they broke it? I don't know. They broke it with Biden because Biden didn't respect him. They didn't respect Obama. They respect me. Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. [...] All I can say is this: he might have broken deals with Obama and Bush, and he might have broken them with Biden. He did maybe, maybe he didn't. I don't know what happened, but he didn't break them with me. He wants to make a deal…
 
Last edited:
One minute 40 seconds worth of history repeating itself...
Source: https://youtu.be/ofFSrwszwlk
The French had already wiped their arse on this piece of paper too:
czech_betrayal.png

-- https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume 23/v23.pdf p.165 (original French version on p.164)
 
That is exactly why I'm saying that there is no evidence of Zelinsky "using the Whitehouse conference to add criteria to what had already been agreed", which you're claiming.
Zelinsky never indicated that he wouldn't sign the agreement as it stood.

What you should do to support your point is to quote what Zelinsky says, or give a time in one of the videos when he says it, that indicates Zelinsky links the security guarantees that Ukraine requires as part of a multilateral peace agreement to the Ukraine-USA minerals dea
if the war never ends because Zelensky doesn't think diplomacy (ie. Trump's plan) will work, then the mineral deal is worthless. There is no point in the U.S signing it. We can only GET the minerals if Ukraine still owns the land.

The only options for Ukraine still owning the land at this point is:
1. Many more years of war with America and Europe throwing many more hundreds of billions at it. (not an option)
2. Europe and America join the fight. WW3 (not an option)
3. Ukraine joins Nato. WW3 (not an option)
4. Zelensky agrees to give some land and give on some of Putins security demands. (apparently not an option)
 
That's why Zelensky was mentioning "contingents", as in troop contingents from the guarantor states stationed in Ukraine.
NATO has always had both: paper, and troops in vulnerable countries, and that has been very successful at preventing war in Europe.

As a former participant in that contingent, I concur. When there were over 200,000 American service personnel physically stationed in Europe with pre-stocks of weapons for another +100,000 already in place and nuclear weapons on stand-by, The Warsaw Pact could not reasonably expect to subdue Western Europe without escalation to nuclear war. The risk was simply not worth it.

Trump has steadily signaled his disinterest in supporting Ukraine and ruled out any use of American troops in securing a future peace deal. He's asking Ukraine to trade away the only thing Trump seems to want, an economic deal, prior to getting a security arrangement that actually does anything worth talking about. I would not have agreed to that either and certainly not with someone as feckless as trump.
 
He's asking Ukraine to trade away the only thing Trump seems to want, an economic deal, prior to getting a security arrangement that actually does anything worth talking about. I would not have agreed to that either and certainly not with someone as feckless as trump.
which is fine. and understandable. (and its not just Trump. America -pre-Trump- isnt exactly known for its nice guy behavior)

but then why come to the White House and pretend like you are going to sign the deal?
 
which is fine. and understandable. (and its not just Trump. America -pre-Trump- isnt exactly known for its nice guy behavior)

but then why come to the White House and pretend like you are going to sign the deal?

Because the trap was already set. If Zelensky had refused to appear he would still be getting the blame for lack of progress on any peace deal. By showing up, he exposed the naked emperor. Zelensky is certainly no worse off for attending the meeting.

An interviewee on Bloomberg this morning pointed out how unhappy Marco Rubio looked as the affair unfolded. Unlike most of the sycophants Trump has surrounded himself with, Rubio appears to have recognized the futility the event.

Rubio had already used Trump's threat to retake control of the Panama Canal to get Panama to drop participation in China's belt and road initiative. Trump almost immediately made Rubio look foolish by doubling down on the canal take over threat.

[edited for punctuation]
 
Last edited:
he wasnt asked to appear. HE asked to come. and HE suggested the mineral deal.
Some clarification -- according to the New York Times in https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/12/world/europe/trump-ukraine-rare-earth-minerals.html:
Mr. Trump's proposal followed a campaign launched by Kyiv in the fall to appeal to the U.S. president's business-oriented mind-set by discussing lucrative energy deals and emphasizing that defending Ukraine aligned with American economic interests.

The campaign included a meeting between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky and trips to the United States by Ukrainian officials to pitch deals for exploiting deposits of lithium and titanium — vital for producing technologies like electric batteries. It also involved getting backing from influential political figures like the Republican senator Lindsey Graham.

The campaign was launched after politically connected U.S. investors started showing interest in Ukraine's underground wealth in late 2023, despite the war that has been raging since 2022.
 
Zelenskyy may not be worse off. But we Americans are, and the administration certainly is. Trump just dropped his trousers in front of the whole world.
oh please. he dropped his trousers back in like 2016.

or are you claiming your (or Europe's) respect for this administration was higher before that meeting?
 
You seem to think that something that's negative can't get more negative.
nope. i'm asking her if her opinion is MORE negative.

(and really, once you're a racist, misogynistic, stupid, deplorable, Putin loving Hitler..is there anything worse than that?)
 
Yes, I agree.
That is exactly why I'm saying that there is no evidence of Zelinsky "using the Whitehouse conference to add criteria to what had already been agreed", which you're claiming.
Zelinsky never indicated that he wouldn't sign the agreement as it stood.

What you should do to support your point is to quote what Zelinsky says, or give a time in one of the videos when he says it, that indicates Zelinsky links the security guarantees that Ukraine requires as part of a multilateral peace agreement to the Ukraine-USA minerals deal.

I contend you can't find a link like that, and that Zelinksky never put his signing of the minerals deal in question.

Zelensky arrived specifically to sign an agreement that had been arrived at via a good deal of diplomacy, and then questions that very diplomacy when responding to Vance....


Source: https://youtu.be/v_kTNIYsFnQ?t=9


This cannot be anything other than Zelensky trying to add additional criteria. He's clearly not happy with the agreement and is effectively trying to further argue his case in front of the media, as Vance correctly points out. That is the 'disrespect' Vance then talks about.

No, I should not have to quote specific lines. It's really down to you to watch the entire conference and the flow of things and see what led up to the above moment.

Of course Zelensky is actually correct in much of what he says, and I find it appalling that pressure is being put on the victim of a war and not the actual aggressor, but the situation is what it is, and I don't blame Trump for not wanting to risk WW3 over the matter. Zelensky wants more than is to be signed for....and that includes 'guarantees' that are not provided for in the document to be signed.
 
The only options for Ukraine still owning the land at this point is:
1. Many more years of war with America and Europe throwing many more hundreds of billions at it. (not an option)
2. Europe and America join the fight. WW3 (not an option)
3. Ukraine joins Nato. WW3 (not an option)
4. Zelensky agrees to give some land and give on some of Putins security demands. (apparently not an option)

And this is almost identical to the situation with the Sudetenland in 1938. For all his talk of being anti-Nazi...Putin is using the exact same tactics as Hitler. Chamberlain's famous 'peace in our time' was effectively option 4.

And it is the exact same ' we don't want to risk a world war over a country miles away' that occurred in 1938.

The big difference is that nobody was really in any position, especially geographically, to stop Hitler then rolling into the rest of Czechoslovakia....whereas whatever is left of Ukraine is more defensible if the will ( and the money ) is there. It all sucks deeply, but personally I think 'peace in our time' is the only pragmatic solution left this time.
 
and I find it appalling that pressure is being put on the victim of a war and not the actual aggressor,
the mineral deal was Trump's "in" TO put pressure on Putin from a non-NATO standing. it's not rocket science.

Article:
Most of these minerals span Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporzhizhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Korovohrad, Poltava and Kharkiv.

Russia, which controls approximately 20 percent of Ukraine, including large parts of Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhia, is sitting on about 40 percent of Ukraine's metal resources according to estimates by Ukrainian think tanks We Build Ukraine and the National Institute of Strategic Studies, reports the Reuters news agency.

Ukraine has said that a significant portion of its rare earth elements are located in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Shevchenko Field of Lithium Ores, one of Ukraine's biggest lithium deposits, is located in a rural settlement in Donetsk.
 
This cannot be anything other than Zelensky trying to add additional criteria. He's clearly not happy with the agreement and is effectively trying to further argue his case in front of the media, as Vance correctly points out. That is the 'disrespect' Vance then talks about.
chris Murphy..connecticut (the fame from Sandy Hook made him lose his mind) was at the meeting PRIOR to what we saw. They already knew zelensky had these arguments. so youre right that z just wanted to get media attention.

and then in follow up tweets Murphy says Z knew Trump is working with Putin, and Trump and Putin are planning together to screw Ukraine.

Bottom line, it's a good deal. But if Z doesnt trust Trump then he doesn't trust Trump and can go with the EUs plan.

Source: https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1895508100595204115
 
I don't blame Trump for not wanting to risk WW3 over the matter.

A bit like how the British and French governments didn't want to risk WW2 over the 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland.
They struck a deal with Hitler instead, which was widely popular with their own peoples and the media at the time.
It didn't prevent WW2.
And the USA's understandable reluctance to join the war in Europe* didn't prevent an attempted pre-emptive strike, not from a European nation but from a rising power in the Eastern Pacific.

Allowing dictators to seize territory with impunity, appeasement, has since been widely seen- not least, apparently, by all US presidents from WW2 to January 2025- as a failed strategy.

*It is often forgotten that the USN conducted anti- U-boat [German submarine] operations in the Atlantic prior to December 1941.
 
Last edited:
And this is almost identical to the situation with the Sudetenland in 1938. For all his talk of being anti-Nazi...Putin is using the exact same tactics as Hitler. Chamberlain's famous 'peace in our time' was effectively option 4.

And it is the exact same ' we don't want to risk a world war over a country miles away' that occurred in 1938.

The big difference is that nobody was really in any position, especially geographically, to stop Hitler then rolling into the rest of Czechoslovakia....whereas whatever is left of Ukraine is more defensible if the will ( and the money ) is there. It all sucks deeply, but personally I think 'peace in our time' is the only pragmatic solution left this time.

the mineral deal was Trump's "in" TO put pressure on Putin from a non-NATO standing. it's not rocket science.

Article:
Most of these minerals span Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporzhizhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Korovohrad, Poltava and Kharkiv.

Russia, which controls approximately 20 percent of Ukraine, including large parts of Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhia, is sitting on about 40 percent of Ukraine's metal resources according to estimates by Ukrainian think tanks We Build Ukraine and the National Institute of Strategic Studies, reports the Reuters news agency.

Ukraine has said that a significant portion of its rare earth elements are located in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Shevchenko Field of Lithium Ores, one of Ukraine's biggest lithium deposits, is located in a rural settlement in Donetsk.
I disagree. Trump would be just as happy to buy the same minerals from Putin and Putin would be happier to conquer Ukraine first and sell them to the US. There is no leverage at all in Trump's offer absent a credible non-Ukrainian force interposed between it and Russia and Trump has already publicly nixed the idea of he US providing such a force.

Zelensky was forced to appear solely because of the political optics of refusing to do so. Now that this has been dispensed with, Ukraine has to weight its options in the face of losing up to roughly 45% of it's external support by dollar value. While its situation has gotten worse, it has not become hopeless.

As to the risk of 'WW3' breaking out, Mendel covered that quite a way up thread and I have to thank him for introducing Perun to the discussion. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/russia-and-ukraine-current-events.12289/post-269667

The recent series of large Russian ammo dumps destroyed or damaged by Ukrainian missile and drone attacks represents an evolution away from conventional weapons supplied by the US while European and domestic Ukrainian production of munitions is beginning to rise. Militarily, the situation is far from decided.
 
Last edited:
Trump would be just as happy to buy the same minerals from Putin
why would we be happy to buy minerals already owed to us?

There is no leverage at all in Trump's offer absent a credible non-Ukrainian force interposed between it and Russia
What?! Americans don't like people f'ing with their shit. You honestly think we would just roll over and let Putin take our shit? esp lithium... we want that lithium.

But i see people don't understand the strategy, and how this deal was just step 1 in the process. Rubio said he explained the process to Z's team in private, but apparently they don't believe it and think Trump is secretly working with Putin. So it doesnt matter..besides i do believe now that z just wants to continue fighting, which is fine and it's his choice. z did say in that meeting we saw that he cant stop his troops from continuing the fighting for a ceasefire anyway.

I doubt Trump will walk completely on Ukraine, but i wish he would. Why drag out the inevitable. I hate war.
 
Allowing dictators to seize territory with impunity, appeasement, has since been widely seen- not least, apparently, by all US presidents from WW2 to January 2025- as a failed strategy.

In the case of the Sudetenland, there was literally nothing other nations could do. They would have had to go through Germany itself to defend the territory. Britain was still rapidly re-arming in 1938 and simply was not ready for war. Chamberlain gets a bad press...but really he did the only thing he could do. Bear in mind that there'd only been a world war 20 years earlier and nobody except Hitler wanted another one.
 
why would we be happy to buy minerals already owed to us?


What?! Americans don't like people f'ing with their shit. You honestly think we would just roll over and let Putin take our shit? esp lithium... we want that lithium.

But i see people don't understand the strategy, and how this deal was just step 1 in the process. Rubio said he explained the process to Z's team in private, but apparently they don't believe it and think Trump is secretly working with Putin. So it doesnt matter..besides i do believe now that z just wants to continue fighting, which is fine and it's his choice. z did say in that meeting we saw that he cant stop his troops from continuing the fighting for a ceasefire anyway.

I doubt Trump will walk completely on Ukraine, but i wish he would. Why drag out the inevitable. I hate war.
The resources are still in the ground. Whoever owns the ground gets to decide the issue. The agreement is worth nothing without guarantees Trump has already stated will not be coming from the US. Trump is demanding Z give him a blank check and trust him to get a wonderful deal from Putin.

Putin has said on several occasions that Russia can keep this up longer than his Western adversaries and it was only a matter of time until support for Ukraine cracked. Trump is the crack.
 
and it was only a matter of time until support for Ukraine cracked.
you might want to look up some polls from different countries. The numbers had started plummeting under Biden in 2024.

ex: all americans
all americans.jpg




its nothing personal against Ukraine, tax payers all over the world start getting tired of paying for endless wars. in every war. its just how life goes.
 
its nothing personal against Ukraine, tax payers all over the world start getting tired of paying for endless wars.

But Ukraine didn't start the war or want to be attacked!

Russia attacked Ukraine, and many decent nations have supplied them with weapons and cash so they have some chance of defending themselves from a murderous foe which denies that Ukraine has any right to exist except as part of Russia.
I'm sure the thousands of Ukrainian parents whose children have been abducted to Russia hate war as well:

"Kidnapped, abused, humiliated – the Ukrainian children stolen by Russia", The Independent, Tom Watling, 15 June 2024
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-war-russia-children-putin-b2487474.html,
"Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian War", Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

This isn't disinformation, or a theoretical matter, or a difference of opinion: This has really happened. The man responsible is Russia's President, Vladimir Putin. The man who the current US President has called "a genius".

The only time NATO has deployed forces for combat after an attack on a member state is after the 9/11 attacks- in support of the USA. Personally, I believe it was morally right to do so- this is what allies are meant to do- but I don't recall any of America's friends asking to be paid for their sacrifices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan
 
I'm not terribly surprised given the superficial coverage most Americans are getting and partisan divide in the US. Without national leadership willing to explain the consequences and use the Bully Pulpit of the Presidency Americans typically turn inward.

Trump however is not faring much better. 538 did a review over the weekend and Buyer's Remorse is starting to seem quite real.

External Quote:
Looking at all the polls that have been released since Trump took office, we find that while Americans express support for some of Trump's immigration policy and broad government reform in principle, they oppose most of what he has done in his first month as president.
Source: https://abcnews.go.com/538/americans-voted-trump-support-agenda/story?id=119136603
 
And this is almost identical to the situation with the Sudetenland in 1938. For all his talk of being anti-Nazi...Putin is using the exact same tactics as Hitler. Chamberlain's famous 'peace in our time' was effectively option 4.

Trivial aside:
The set phrase is indeed "peace in our time", straight out of the BoCP; it's been there, morning and evening prayer, for centuries. What Chamberlain said, however, was "peace for our time". I guess this is Britain's "one small step for a man", it would perhaps have been better had that actually been said.
 
In the case of the Sudetenland, there was literally nothing other nations could do. They would have had to go through Germany itself to defend the territory. Britain was still rapidly re-arming in 1938 and simply was not ready for war.

Not exactly. First of all, Czekoslovakia was not as weak as is often pictured, with heavy fortifications all along the border, and the German army was not as powerful as it became later (ie.: the great majority of their tanks at the time were Panzer I, with its main armament consisting in just two 20mm machine guns). Czeks could have mounted a pretty good defence against Hitler had they not been utterly abandoned by the West. Supplies to Czekoslovakia could have come easily through Poland, and France and Britain could have committed to declare war unto Germany if Czekoslovakia were invaded (and Germany was not in the position of withstanding such an invasion at that time). They choosed instead the comfortable (and disgusting) option instead, and they got WW2 as a reward.


Chamberlain gets a bad press...but really he did the only thing he could do. Bear in mind that there'd only been a world war 20 years earlier and nobody except Hitler wanted another one.

Chamberlain gets a bad press because he was a coward and a wishful-thinking idiot.
 
Last edited:
chris Murphy..connecticut (the fame from Sandy Hook made him lose his mind) was at the meeting PRIOR to what we saw. They already knew zelensky had these arguments. so youre right that z just wanted to get media attention.

and then in follow up tweets Murphy says Z knew Trump is working with Putin, and Trump and Putin are planning together to screw Ukraine.

Bottom line, it's a good deal. But if Z doesnt trust Trump then he doesn't trust Trump and can go with the EUs plan.

Source: https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1895508100595204115

Two weeks ago Trump called Zelenksky a Dictator, and lied about Zelenksky's poll numbers in Ukraine as well as suggesting it was Zelensky refusing to have elections in Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o

A week ago Trump brushes this off completely saying "Did I say that?"
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/othe...elensky-a-dictator-did-i-say-that/ar-AA1zW2bB

Trump is not reliable in public with his attitude to Zelensky, somehow we are supposed to believe that he is in private? he will say whatever serves his goals the most in the moment. Somehow Putin is immune to such criticism from Trump.

It's bizarre to suggest that it was Zelensky that wants media attention here, he is clear that he wants security for Ukraine. Trump in contrast commented in the same press event about how this would make great television, it's constantly documented about how he cares about ratings. His previous advisor Steve Bannon talks about a strategy of "flooding the zone", this debacle fits that strategy to a T.
 
Trump is not reliable in public with his attitude to Zelensky, somehow we are supposed to believe that he is in private? he will say whatever serves his goals the most in the moment. Somehow Putin is immune to such criticism from Trump.
Zelensky and Putin are not campaigning for Prom Queen. ie. it's not a popularity contest.

Who cares if Trump doesn't like Zelensky's attitude and personality and says so at times in public. Who cares if Trump (like other past Presidents) doesn't say smack about Putin in public.

This is about the people of Ukraine and trying to save Ukraine from being completely over taken by Putin. I get that many think we (america and the EU/uk) SHOULD start ww3 and fight for Ukraine..but for whatever reason no country is apparently willing to do that.

If they are not going to do that, then what is the alternative? seriously. what is the alternative?
 
We already had Zelensky publicly humiliated by asking to give in to Russia, maybe having Putin being publicly asked to un-invade followed up by calls for his resignation.
 
Avoiding WW3 has actually been a primary goal of western support up to this point. A principle argument for NOT supplying Ukraine with late model fighter planes was that a Ukrainian F-16 would look exactly like a nuclear capable NATO F-16 which could trigger an accidental war between nuclear powers.

Another escalation "risk" I saw repeatedly in the first year was that 'backing Putin into a corner' or overly embarrassing Russia might cause Putin to become desperate and use nuclear weapons to stabilize the situation.

The third idea that seemed to spook people was that using western arms to attack too deeply into Russian territory or too close to Moscow could cross some imaginary line that would provoke a nuclear response.

Putin is fully aware of these concerns and conducts a political theater exercise of observing, inspecting, or reinforcing Russian nuclear forces every 60-90 days. Like Trump, he knows what people are afraid of.

Three years of war have dispelled these ideas. All three lines have been crossed without the much feared Russian over-reaction.
  1. An entire brigade of western volunteers is fighting and dying for Ukraine.
  2. Ukraine has flown multiple strikes with ex-NATO F-16s. Some have already been lost to Russian defenses.
  3. Ukrainian forces have launch attacks hundreds of miles into Russia including the Moscow suburbs.
  4. Ukrainian forces have been operating on Russian soil in the Kursk region for over three months now.
  5. Multiple missiles and aircraft from both sides have violated NATO airspace without triggering an over-reaction from the west either.
Perversely, much of this line of thinking, "OMG WW3" seems to be coming from the American right which one would have naively assumed to be more educated in defense matters. However the element of fear underpinning so many of their other policies was a factor in my leaving the GOP so I really should have seen it sooner.

Putin just does not panic as easily as the chattering classes would have us believe. He now has the benefit of Russian air defenses that have gained three years of combat experience making it less likely they would mistake a Ukrainian unit for an incoming nuclear strike.

Without a third party peacekeeping force there is no peace plan. Without a peace plan the minerals agreement is worthless political theater. Putin and Zelensky both know this. So Putin waits while Trump squanders America's political capital and Zelensky tries to hold out while Europe tries to sort out a plan from the political debris.

Trump's "strategy" was to strong arm Ukraine into a ceasefire Russia was never going to honor, cut the flow of arms to Ukraine for the cost savings to satisfy his base, and collect a Nobel Peace Prize. When it all fell apart, he would just blame everyone but himself. Par for the course.

Regan understood much better than Trump the need to gain an edge prior to negotiations. He began a major defense build up to counter the Warsaw Pact's numerical advantages in conventional weapons. He upgraded American nuclear forces and started SDI. He deployed intermediate range nuclear forces to Europe. Only after putting these things visibly in motion did he sit down and negotiate. He now had extra pieces to trade in exchange for getting agreements on something that did matter to both sides, nuclear arms reductions.
 
Zelensky arrived specifically to sign an agreement that had been arrived at via a good deal of diplomacy, and then questions that very diplomacy when responding to Vance....
Vance: "I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country."
They're talking about Putin. Putin is not part of the minerals deal.
No, I should not have to quote specific lines. It's really down to you to watch the entire conference and the flow of things and see what led up to the above moment.
LOL.
You made a claim, you can't prove it, so you're trying to shift the burden of evidence.
That's not how it works.

I did watch the full 50 minutes. I did not see Zelensky questioning the terms of the minerals deal.

Reporters were asking about Trump's peace plan, and Zelensky stated some (well-known) conditions Ukraine has for that. Trump had hot air.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top