A Peace Settlement to the Ukraine War

[Roman Alymov]

On 2/14/2025 at 5:24 PM, LeeWalls said:

This question is for Roman:

How can the "Russians" be so physically attractive, artistically gifted (there are surely many other blanks I could fill) like the very "bestest" type of whites, yet act, in the political realm, like a bunch of Sub-Saharans?

 

How can you look and play and compose and write and often perform like the Nordic Ubermench, whilst acting (on a political intellectual level at least) like a bunch of buck-blacks straight out of Zaire?  

And seriously you have been doing this for at least 200 years.    Do you guys want to be white or not??

PICK A SIDE!

Leaving aside stronf flavor of white supremcay i feel in your question, let me answer this way: The question you are asking is indication of very limited, if any, knowlege of Russian history and present day. My advice is to take your time educating yourself on the process of small tribal union of Slavic and Finno-Ugric/Baltic tribes (that was, by the way, created after kicking out "Nordic Ubermench" Viking colonisers with all their self-declared superiority) became huge country across 11 timezones, and staying this way through the era of European colonial expansion, when the rest of the globe was the playground  for Europeans playing their imperial games, and through the collapse of this European colonial empires, and all the wars, revolutions and other troubles. May be it will give you some new ideas who is really "Nordic Ubermensch" and who is just a bunch of villagers/fishermen on cold rocky coast of northern end of nowhere.....

[seahawk]

As the Ukraine seems to have rejected the suggestions by Trump, it is time to cut the aid and let Russia win. Now is the time to make a deal with Russia to have a solid base for US-Russian relations and economic cooperation.

[Olof Larsson]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

As the Ukraine seems to have rejected the suggestions by Trump, it is time to cut the aid and let Russia win. Now is the time to make a deal with Russia to have a solid base for US-Russian relations and economic cooperation.

Well that would certainly be the end of the US as "the leader of the free world", as the US would not only be unwilling to lead, but also no longer being a part of the free world. It would be a nail in the coffin to US arms export to the free world, to any strategic parterships and deal with the free world and so on. It would also make China far more likely to act more aggressive in the South China Sea and vs. Taiwan, as the USA in that scenario has shown to be spineless and with no principles. And it might also lead the US too lose bases abroad, as it would be obvious that the US is not a partner that can be trusted. This potentially includes all the US early warning sites in Canada and Greenland, access to Ascension island, Diego Garcia and so on.

Not to mention that there is no base for major US-Russian economic cooperation, that could benefit the US.

[Mike1158]

Trumpster is there for a bit under four yuears, how many people believe agreements made in this adminstration will survive into the next?

 

Not many so Putin will not be getting much.

 

Add to this a stiffening of european resolve to resist anything that favours Russia, THIS may have been the goal Trumpster had in mind anyway seeing the isolationist mindset.

 

I have to agree that europe MUST step up and stop relying on the US to stopgap their woeful efforts at defence and do the job 'ourselves'.  This will be a far more effective deterrent than anything anyone alse can do.  The Poles on their own could probably splash the Russsian military, together with proper funding and p[roject, cooperation development can keep the cage door closed and locked.

 

Proper military defence projects, aligned to result rather than supporting 'bad actors' will be money that supports jobs and OUR economies.

 

What can Russia do against the PRC THEN?

 

The far east of Russia is already vulnerable, what will you do when there is no longer a pretence at supporting you?  This to Russia/Putin supporters if that is not obvious enough.

 

I know, rather pie in the sky hopes.

[Ssnake]

49 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

Trumpster is there for a bit under four yuears, how many people believe agreements made in this adminstration will survive into the next?

The question is, how much can any US ally count on Trump's policies to be reverted?

Whether VP Vance will become his successor is of almost secondary importance. Eight decades of continuity in US foreign policy have been shattered last week. The precedent has been set that US foreign policy is fully subordinate to US domestic policy. That tendency has all ways been there, but largely remained latent.

But no longer. The foundation of every alliance is trust. Trust in the US has been greatly diminished, and it will have global ripples that will last much longer than Trump's time in office.

[Ssnake]

55 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

The Poles on their own could probably splash the Russsian military

Unlikely. Maybe in ten years if they fully go through with their curret armament plans and if they will have the personnel strength to fully man all these new systems. But Putin won't test NATO resolve with Poland. It'll be something like Latvia, or possibly Bulgaria, or somewhere in the Balkans. After a consolidation round of resorbing Belarus, taking the remainder of Ukraine, and possibly Kasakhstan "which isn't a real country anyways".

[Mighty_Zuk]

31 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Eight decades of continuity in US foreign policy have been shattered last week. The precedent has been set that US foreign policy is fully subordinate to US domestic policy. That tendency has all ways been there, but largely remained latent.

But no longer. The foundation of every alliance is trust. Trust in the US has been greatly diminished, and it will have global ripples that will last much longer than Trump's time in office.

I strongly disagree. What continuity are you referring to?

Cold War era Europe perhaps still needed US assistance, but with large and modern armed forces it was clear they were proactive and serious about defense. Maybe some less than others, but generally it applies.

The end of the cold war brought a complete shift in European policy in the opposite direction. For decades since, the US remained Europe's security guarantor, while Europe appeased and even cooperated with all axis members - Russia, Iran, China. 

For a decade since Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe imported from Russia energy, at about $150 billion in 2021 alone (if my data is correct). Yet even the below-minimum 2% of GDP defense expenditure remains a goal unattained by a large part of NATO.
After Iran violated the JCPOA and led to the US withdrawing, the EU did not restore pre-JCPOA sanctions and maintained a relaxed approach.
Influence campaigns financed primarily by China and Qatar, as well as designated terrorist organizations, are operating freely in Europe, often with local legal endorsement.
3 years after Russia renewed an invasion and started actively pushing further westward, Europe still can't mobilize its industry to support an ally that many feared would be overrun within weeks.
Europe boasts about aid to Ukraine of similar monetary value as the US, but every single piece of new equipment is so much more expensive, and delivered equipment is older, that of course it'll be so inflated.
Taiwan is still relying exclusively on support from the US, with seemingly no other western commitment.
Israel is over a year into a war and not a single drop of European aid arrived. Only sanctions and embargoes.

As a side observer all I see is the US taking on every meaningful global conflict while Europe is sleeping through multiple hostile invasions.

There was never mutual trust, because the European part of NATO broke that trust many years ago. So how come anyone is still surprised Trump has no respect for Europe and bypasses it? The only reason Biden didn't do the same is because of his own appeasement ideology.

Edited February 16 by Mighty_Zuk

[PaulFormerlyinSaudi]

I am not interested in peace. I want victory. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

15 minutes ago, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

I am not interested in peace. I want victory. 

Unconditional peace is for the incontinent.

[Ssnake]

I'm not surprised that Trump did what he just did. I also am not saying that Europe is without blame. Still, there would have been alternatives to achieve what he claims that he wants, alternatives which would have been less destructive to the alliance.

The US will have a lot more trouble in the future reassuring its other allies that its commitments are unwavering, and that the price for this retreat from its main alliance will be exacted later, and is very likely going to by far exceed the cost of maintaining it.

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I'm not surprised that Trump did what he just did.

   Have he DID something significant actually? As far as i know, he (and his team) SAID a lot, but not much actual actions taken except plugging the most obvious budget taps used by his intermal political opponents to self-fund from US budget via numerous NGOs and other triks of that kind.

    Yes, i would not deny above mentioned words are significant (the same way as Trump calling CNN "Fake news" was significant yeras ago). Many facts and ideasthat were labeled "Russian propaganda" for years are now sort of official point of view....

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

I'm not surprised that Trump did what he just did. I also am not saying that Europe is without blame. Still, there would have been alternatives to achieve what he claims that he wants, alternatives which would have been less destructive to the alliance.

Trump's Europe policy is consistent with and a continuation of his previous term. Since Trump's election victory was announced, European leaders suddenly all started talking about raising defense expenditure. More such talk than in the last 3 years of war.
What does it tell me? That they felt comfortable neglecting defense during Biden's term.

As leader of the west he has to resolve conflicts. What's he supposed to do with Europe? Tell them to raise expenditure yet again (after they gave him the middle finger twice before) and wait until they complete some 20 year expenditure ramp up to 3% (not adjusted for inflation)? 

The time to end the war in Ukraine is now. It's not the US's fault Europe was sleeping for over a decade of war. 

Please, I'm curious. What alternative does the US have, that would:

1. Realistically freeze the war in Ukraine within 6 months.
2. Ensure European security in the mid-term while diverting US focus elsewhere?
3. Ensure European power projection and handling security tasks abroad in the long term?

 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

The US will have a lot more trouble in the future reassuring its other allies that its commitments are unwavering, and that the price for this retreat from its main alliance will be exacted later, and is very likely going to by far exceed the cost of maintaining it.

The US under Biden witnessed 2 major flareups. Ukraine-Russia in 2022, and Israel-Gaza-Iran in 2023. 
On Europe, Trump uses 'tough love'. On Israel, Trump is supportive and even proactive.

The key differences?

1. Israel spends 5% in peace time. Europe struggles to maintain 2%.
2. Israel maintained enough supplies for a large regional war. Europeans estimate own endurance on a scale of days-weeks.
3. Israel maintains a modern and balanced armed force. Much of Europe's aid to Ukraine is obsolete/near obsolete.
4. Israel engages its enemies with initiative and aggression. Europe only sends equipment.
5. When a war ends, Israel prepares for the next. Europe restores trade with the enemy until it can rebuild its armed forces and attack again.

 

It's almost like there's a relationship of cause and effect, and correlation between personal defense investment - and defense support from the US.
Invest maximum - get maximum support.
Invest below minimum - get below minimum support.

 

Where you see a bad parent denying his child a new phone, I see a parent teaching his child to work to get one.

Edited February 16 by Mighty_Zuk

[Roman Alymov]

6 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

What can Russia do against the PRC THEN?

The same as before: the only reliable deterrance Russia/USSR got against both China and West is nukes. Hopes that there is a magic tool that could help country of 150mln to vin against the country/block of billion+ are just empty dreams.

[Rick]

A good view on Trump, Russia, and Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTzTheRD25M

[LeeWalls]

13 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Leaving aside stronf flavor of white supremcay i feel in your question, 

There is no reason to be ashamed of your race Roman.   It has accomplished a lot of remarkable shit.   In fact, most of the remarkable shit.  But let's not go any further down that road....

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, LeeWalls said:

There is no reason to be ashamed of your race Roman.   It has accomplished a lot of remarkable shit.   In fact, most of the remarkable shit.  But let's not go any further down that road....

  It's hard to be "ashamed of my race" as "race" is so loosly defined entity..... Do i have to be ashamed of, for example, reports of Pakistan males raping somebody in UK (as most of Pakistan population , if not all, are technically of the same race as, for example, Russians or Norvegians)?

    What actually is amusing me is the degree of arrogance of "White supremacists". I would be able to understand, and even accept, arrogance from Greeks and, to less extent, Italians - but why descendants (or just lookalikes) of poor barbaric tribesmen, last pagans of Europe, pretend to be "Nordic Ubermench" is completely out of my understanding....

Edited February 16 by Roman Alymov

[Ssnake]

21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Trump's Europe policy is consistent with and a continuation of his previous term. Since Trump's election victory was announced, European leaders suddenly all started talking about raising defense expenditure. More such talk than in the last 3 years of war.
What does it tell me? That they felt comfortable neglecting defense during Biden's term.

The exegesis of an incomplete sample of politicians' talks - without looking at the facts - is not a very good basis for far-reaching conclusions. Defense spending in Europe has been growing continually over the last six years. Could it have gone up more? Sure, but the trend as such is positive, and that should be acknowledged. Likewise, it's not advisable to increase defense spending massively in a short period because it usually only leads to inflated pricing, and less growth in military capacity. That's not to say that there wasn't room for improvement. I would certainly have handled things differently. But I also acknowledge that you have to get laws made with the parliament and the elected representatives that you have, and not the ones you might need for a quicker change of policies. That of course falls squarely back to the voters, but of course as a voter you can only choose between the offerings, and aside from the Greens (the irony) there are no parties in Germany that offer a consistent policy towards strengthening defense, yet. They're all still "yeah, let's do a bit more, but not too much" - or at least they were until last Thursday; I hope that at least now there's going to be a serious reassessment of the strategic picture.

21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

As leader of the west he has to resolve conflicts.

Does he?

Who asked him to do so? This is a commandment of his own choosing, and the way he's going at it is objectively daft if the goal is to bring a lasting and a just peace. Trump has already publicly conceded all major points to Russia and eliminated what remaining deterrence power he had in the European theater. He thinks that he can force Zelensky to give up when the US have stopped material support to Ukraine about a year ago already. In short, Trump has no leverage over Russia, not much leverage over Ukraine, and much less leverage over European NATO allies at this point.

The only way how all this make remotely sense is if Trump believes that limitless appeasement of Russia will lure it away from China. That is a very, very optimistic view that completely fails to acknowledge Russian strategic culture and Putin's mentality.

21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Please, I'm curious. What alternative does the US have, that would:

1. Realistically freeze the war in Ukraine within 6 months.
2. Ensure European security in the mid-term while diverting US focus elsewhere?
3. Ensure European power projection and handling security tasks abroad in the long term?

I reject the premise that the war in Ukraine

a. needs to be frozen within six months

b. can be "frozen" through the US's current negotiation strategy (if there is any)

For Ukraine, it's a war of survival which it will continue with US help, or without. The chances without US help will be much worse, but they know that papers with Putins signature are completely worthless. Trump has taken everything off the table that could make Ukraine willing to even consider accepting territorial losses. What's being discussed in public right now won't achieve anything but giving Russia a short respite to rearm, and then to continue the war and win it decisively.

Please explain why the US would be responsible for ensuring "European power projection and handling security tasks abroad".

This leaves point #2, and here the alternative would have been to pressure Europeans to up their defense spending within Trump's term in office, or else the US cutting intelligence sharing with nations not meeting the goals, and, if the overall targets weren't met, the ultimate threat of leaving NATO before his term was up. That would have been useful diplomatic pressure without sacrificing the level of deterrence that was still there until last Wednesday.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

The exegesis of an incomplete sample of politicians' talks - without looking at the facts - is not a very good basis for far-reaching conclusions.

True. But we have no choice but to work with the information created in the given time since November.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Defense spending in Europe has been growing continually over the last six years. Could it have gone up more? Sure, but the trend as such is positive, and that should be acknowledged.

I only have data up to 2023.

Notable dates:

2009 - 2017   -   Obama presidency.

2014   -   Russian invasion of Crimea.

2017 - 2021   -   Trump presidency.

2022   -   Russian invasion 2.

2021 - 2025   -   Biden presidency.

I will list defense expenditure as % of GDP in those years.

UK:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=GB

Quote

 

2009 - 2.6

2010 - 2.6

2011 - 2.5

2012 - 2.4

2013 - 2.3

2014 - 2.2

2015 - 2

2016 - 2

2017 - 2

2018 - 1.9

2019 - 2

2020 - 2.2

2021 - 2.1

2022 - 2.1

2023 - 2.3

 

Germany:

Quote

2009 - 1.3

2010 - 1.3

2011 - 1.2

2012 - 1.2

2013 - 1.2

2014 - 1.1

2015 - 1.1

2016 - 1.2

2017 - 1.2

2018 - 1.2

2019 - 1.3

2020 - 1.4

2021 - 1.3

2022 - 1.4

2023 - 1.5

France:

Quote

2009 - 2.1

2010 - 2

2011 - 1.9

2012 - 1.9

2013 - 1.8

2014 - 1.9

2015 - 1.9

2016 - 1.9

2017 - 1.9

2018 - 1.8

2019 - 1.8

2020 - 2

2021 - 1.9

2022 - 1.9

2023 - 2.1

Since it's already a wall of text I'll spare you Italy, which peaked at 1.7%.

First, you can already see some trends there. Obama's dual term saw a steady decline of expenditure across the board. Trump's previous term positively affected defense expenditure in Europe. The invasion of 2014 didn't seem to affect it one bit. Biden's election brought a small reduction for all, but 2022-2023 seemed to slightly increase. It's impossible to attribute it conclusively to either Biden or the war, but I wager it's the war.

And from what I see, the trend is not positive at all.

Why? In contrast, Israel too is fighting a war, and its war expenses match the peacetime defense expenditure, meaning it jumped from 4-5% to 8-10% in just slightly over a year. Why can't they all just commit to 5% in 2025?

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Likewise, it's not advisable to increase defense spending massively in a short period because it usually only leads to inflated pricing, and less growth in military capacity.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

But I also acknowledge that you have to get laws made with the parliament and the elected representatives that you have, and not the ones you might need for a quicker change of policies. That of course falls squarely back to the voters, but of course as a voter you can only choose between the offerings, and aside from the Greens (the irony) there are no parties in Germany that offer a consistent policy towards strengthening defense, yet. They're all still "yeah, let's do a bit more, but not too much" - or at least they were until last Thursday; I hope that at least now there's going to be a serious reassessment of the strategic picture.

On one hand you're just one person against a country of tens of millions. On the other hand, it's the democratic responsibility and privilege of all citizens to elect and be elected. To form parties, and adapt their ideologies via changing the vote patterns. 

You need not be defensive if your countrymen failed you. Mine have as well, and I have no issue criticizing them and my "elected officials".  

My country failed me by neglecting defense and allowing Hamas to grow. The result is deaths of over 1,200 people and over 200 hostages.

Your country fails you by neglecting defense. The result is being sidelined and disrespected by the relevant parties.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Does he?

Who asked him to do so?

We. His allies. The US isn't fighting all the conflicts. It helps fight those deemed necessary by itself, and those fought by its allies. Right now that means commitments to Ukraine and Israel, assurances to Taiwan, and readiness vs Iran. Aren't you criticizing Trump for isolationism? (which IMO Biden was isolationist, Trump is the opposite).

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

This is a commandment of his own choosing, and the way he's going at it is objectively daft if the goal is to bring a lasting and a just peace. Trump has already publicly conceded all major points to Russia and eliminated what remaining deterrence power he had in the European theater. He thinks that he can force Zelensky to give up when the US have stopped material support to Ukraine about a year ago already. In short, Trump has no leverage over Russia, not much leverage over Ukraine, and much less leverage over European NATO allies at this point.

Trump presented to Russia the carrot. What's the stick - we'll see. But until we're at the final stages of negotiations, the various statements thrown around are worthless. And I quote you on this:

The exegesis of an incomplete sample of politicians' talks - without looking at the facts - is not a very good basis for far-reaching conclusions.

I'd say he has little actual deterrence over Russia, sans delivering munitions the US desperately needs for the Pacific, considering the US needs to focus on China, and Europe neglected its defense so much that it seems like a pointless battle at this point trying to save it.

Besides if Trump takes a hard stance on Russia and deters it into a peace deal more favorable to Europe, then that's another 20 years of guaranteed European security collapse. I think perhaps one of his goals is to negotiate a deal, or at least make the appearance of such, that would force Europe to form armed forces.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

The only way how all this make remotely sense is if Trump believes that limitless appeasement of Russia will lure it away from China. That is a very, very optimistic view that completely fails to acknowledge Russian strategic culture and Putin's mentality.

Is this for real? Europe the ultra appeasers of the axis, criticizing the US of appeasement?

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

For Ukraine, it's a war of survival which it will continue with US help, or without. The chances without US help will be much worse, but they know that papers with Putins signature are completely worthless. Trump has taken everything off the table that could make Ukraine willing to even consider accepting territorial losses. What's being discussed in public right now won't achieve anything but giving Russia a short respite to rearm, and then to continue the war and win it decisively.

Trust not papers, but Putty's interests. I was clear in my opinion that the war will restart at some point. Europe can make amends by improving Ukraine's power balance vs Russia until the war restarts, so that Ukraine can make its own military gains.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Please explain why the US would be responsible for ensuring "European power projection and handling security tasks abroad".

It's not a US responsibility, but an interest. The US wants Europe to start picking up the slack and help it in the pacific, middle east, and any other potential relevant theater. But it won't happen as long as the collective European component of NATO has been unable to push Russia back.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

This leaves point #2, and here the alternative would have been to pressure Europeans to up their defense spending within Trump's term in office, or else the US cutting intelligence sharing with nations not meeting the goals, and, if the overall targets weren't met, the ultimate threat of leaving NATO before his term was up. That would have been useful diplomatic pressure without sacrificing the level of deterrence that was still there until last Wednesday.

Cutting intelligence sharing is meaningless. They don't lack intelligence, they lack will. They know they're deeply infiltrated by Axis agents, but they don't want to act against it. 

Leaving NATO is also too big of a step. The US wants to be in NATO, but it wants Europe to have armed forces. 

Right now European nations express that they want to be included in the negotiations, but that ship has sailed. None of them even have negotiating power to begin with. If the Europeans want to be involved, they have until the conclusion of negotiations to form armies, increase spending to 5%, and have said armies at modern standards.

[PaulFormerlyinSaudi]

The biggest betrayal since Munich. 

[Stefan Kotsch]

Nothing has happened yet. This should be considered when evaluating.

[Stuart Galbraith]

There are multiple failure points here. If Putin is greedy, Ukraine will say no. If Ukraine wants too much, Putin says no. If Trump ask the Europeans for too much, they will say no. It doesn't help Trump clearly doesnt have a plan, and made all the concessions before negotiating a bean. So you have sides that can utterly derail this, except there is nothing to derail because it doesn't exist.

 

 

[Mike1158]

According to the bleep bleep ceeside news this evening, trumpster and the putinista's arte going to divvy up the world between them. Europe has no say and neither the Ukrainians.

 

Seriously flawed conduct from the hooz people, shutting down their 'expert' just as he was saying something that strayed from their line of bullshit.

 

I seriously doubt that ignoring the prcsters is a wise train of thought for any of us.

[glenn239]

On 2/16/2025 at 7:18 AM, PaulFormerlyinSaudi said:

I am not interested in peace. I want victory. 

Who cares what you want?

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

My country failed me by neglecting defense and allowing Hamas to grow. 

 I warned you over and over again back in 2018 that Hamas was THE threat to Israel and needed to be dealt with in alliance with NATO and the United States.  You wouldn't listen to a word of it.

[seahawk]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There are multiple failure points here. If Putin is greedy, Ukraine will say no. If Ukraine wants too much, Putin says no. If Trump ask the Europeans for too much, they will say no. It doesn't help Trump clearly doesnt have a plan, and made all the concessions before negotiating a bean. So you have sides that can utterly derail this, except there is nothing to derail because it doesn't exist.

 

 

Nobody cares what Europe or the Ukraine wants. Putin and Trump will make a deal that serves Russian and US interests.