Quote from: paxmao on Today at 06:27:15 PM

Quote from: DaRude on Today at 11:43:34 AM

Quote from: paxmao on April 01, 2025, 02:31:41 PM

Quote from: DaRude on April 01, 2025, 09:48:41 AM

Quote from: paxmao on April 01, 2025, 09:11:37 AM

Quote from: BADecker on April 01, 2025, 04:57:57 AM

Putin recently listed his terms for peace. One of them was that a UN group including Trump do the negotiations rather than Zelensky. This because Zelensky doesn't have authority to sign peace agreements since his term as president of Ukraine expired.

Trump didn't like this... especially the part about Zelensky not having authority. So Trump spurned Putin's peace negotiations idea.

Now Putin has sent 160,000 more troops into the battle.

That really turned Trump off. How long before Trump gets the US formally involved? Will it really mean a nuke war?

Cool

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-angry-putin-zelenskyy-iran-sanctions-rcna198729

Quote

President Donald Trump said he was “very angry” and “pissed off” when Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the credibility of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s leadership, adding that the comments were “not going in the right location.”

BA, this is the risk of following Trump... you say stuff the next day and... you are already a day late on the "latest thinking" about the topic Grin

Putin would very much like to impose this and that condition, but in the end there is a practical limit to the years he can wage war. However, I do not think there is practical limit to the years the US can keep this up. All the "billions" in aid are barely 0.7% of the US GDP.

I guess it is going to take a while more for Trump to understand that he has these options:

a) Leave Ukraine. He will look like the weakest US leader ever and his expansionistic discourse will look empty - any difficulty and you run. Ukraine could potentially keep fighting for one year with EU's help.

b) Keep supplying insufficient aid to Ukraine. The war will last until Ruzzia decides that is getting too hot. I guess a couple of years.

c) Supply decissive aid to Ukraine. Ruzzia will consider that is getting to hot the moment they start loosing territory. I guess proper understanding could be reached in a year.

I wish I was wrong, but this is not ending soon unless Putin sees a clear drive from the US to make them back-up in the front.

Ukraine cannot fight without US's weapons. Already the amount of arrivals in Ukrainian cities is a clear indication that UA's air defenses are critically low.

Trump is making China a priority, and doesn't care about Ukraine. Not sure how he can make that any clearer.

China's oil consumption to tick up 1.1% in 2025, CNPC think tank says
Now ask yourself whether providing China with a discount on Russian oil/gas/metals makes any strategic sense when you put constraining China as your top priority. Or making Russia redirect it's resources away from China into say Europe and letting Russia keep Ukraine makes more sense. Once you realize that, everything that will happen next will become obvious.

Yes they can with any weapons. Europe can supply enough to keep the war going.

...

As usual you left the most important part out, Europe can keep the war going until what? Until Ukraine triumphs over Russia? (Think we can all see how well that was going even with the USA's help) Or until Ukrain slowly bleeds out of lads to send to the front aka until the last Ukrainian, in that case how will that benefit Europe exactly?

Until what? Well, Ruzzia has the objective of becoming the USSR again, with influence or direct control over all the Warsaw Pact. So, I guess the war can go on until there is a leader in Ruzzia who decides that there may be much much better ways of making Ruzzia a decent and economically prosperous region.

Alternatively, the war can go on until the oil reaches 40 USD at which point the war will not be sustainable. Or, it can go on until Ruzzia does not longer have oild exporting facilities West of Moscow, or perhaps not either East of Moscow....

Why setting a dealine? It is worth having Ruzzia bagging the head against the wall.

But that is iddle talk, Rubio recently stated that it will be known if Ruzzia wants peace in weeks rather than in months. I mean, I personally already know that Putin does not want peace under the current circumstances and particularly since Trump has been very floral about him, but as I mentioned in a few posts before, Trump is still learning the basics of Ruzzian "diplomacy".

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/4/us-will-know-in-weeks-if-russia-serious-about-ceasefire-rubio-says

Quote

Top US diplomat tells NATO counterparts Washington still committed to alliance.

Quote

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told his NATO counterparts that it will become clear within weeks if Russia is “serious” about reaching a ceasefire in Ukraine.

He is basically speaking of considering "facts" not declarations, words or anything else. As said, I would not need to wait but I guess Rubio does not want to immediatly send decissive aid to Ukraine before having some further reasons.

So just going back to status quo of 2013 is not an option? Your whole propaganda is based on the concept that Russia will attack Poland, Czech republic etc?

Will Ukraine be able to continue to provide enough manpower until there's that change of leadership in Russia you speak of? Or no one really considers UA people or cares enough to even discuss it