Dumpf demands and overtures are so clear that even if Zelensky stumbles here and there, I still think they won’t be realised. On the other side I’m concerned more about the peace plans of the Europeans (the Morons, etc) who rather to take concrete actions to arm Ukraine or provide some aid are actually pushing for their own “ceasefire” and peace “plan”. But under the disguise of “whatever-it-takes support”, “coalition of the willing”, “Ukraine-on-the-table” etc.
The first point of the European «peace plan» was to strengthen Ukraines fighting abilities and continue to hurt Russias economically. Personally I think that’s a good start. I think the second one was that Ukraine was needed at any negotiation table. I also support that. Can’t remember all the others, there were six I think. But I can’t really see them as stupid. They may be too little, too late. May be offered by administrators. But in themselves not stupid.
Too little, too late, foremost symbolic - and addressing the entirely wrong person, while ignoring the culprits: Putin and Russia.
As said above: how is a ‘peace plan’ created by… ‘Europeans’ without involvement of Russia, going to work ‘better’ than a peace plan created by… ‘USA’ without involvement of Ukraine?
This is just the continuation of the usual, senseless waste of time with yet more of appeasement. This time that of Trump. And people are all too happy to fall for it.
Well, the Europeans do not negotiate with Putin. How could they? It must be Ukraine that negotiate. None of these peace plans will work. Simply because Putin, now high on Trump, will not negotiate. The Europeans actions try to support Ukraine. Trump doesn’t. To me there is a difference. I don’t think any of these plans will lead to peace.
For me Zelensky is hero, because without US support the fight would cost hundreds or thousands more innocent lives, EU cannot replace that now and in the near future too. So, he swallowed his pride, offered to pay protection racket to save lives of UA people. (And, there's always hope some more sane U.S. leader may change that miserable agreement to something better or compensate by it by investments or donations.)
BTW. it's questionable which PR was hurt more by this miserable play - if Dumpf&Dance's or Zelensky's.
I'm confused. A central tenet of this publication is "competency". How exactly was Zelensky incompetent? The mineral deal was stupid from the start, for many reasons, not least of which the minerals in the deal either don't exist or Ukraine would happily give them up. Anyway, Zelensky agreed to sign it to appease Trump and was ready to bow and scrape and move on.
Yet faced with incompetence of the highest order he didn't just "go with it", which is a BIG PEEVE of this newsletter. Everyone just ignoring incompetence. Just saying whatever they need to further their career, or whatever.
So what's going on here? Are you high on your own righteousness? You might be right. Zelensky might have handled it poorly. But to take such a hard stand that he was "unprepared" boggles my mind. In short, sorry, your criticism of Ukraine is wearing thin for me.
Again, not saying you're wrong. I don't know. But I do not see that Zelensky had a "winning hand" in that meeting. He was forced into a corner by two men and the fact he's in someone else's "house." For me, and many Americans, it was DEEPLY upsetting that Ukrainians might think this is how I (and others) feel guests should be treated.
It's like, have you and Tom forgotten the stakes here? Dozens of Ukrainians probably died the day Zelensky went to the White House, which nothing Zelensky did would change. So the least he could do was honor their sacrifice by not playing along with people who had already decided, before he got there, to betray Ukraine for domestic political points (which I hope failed).
Competency for a leader isn't about what "deals" he gets. That's Trump's BS. Competency is knowing how to show good leadership. For me, anyway, I thought his handling of the situation excellent. I would have walked out. Zelensky never shouted. He only tried to correct incompetent claims which were beyond the pale.
The whole travesty of that Oval office meeting has me confused. iL Duce is a bully, a Martian, and an inveterate liar, maybe even a pathological liar which is extremely troubling. A pathological liar believes his own lies! Sorry but I have a difficult time thinking of him, a Martian, as a human being in any ordinary sense of the term. I had met more than a few irascible people in my working career, both naval and civilian, but at least I could recognize common human characteristics embedded within that irascible shell. With iL Duce I suspect that what you see is what you get. The shallow in him is also the deep in him which means he is not deep at all, or rather does not appear to be deep.
One can only go so far to appease a bully. Sooner or later one must risk a black eye when standing up to him. Bullies cannot be appeased. In this sense, therefore, I perceive that Zelensky stoo up to two bullies whether or not he made a good job of it. I watched a youtube video of Macron's meeting with the orange hair iL Duce a couple of days ago. I suppose Macron took a moderate approach towards dealing with the POTUS by "giving iL Duce something shiny to flatter himself." In retrospect I perceive that Macron erred. He's a freaking world leader, not just leader of France. A real leader just does not suck up to someone like iL Duce. The POTUS gets catered to ... flattered too much. Again, he's a bully and needs to be put in his place. Yes, this is easier said than done for iL Duce of the (soon-to-be former) Free World.
Yes, in retrospect Zelensky may have gone into that meeting unprepared or without being forewarned by his advisors. He appeared to be alone therein, although I think the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. attended. No interpreter for Zelensky? Well, that was a big goof on his part no matter what.
I have read many comments of the MAGA supporters who claim that iL Duce and Vance "won" that battle in the Oval Office and how disrespectful Zelensky behaved. It was a sickening spectacle. Nauseating and frustrating at the same time. iL Duce is not the only problem currently plaguing the United States of America.
During the meeting you can see Zelensky looking at his support staff with the expression of "what should I do? Did I answer right? Wrong?"
It's easy for Macron and every other European leader to "appease" the bully. Their kids aren't dying on the battlefield.
If Zelenksy had given in to that level of re-writing history and I was on the battlefield, I think I'd just walk off. Wouldn't you? I believe Don and Tom would too. If I would fault Zelensky it would be the other way, that he didn't stand up and say, "when your kids are on the battlefield dying maybe then we can talk again. Goodbye."
Let me ask you a relatively simple question: after watching Zelensky going there ill-prepared and getting ambushed because he was ill-prepared, what is making you expect that things are going to get better now?
And what about appearing there entirely unprepared and letting himself get ambushed, is making Zelensky a 'hero'?
I mean; you ought to have a reason for drawing such conclusions and feeling offended (?) by my conclusions. So, what is the basis for your conclusion?
Please, kindly tell me that it's more than that Trump, Vance, Rubio etc. are even more incompetent?
The simple answer is you believe he was ill-prepared and I don't believe that. Further, you believe there is causality between his being ill-prepared and being ambushed.
You're the military expert not me, yet I am once again confused.
AMBUSH: a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.
Zelensky was ambushed in the sense that it was a surprise attack. But it wasn't in a concealed position. What kind of preparation did he need to spot hit enemies in their concealed positions?
He was simply attacked by his host and others the host invited to attack him.
We're all entitled to pick our 'heroes', aren't we?
I am definitely NOT offended by YOU. I am offended by those representing me. I write quite a bit on Medium, or used to. I shouldn't have written "wearing thin". I was frustrated. I apologize. What I meant to say is we all have to be careful about how far we move away from our expertise. Your expertise to me is a scientific look at the war from a military point of view.
Zelensky is the highest level politics. Not being an expert in it, we may not see things he sees, or has to deal with?
As I've mentioned in other comments. Competency is a function of a specific goal. For Trump that is as much attention in numbers (ratings) from people. Most people want simple answers to their problems. In that, Trump is competent beyond my measure.
Competency for Zelensky is to maintain his country's sovereignty. You and I disagree about his competency.
But the bigger problem, as I see it, is you discount the fact that a man whose people are being killed was attacked by other men, representing Americans like me, in a hollowed sanctuary for diplomacy.
Again, I am not offended by you. I'm just pointing out you're "out of your element" (to make a joke) at bit and in territory that is very upsetting to others, like me. If you're going to blame the whole thing on Zelensky's incompetency, then you really have to specific about it. Again, sorry if I offended!
And this may sound seditiously, but the security guarantee question looks the same. Every person in Ukraine with IQ above zero understands that if the war is stopped now, the probability of a new start is very high, and we cannot only say where and when. Just because despite the targets of the special military operation are not achieved completely but the profit is quite high. Gained territory and population can cover all losses. And all this have already happened before at least a few times.
Taking into account all the "cards", at that moment Ukraine may be weaker than now, the army is demobilised, the powers are disorganised and the secret services are full of russian agents.
And even if the second special operation is as "successful" as the first one, at least a lot of highly populated regions near the frontline will suffer from the first strike.
However I cannot imagine the situation when the russians invade again and the peace-keepers prevent this. What are they going to do, shout "Stop or mom will shoot!"? Or will sit at their bases and pray for their lives because with such length of the frontline there will be too little to able to do something?
So the one may suppose that the only security guarantee in case if the opponent is not is the strength of the state and the army. Or maybe it works in a different way?
I understand the level of ignorance of the question, but there is already global practice, how do countries usually cope in such cases?
Your questions are not easy to answer. One thing is clear to me. if there are some peace keeping forces there their roles will and must be different from previous. I think the term here is «canary army». It simply means that those forces are likely to die in any serious attack, but that that death will trigger repercussions. Basically trigger war with those countries. That is the only security that can be given that has any value.
Starmer and Macron talk like this can be a thing. I can't imagine Putin agreeing since he wants NATO out of Eastern Europe, let alone Ukraine. It's amazing how everyone is talking cease fire / peace deal like it will happen.
It'll be much simpler (and more urgent, now that Trump has stopped arms being shipped to Ukraine) to supply with plentiful European arms and munitions Ukraine troops directly, and soon.
Thanks for the update. Really concerned about the news from the Kursk front. Regarding the Washington episode, we can watch and analyze it however we like. The fact is that the current US leadership ambushed an ally on behalf of an enemy. Maybe Zelensky shouldn’t have gone, maybe he should have been better prepared. But I think he had few choices. Also I honestly think that the European nations (including Canada) are doing their best to support Ukraine. Hero worship of Zelensky seems a little too much. Still that hero image is useful for Ukraine to get whatever support they can get from Europe. There isn’t any other support to get.
One very interesting part of the Oval Office ambush was how Trump views his relationship with Putin:
TRUMP: What are you saying?
VANCE: She’s asking, ‘what if Russia breaks the ceasefire?’
TRUMP: Well what if they—what if anything! What if a bomb drops on your head right now? Okay? What if they broke it? I don’t know. They broke it with Biden because Biden, they 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. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia—Russia, Russia, Russia, you ever hear of that deal? That was a phony—that was a phony Hunter Biden, Joe Biden scam. Hillary Clinton, shifty Adam Schiff, it was a Democrat scam. And he had to go through that. And he did go through it and we didn’t end up in a war. He went through it, he was accused of all that stuff—he had nothing to do with it. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said, ‘Oh, oh, the laptop from hell was made by Russia.’ The 51 agents, the whole thing was a scam, and he had to put up with that. He was being accused of all that stuff. All I can say is this: He might’ve broken deals with Obama, and Bush, and he might’ve 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. I don’t know if he can make a deal.
See how Trump identifies with Putin? That's a quite illuminating piece...
In that he's being more and more explicit about his identification with Putin.
Also, quite illuminating was his calling Zelensky a dictator, but when he was asked if Putin was a dictator, he responded that he's not using the word lightly...
"he was a brave to do so, no doubt, but also a desperate and naive enough to expect some sort of ‘miracles’ from dealing with bullies. A man driven by frustrations and illusions, not by facts."
I have to beg to differ. Except for the brave part. Lesser men would have wilted.
Desperate? Of course! The situation is dire. I can't blame him for desperation. Naiive? Possibly. How would you, or anyone, know he was expecting miracles in that situation? Hoping for, possibly.
Driven by frustrations, no doubt. We sit here writing this stuff frustrated. How do you think he feels? Illusions? What illusions? What facts other than the ones he had to hand?
What I'm saying is (with all due respect), what I read sounded like Zelensky mishandled the situation badly and SHOULD have done something different, without actually saying what that something different would be. In the U.S. they call that 'armchair quarterbacking'.
It was an ambush. Please, really, tell me what you would have done. Not gone at all? Rapped Donald on the head? Walked out? I'd be interested to know.
Sorry, I've thought I've said it already: Yes, I wouldn't go there in the first place.
And then, at least when Vance began using his hasthags, I would stand up and walk out.
Think of it: Zelensky de-facto explained his readiness for singing that treaty with 'security guarantees'...
How many security guarantees has Ukraine got by now? Was not the Budapest Memorandum alone 'enough' in this regards? And still, it didn't work.
So, what did he expect now? Some 'super-extra-security guarantees' - which would work where the 'normal' security guarantees didn't?
Come on, that's fantasising. That IS 'playing with millions of lives'. Especially if coming from somebody compared with Churchill and considered a hero, while proven as unable to at least fire an incompetent commander of armed forces, not to talk about reform the armed forces in the middle of a war.
You are playing 3-D chess. I am playing checkers. I do not have access to the information that you do.
All I'm saying is neither you nor I (thank dog) were put in his position. Yes, given your and mine perfect clarity we would have declined to attend, or walked out, or punched someone. But we weren't there. Cut the guy some slack.
Others may compare him to Churchill, but he doesn't. At least from what I have seen. Yet you seem to hold that against him. Have mistakes been made? Yes. What did he expect? I don't know. Probably to walk away with a mineral deal that would gives country a fighting chance. And until he was ambushed that seemed like a good plan.
Should he resign for incompetence? To be replaced by who? The speaker of the Rada? Should he fire Syrsky? To be replaced by who that will bring about the changes you want in the middle of a war?
He is an imperfect human being, like you and I. War is hell. And after three years of a three day operation, we're still here. That has to count for something.
I'm not playing with anything. Simply analysing - to a degree also on basis of own, '1st hand' experiences.
For example: while I was working for a specific international corporation (indeed, this had me head-hunted and contracted to work for it)... there was a meeting with two superiors. Both were mobbing me for years, at every opportunity. Might sound like bragging, but: principally because I was (far) more successful than both of them combined. So, during that meeting, they began complaining I'm 'mobbing' them...
Have laughed, stood up and walked out. That was that.
Of course, they went on complaining to higher superiors, and wherever else they could. Threatened with firing me, made even more problems etc. But, nothing happened, because success was speaking its own language - and this was not in their favour. Unsurprisingly, never lost a minute of sleep over the two.
Another example: a superior came to (falsely) accuse me of inappropriate relationship with one of employees. I was shocked at first, and short of bursting out. Then, moment before I wanted to do so, have recalled an interesting detail about her: asked her whom did she marry (clue: it was her former superior), and, if she's not jumping to conclusions based on her own experiences.
Then stood up and walked out, leaving her there with her chin banging on the floor. Sure, she hated me from the bottom of her heart. But, at the time nothing happened (at least not to me).
Shouldn't mean I'm 'perfect'. far from that (and, arguably, years later, I actually did 'catch' the employee in question, and we're meanwhile happily married for 30 years... BTW, the superior in question divorced only a year or so after the above-described meeting..).
But, first candidating to become a president of a country of 40 million and already not only threatened but invaded by Russian, then refusing to re-think and reform, and then becoming desperate... sorry: I am sure I would never bring myself into such a situation. At least I've never managed it. Thus, beg your pardon, but: my POV is that I do have the right to claim the right for myself, to call him an incompetent.
Please excuse me, but: how and what did it 'reveal'...?
Nothing put on display at that occasion was anything new. Not even to people only casually monitoring this war and related affairs.
Yeah. I'm deeply ashamed - whenever some anonymous social media account demands me to do so.
Thanks Tom&Don,
Dumpf demands and overtures are so clear that even if Zelensky stumbles here and there, I still think they won’t be realised. On the other side I’m concerned more about the peace plans of the Europeans (the Morons, etc) who rather to take concrete actions to arm Ukraine or provide some aid are actually pushing for their own “ceasefire” and peace “plan”. But under the disguise of “whatever-it-takes support”, “coalition of the willing”, “Ukraine-on-the-table” etc.
The first point of the European «peace plan» was to strengthen Ukraines fighting abilities and continue to hurt Russias economically. Personally I think that’s a good start. I think the second one was that Ukraine was needed at any negotiation table. I also support that. Can’t remember all the others, there were six I think. But I can’t really see them as stupid. They may be too little, too late. May be offered by administrators. But in themselves not stupid.
Too little, too late, foremost symbolic - and addressing the entirely wrong person, while ignoring the culprits: Putin and Russia.
As said above: how is a ‘peace plan’ created by… ‘Europeans’ without involvement of Russia, going to work ‘better’ than a peace plan created by… ‘USA’ without involvement of Ukraine?
This is just the continuation of the usual, senseless waste of time with yet more of appeasement. This time that of Trump. And people are all too happy to fall for it.
Well, the Europeans do not negotiate with Putin. How could they? It must be Ukraine that negotiate. None of these peace plans will work. Simply because Putin, now high on Trump, will not negotiate. The Europeans actions try to support Ukraine. Trump doesn’t. To me there is a difference. I don’t think any of these plans will lead to peace.
For me Zelensky is hero, because without US support the fight would cost hundreds or thousands more innocent lives, EU cannot replace that now and in the near future too. So, he swallowed his pride, offered to pay protection racket to save lives of UA people. (And, there's always hope some more sane U.S. leader may change that miserable agreement to something better or compensate by it by investments or donations.)
BTW. it's questionable which PR was hurt more by this miserable play - if Dumpf&Dance's or Zelensky's.
Please, be so kind and watch the video - to the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGxSM5y7Pfs
No idea how much you might understand of the 'commentary', but the 'images' should be clear enough.
I'm confused. A central tenet of this publication is "competency". How exactly was Zelensky incompetent? The mineral deal was stupid from the start, for many reasons, not least of which the minerals in the deal either don't exist or Ukraine would happily give them up. Anyway, Zelensky agreed to sign it to appease Trump and was ready to bow and scrape and move on.
Yet faced with incompetence of the highest order he didn't just "go with it", which is a BIG PEEVE of this newsletter. Everyone just ignoring incompetence. Just saying whatever they need to further their career, or whatever.
So what's going on here? Are you high on your own righteousness? You might be right. Zelensky might have handled it poorly. But to take such a hard stand that he was "unprepared" boggles my mind. In short, sorry, your criticism of Ukraine is wearing thin for me.
Again, not saying you're wrong. I don't know. But I do not see that Zelensky had a "winning hand" in that meeting. He was forced into a corner by two men and the fact he's in someone else's "house." For me, and many Americans, it was DEEPLY upsetting that Ukrainians might think this is how I (and others) feel guests should be treated.
It's like, have you and Tom forgotten the stakes here? Dozens of Ukrainians probably died the day Zelensky went to the White House, which nothing Zelensky did would change. So the least he could do was honor their sacrifice by not playing along with people who had already decided, before he got there, to betray Ukraine for domestic political points (which I hope failed).
Competency for a leader isn't about what "deals" he gets. That's Trump's BS. Competency is knowing how to show good leadership. For me, anyway, I thought his handling of the situation excellent. I would have walked out. Zelensky never shouted. He only tried to correct incompetent claims which were beyond the pale.
Score one for me, for Ukrainian competency!
The whole travesty of that Oval office meeting has me confused. iL Duce is a bully, a Martian, and an inveterate liar, maybe even a pathological liar which is extremely troubling. A pathological liar believes his own lies! Sorry but I have a difficult time thinking of him, a Martian, as a human being in any ordinary sense of the term. I had met more than a few irascible people in my working career, both naval and civilian, but at least I could recognize common human characteristics embedded within that irascible shell. With iL Duce I suspect that what you see is what you get. The shallow in him is also the deep in him which means he is not deep at all, or rather does not appear to be deep.
One can only go so far to appease a bully. Sooner or later one must risk a black eye when standing up to him. Bullies cannot be appeased. In this sense, therefore, I perceive that Zelensky stoo up to two bullies whether or not he made a good job of it. I watched a youtube video of Macron's meeting with the orange hair iL Duce a couple of days ago. I suppose Macron took a moderate approach towards dealing with the POTUS by "giving iL Duce something shiny to flatter himself." In retrospect I perceive that Macron erred. He's a freaking world leader, not just leader of France. A real leader just does not suck up to someone like iL Duce. The POTUS gets catered to ... flattered too much. Again, he's a bully and needs to be put in his place. Yes, this is easier said than done for iL Duce of the (soon-to-be former) Free World.
Yes, in retrospect Zelensky may have gone into that meeting unprepared or without being forewarned by his advisors. He appeared to be alone therein, although I think the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. attended. No interpreter for Zelensky? Well, that was a big goof on his part no matter what.
I have read many comments of the MAGA supporters who claim that iL Duce and Vance "won" that battle in the Oval Office and how disrespectful Zelensky behaved. It was a sickening spectacle. Nauseating and frustrating at the same time. iL Duce is not the only problem currently plaguing the United States of America.
During the meeting you can see Zelensky looking at his support staff with the expression of "what should I do? Did I answer right? Wrong?"
It's easy for Macron and every other European leader to "appease" the bully. Their kids aren't dying on the battlefield.
If Zelenksy had given in to that level of re-writing history and I was on the battlefield, I think I'd just walk off. Wouldn't you? I believe Don and Tom would too. If I would fault Zelensky it would be the other way, that he didn't stand up and say, "when your kids are on the battlefield dying maybe then we can talk again. Goodbye."
Yes. I would stand up and walk out. Right after Vance 'stepped in'.
I did so during 2-3 similar 'meetings' in my life.
Zelensky didn't.
Let me ask you a relatively simple question: after watching Zelensky going there ill-prepared and getting ambushed because he was ill-prepared, what is making you expect that things are going to get better now?
And what about appearing there entirely unprepared and letting himself get ambushed, is making Zelensky a 'hero'?
I mean; you ought to have a reason for drawing such conclusions and feeling offended (?) by my conclusions. So, what is the basis for your conclusion?
Please, kindly tell me that it's more than that Trump, Vance, Rubio etc. are even more incompetent?
The simple answer is you believe he was ill-prepared and I don't believe that. Further, you believe there is causality between his being ill-prepared and being ambushed.
You're the military expert not me, yet I am once again confused.
AMBUSH: a surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position.
Zelensky was ambushed in the sense that it was a surprise attack. But it wasn't in a concealed position. What kind of preparation did he need to spot hit enemies in their concealed positions?
He was simply attacked by his host and others the host invited to attack him.
We're all entitled to pick our 'heroes', aren't we?
I am definitely NOT offended by YOU. I am offended by those representing me. I write quite a bit on Medium, or used to. I shouldn't have written "wearing thin". I was frustrated. I apologize. What I meant to say is we all have to be careful about how far we move away from our expertise. Your expertise to me is a scientific look at the war from a military point of view.
Zelensky is the highest level politics. Not being an expert in it, we may not see things he sees, or has to deal with?
As I've mentioned in other comments. Competency is a function of a specific goal. For Trump that is as much attention in numbers (ratings) from people. Most people want simple answers to their problems. In that, Trump is competent beyond my measure.
Competency for Zelensky is to maintain his country's sovereignty. You and I disagree about his competency.
But the bigger problem, as I see it, is you discount the fact that a man whose people are being killed was attacked by other men, representing Americans like me, in a hollowed sanctuary for diplomacy.
Again, I am not offended by you. I'm just pointing out you're "out of your element" (to make a joke) at bit and in territory that is very upsetting to others, like me. If you're going to blame the whole thing on Zelensky's incompetency, then you really have to specific about it. Again, sorry if I offended!
I hope at least they didn't charge the Ukrainian delegation for a free cookies at the Whitehouse kitchen...
'They' almost certainly did. The White House is a sort of 'hotel' even for the president.
Agree, all these piece plans look weird.
And this may sound seditiously, but the security guarantee question looks the same. Every person in Ukraine with IQ above zero understands that if the war is stopped now, the probability of a new start is very high, and we cannot only say where and when. Just because despite the targets of the special military operation are not achieved completely but the profit is quite high. Gained territory and population can cover all losses. And all this have already happened before at least a few times.
Taking into account all the "cards", at that moment Ukraine may be weaker than now, the army is demobilised, the powers are disorganised and the secret services are full of russian agents.
And even if the second special operation is as "successful" as the first one, at least a lot of highly populated regions near the frontline will suffer from the first strike.
However I cannot imagine the situation when the russians invade again and the peace-keepers prevent this. What are they going to do, shout "Stop or mom will shoot!"? Or will sit at their bases and pray for their lives because with such length of the frontline there will be too little to able to do something?
So the one may suppose that the only security guarantee in case if the opponent is not is the strength of the state and the army. Or maybe it works in a different way?
I understand the level of ignorance of the question, but there is already global practice, how do countries usually cope in such cases?
Your questions are not easy to answer. One thing is clear to me. if there are some peace keeping forces there their roles will and must be different from previous. I think the term here is «canary army». It simply means that those forces are likely to die in any serious attack, but that that death will trigger repercussions. Basically trigger war with those countries. That is the only security that can be given that has any value.
Tripwire forces.
That's the term for troops destined to die during an invasion.
Starmer and Macron talk like this can be a thing. I can't imagine Putin agreeing since he wants NATO out of Eastern Europe, let alone Ukraine. It's amazing how everyone is talking cease fire / peace deal like it will happen.
It'll be much simpler (and more urgent, now that Trump has stopped arms being shipped to Ukraine) to supply with plentiful European arms and munitions Ukraine troops directly, and soon.
Thanks for the term. I see the logic. I think canary forces cover it, but perfectly willing to go along with an accepted term.
Indeed. Moreover, I find all the babbling about 'peacekeepers' for absurd.
Peacekeeper = peace and keeper.
What peace is there to keep in Ukraine?
And if there is no peace, then what is a peacekeeper going to keep there?
Thanks for the update. Really concerned about the news from the Kursk front. Regarding the Washington episode, we can watch and analyze it however we like. The fact is that the current US leadership ambushed an ally on behalf of an enemy. Maybe Zelensky shouldn’t have gone, maybe he should have been better prepared. But I think he had few choices. Also I honestly think that the European nations (including Canada) are doing their best to support Ukraine. Hero worship of Zelensky seems a little too much. Still that hero image is useful for Ukraine to get whatever support they can get from Europe. There isn’t any other support to get.
One very interesting part of the Oval Office ambush was how Trump views his relationship with Putin:
TRUMP: What are you saying?
VANCE: She’s asking, ‘what if Russia breaks the ceasefire?’
TRUMP: Well what if they—what if anything! What if a bomb drops on your head right now? Okay? What if they broke it? I don’t know. They broke it with Biden because Biden, they 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. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia—Russia, Russia, Russia, you ever hear of that deal? That was a phony—that was a phony Hunter Biden, Joe Biden scam. Hillary Clinton, shifty Adam Schiff, it was a Democrat scam. And he had to go through that. And he did go through it and we didn’t end up in a war. He went through it, he was accused of all that stuff—he had nothing to do with it. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said, ‘Oh, oh, the laptop from hell was made by Russia.’ The 51 agents, the whole thing was a scam, and he had to put up with that. He was being accused of all that stuff. All I can say is this: He might’ve broken deals with Obama, and Bush, and he might’ve 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. I don’t know if he can make a deal.
See how Trump identifies with Putin? That's a quite illuminating piece...
The dope is in over his head with this, same with the economy. Tariffs coming tomorrow, heaven help us.
Yes. Sure.
'But': he's doing that all the time since 2016.
So, where's the 'revelation'?
In that he's being more and more explicit about his identification with Putin.
Also, quite illuminating was his calling Zelensky a dictator, but when he was asked if Putin was a dictator, he responded that he's not using the word lightly...
"he was a brave to do so, no doubt, but also a desperate and naive enough to expect some sort of ‘miracles’ from dealing with bullies. A man driven by frustrations and illusions, not by facts."
I have to beg to differ. Except for the brave part. Lesser men would have wilted.
Desperate? Of course! The situation is dire. I can't blame him for desperation. Naiive? Possibly. How would you, or anyone, know he was expecting miracles in that situation? Hoping for, possibly.
Driven by frustrations, no doubt. We sit here writing this stuff frustrated. How do you think he feels? Illusions? What illusions? What facts other than the ones he had to hand?
What I'm saying is (with all due respect), what I read sounded like Zelensky mishandled the situation badly and SHOULD have done something different, without actually saying what that something different would be. In the U.S. they call that 'armchair quarterbacking'.
It was an ambush. Please, really, tell me what you would have done. Not gone at all? Rapped Donald on the head? Walked out? I'd be interested to know.
Sorry, I've thought I've said it already: Yes, I wouldn't go there in the first place.
And then, at least when Vance began using his hasthags, I would stand up and walk out.
Think of it: Zelensky de-facto explained his readiness for singing that treaty with 'security guarantees'...
How many security guarantees has Ukraine got by now? Was not the Budapest Memorandum alone 'enough' in this regards? And still, it didn't work.
So, what did he expect now? Some 'super-extra-security guarantees' - which would work where the 'normal' security guarantees didn't?
Come on, that's fantasising. That IS 'playing with millions of lives'. Especially if coming from somebody compared with Churchill and considered a hero, while proven as unable to at least fire an incompetent commander of armed forces, not to talk about reform the armed forces in the middle of a war.
You are playing 3-D chess. I am playing checkers. I do not have access to the information that you do.
All I'm saying is neither you nor I (thank dog) were put in his position. Yes, given your and mine perfect clarity we would have declined to attend, or walked out, or punched someone. But we weren't there. Cut the guy some slack.
Others may compare him to Churchill, but he doesn't. At least from what I have seen. Yet you seem to hold that against him. Have mistakes been made? Yes. What did he expect? I don't know. Probably to walk away with a mineral deal that would gives country a fighting chance. And until he was ambushed that seemed like a good plan.
Should he resign for incompetence? To be replaced by who? The speaker of the Rada? Should he fire Syrsky? To be replaced by who that will bring about the changes you want in the middle of a war?
He is an imperfect human being, like you and I. War is hell. And after three years of a three day operation, we're still here. That has to count for something.
I'm not playing with anything. Simply analysing - to a degree also on basis of own, '1st hand' experiences.
For example: while I was working for a specific international corporation (indeed, this had me head-hunted and contracted to work for it)... there was a meeting with two superiors. Both were mobbing me for years, at every opportunity. Might sound like bragging, but: principally because I was (far) more successful than both of them combined. So, during that meeting, they began complaining I'm 'mobbing' them...
Have laughed, stood up and walked out. That was that.
Of course, they went on complaining to higher superiors, and wherever else they could. Threatened with firing me, made even more problems etc. But, nothing happened, because success was speaking its own language - and this was not in their favour. Unsurprisingly, never lost a minute of sleep over the two.
Another example: a superior came to (falsely) accuse me of inappropriate relationship with one of employees. I was shocked at first, and short of bursting out. Then, moment before I wanted to do so, have recalled an interesting detail about her: asked her whom did she marry (clue: it was her former superior), and, if she's not jumping to conclusions based on her own experiences.
Then stood up and walked out, leaving her there with her chin banging on the floor. Sure, she hated me from the bottom of her heart. But, at the time nothing happened (at least not to me).
Shouldn't mean I'm 'perfect'. far from that (and, arguably, years later, I actually did 'catch' the employee in question, and we're meanwhile happily married for 30 years... BTW, the superior in question divorced only a year or so after the above-described meeting..).
But, first candidating to become a president of a country of 40 million and already not only threatened but invaded by Russian, then refusing to re-think and reform, and then becoming desperate... sorry: I am sure I would never bring myself into such a situation. At least I've never managed it. Thus, beg your pardon, but: my POV is that I do have the right to claim the right for myself, to call him an incompetent.
Of course you do. Natürlich. And thanks for taking the time to respond.