LMCane said:

---

FIDO_Ags said:

---

It's easy, tell Putin that Ukraine gets more support of US intelligence and and long range missiles.

When Moscow gets hit like Kiev, things will change. That's leverage. Regurgitating every Russian talking point is not.

---

what happens when Russia responds by giving long range missiles to Iran to strike American targets?

how many American missiles would you like to hit Moscow before Moscow decides to retaliate?

---

Moscow will not retaliate directly at the US militarily.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

That assumes there was any real leverage to begin with. Hard to remove something that doesn't really exist.

---

There is absolutely leverage. The U.S. economy could easily fund that proxy war indefinitely while Russia is stuck in something consuming lots of blood and a high percentage of its GDP. Hey Vlad, we could keep doing this or how about you rub our back over here and we'll rub yours? So let's make a deal.

But at least openly in public, it looks like we basically said on Day 1 'we are OUT soon no matter what, would you like to give us something in return or just let us leave for free?' Hard to explain that as a great negotiation approach.

Maybe history down the road will reveal some private back rubbing assurances have been made, like when the US quietly withdrew missiles from Turkey in 1960's as a quid pro quo after Soviets withdrew from Cuba to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But if literally the U.S. was to walk out empty handed and basically surrender WHILE also pissing off its own NATO allies I might add….you can spin it however you want but thst sure would look like a negotiation Fail by the Trump administration.

Pumpkinhead is spot on. We gave it away early but we can get it back if Russia doesn't negotiate in good faith.

And for LM Cane, there are steps to allowing Ukraine the use of long range missiles, first is signaling intent, then deployment, then launch. Anyone of those three steps gives Russia an opportunity to come to the table.

And I agree with Pagerman, Russia wouldn't launch against CONUS. That's a serious red line and Putin knows it.

Russia answers aggression with more aggression. Its a long standing way they operate.

Instead of coming to the table, youre much more likely to go through a period of devastating attacks on each countries civilian infrastructure. More of the same for the ukes, I guess, and a newer experience for the Russians.

But, this has been tried before. If I remember my history, the Germans in ww2 launched over 10000 of ballistic missiles into great Britain in the last 9 months of the war in a desperate attempt to disrupt production and destroy British morale. Those rockets killed upwards of 10k people and injured 30k.

While these rockets did effect morale somewhat, it ultimately only strengthened the British peoples' resolve.

The allied bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan had the same effect. Yes, it's devastating, but you usually get the middle finger back, not capitulation. It looks years of carpet bombing, and even then, the results are still mixed.

Operation rolling thunder in Vietnam was a years long bombing campaign that did little to change to outcome of the war. The pressure applied from 100k dead north Vietnamese citizens didn't bring the north Vietnam leadership to the table.

To be clear, I want the usa to allow the Ukes to hit targets inside russia with the weapons we supply. I just dont hold the same idea that it will be enough to force russia to the table.

One last time, there's not some super weapon out there that is going to change this war at this point, except nukes. But nukes are a non starter.

It makes me physically ill to see former Dem Trump capitulate to Putin and the Orcs.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

We put ourselves into it. It's just a weird threat to make.

---

It presents a US that has no staying power. If it isn't easy, then it won't get done.

That said, it's not our right to give away one side to the other. We can act as a mediator, but that should be it.

we really went from "i will end the war on day 1" to trump tweeting meekly at putin to stop attacking kyiv 100 days in

We should stay out of it and should have from the beginning

Let Europe fund Zelensky's war.

Agree Mike, terror bombing civilians has rarely, if ever worked and I don't advocate for that. However, longer range missiles can be used as a strategic threat against infrastructure and other C2 targets, air bases further into Russia. Power outages for Russian civilians may be effective as it shows the Russian people that soldiers are dying for nothing and the war has come home. Russian media can't spin that.

No doubt, Russia wouldn't launch against move deeper into Russia further out of range from missiles, but that would benefit Ukraine.

Also agree that Russia may meet aggression with aggression and that's why it should be a stepped approach with signaling intent, deployment, and launch if necessary. Those three steps allow for response development at each step so that courses of action can be developed.

What I fear is that based on how the situation has been handled so far by this administration, they lack the discipline to deliver one message and stay on message to manage the Russian leadership. That being they case, none of what I described would work as the Russians are more skilled at foreign policy than this administration and is currently controlling events.

Old McDonald said:

---

we really went from "i will end the war on day 1" to trump tweeting meekly at putin to stop attacking kyiv 100 days in

---

Trump said today '1-2 more weeks and we'll know'. Still was saying confidence about a deal.

Said 'Tremendous pressure' has been put on Russia by U.S. which of course has been invisible pressure if true (seems like almost all of the public pressure has been directed at Ukraine) but let's hypothetically give Trump the benefit of the doubt on that.

So Trump seems about boxed in on a timeline. Within a month he is either going to have to stand by his 'We are out' statements, conceding failure to broker any peace deal and losing some face in that regard while also pissing off a lot of Europe allies…but saving some money!

Or, he's going to have to pivot to standing with his allies over there and hold the rope. Maybe if Putin saw that sort of pivot and saw years more of a U.S. supplied Ukraine staring at him….THEN Putin would have incentive to come to the negotiating table.

No doubt he is hoping Putin finally agrees to something over the next couple of weeks so that he doesn't have to do one of the above two things.

I don't think Russia is more skilled at foreign policy than the US. I think Russia gets to set the terms because they're winning on the battlefield. Ukraine can slow Russia down, sure, but it cannot stop Russia. Ukraine cannot push them back, at least since the counter offensive stalled.

Russia saw Joe Biden's weakness and took their shot. To date it has paid off to the tune of 20-25% of Ukraine. The moral of the story is don't elect weak presidents.

Quote:

---

I don't think Russia is more skilled at foreign policy than the US. I think Russia gets to set the terms because they're winning on the battlefield. Ukraine can slow Russia down, sure, but it cannot stop Russia. Ukraine cannot push them back, at least since the counter offensive stalled.

Russia saw Joe Biden's weakness and took their shot. To date it has paid off to the tune of 20-25% of Ukraine. The moral of the story is don't elect weak presidents.

---

No, Putin and his advisors are more skilled at foreign policy than the current administration. They are disciplined, focused on their strategic goals, and quite frankly in a better position not because they're winning on the battle field because they aren't. They're in a better position because the current administration gave away leverage the first week.

And Ukraine has stopped Russia. That's not really even debatable at this point in the war. And Ukraine doesn't have to push Russia out. A Russian withdrawal is a victory for Ukraine. And a Russian withdrawal is possible, they did it during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Afghan war, and they are currently withdrawing from Syria after Assad's forces, supported by the Russians, collapsed to Syrian rebels.

16 stars on a page 5 post. No damn way.

FIDO_Ags said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't think Russia is more skilled at foreign policy than the US. I think Russia gets to set the terms because they're winning on the battlefield. Ukraine can slow Russia down, sure, but it cannot stop Russia. Ukraine cannot push them back, at least since the counter offensive stalled.

Russia saw Joe Biden's weakness and took their shot. To date it has paid off to the tune of 20-25% of Ukraine. The moral of the story is don't elect weak presidents.

---

No, Putin and his advisors are more skilled at foreign policy than the current administration. They are disciplined, focused on their strategic goals, and quite frankly in a better position not because they're winning on the battle field because they aren't. They're in a better position because the current administration gave away leverage the first week.

And Ukraine has stopped Russia. That's not really even debatable at this point in the war. And Ukraine doesn't have to push Russia out. A Russian withdrawal is a victory for Ukraine. And a Russian withdrawal is possible, they did it during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Afghan war, and they are currently withdrawing from Syria after Assad's forces, supported by the Russians, collapsed to Syrian rebels.

---

You are correct that Russia is in a better position but you're completely incorrect in your assessment of why that is so. Ukraine has slowed Russia, but not stopped their advance; at least since the counter offensive stalled. That is a key difference which I think you are missing.

Correct. Hopefully today is the day Trump/Rubio pull the plug, or a deal, either way. Starmer groused about June.

🇺🇸🇺🇦🇷🇺 Russian foreign minister: "President Trump is probably the only leader on earth who recognized the need to address the root causes of this war and wants to rectify this.”

Lavrov also pushed back: "You don't trust the word of the President of the United States?" pic.twitter.com/1DGULXfX7x

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) April 25, 2025

LOL, no, Sergei, Margaret Brennan does not trust DJT.
Klitschko is a human trafficker who has profited a lot from the war but may also have more raw political power in reality in Kiev than Zelensky.

Ukraine may have to give up land for peace - Kyiv Mayor Klitschko https://t.co/FXNdINo8kL

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) April 25, 2025

Z-man I see sat down for an interview meanwhile with Ben Shapiro, which is amusing for some reason to me. Not far off from Ben's habit of deconstructing kids on college campuses, I guess.

DukeMu said:

---

It makes me physically ill to see former Dem Trump capitulate to Putin and the Orcs.

---

In the 1980s Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. They literally had all of it.


This meme just struck me funny.

It was also Reagan's Secretary of State/Chief of Staff, Jim Baker, who (later under Bush) advocated against any further expansion of Nato, to assure Gorbachev about German re-unification.

Quote:

---

US Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch eastward" assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on 9 February 1990 was only part of a cascade of similar assurances.

As the authors, Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton argue: "The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels".

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates's criticism of "pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn't happen".
During the discussions to re-unify East and West Germany, the Western parties sought to defuse Moscow's fears that a reunified state in the heart of Europe would present a threat to the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev only accepted German reunificationover which the Soviet Union had a legal right to vetobecause he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.

---

Quite ironic, indeed.

Witkoff is back at the Kremlin:

Trump's guy Witkoff has arrived at the Kremlin pic.twitter.com/5WsxT1W956

— Liveuamap (@Liveuamap) April 25, 2025

Wgaf what happens to Ukraine. Ukraine and EU must pay out the ass for our assistance, or we walk. That's the negotiation you have first, so I suspect it already took place

Mr.Milkshake said:

---

Wgaf what happens to Ukraine. Ukraine and EU must pay out the ass for our assistance, or we walk. That's the negotiation you have first, so I suspect it already took place

---

Have you actually tried answering that question yourself? Can you think through consequences a few steps ahead?

Logos Stick said:

---

16 stars on a page 5 post. No damn way.

---

this is like the 5th time i've seen you whine about how many stars a post of mine has. bizarre behavior.

Old McDonald said:

---

we really went from "i will end the war on day 1" to trump tweeting meekly at putin to stop attacking kyiv 100 days in

---

To be fair, I did hear that Trump tweeted Putin's first name in a post about Putin's attack. I'm sure that got Putin's attention and made Putin shake in his shoes.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

we really went from "i will end the war on day 1" to trump tweeting meekly at putin to stop attacking kyiv 100 days in

---

To be fair, I did hear that Trump tweeted Putin's first name in a post about Putin's attack. I'm sure that got Putin's attention and made Putin shake in his shoes.

---

If you really want to get his attention, every parent knows you have to say the full name. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin stop the attacks now!!!!


Can we also reflect that is name is like calling you son Joe Joseph [insert last name]

UK steps back from plan to send troops to Ukraine, citing high risk: reporthttps://t.co/gQyNeTekAT

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) April 25, 2025

What a shocker!!!

so much talk about Putin...

how is anyone going to get Zelenskyy to stop the war?

W said:

---

so much talk about Putin...

how is anyone going to get Zelenskyy to stop the war?

---

Had Zelensky invaded Russia, that would make a lot more sense, but seeing as how Putin invaded and keeps attacking, well one would imagine he'd be the primary person to stop the war he started.

W said:

---

so much talk about Putin...

how is anyone going to get Zelenskyy to stop the war?

---

All they have to do is leave his country.

W said:

---

so much talk about Putin...

how is anyone going to get Zelenskyy to stop the war?

---

Well he didn't start it soooooo

Rebel Yell said:

---

DukeMu said:

---

It makes me physically ill to see former Dem Trump capitulate to Putin and the Orcs.

---

In the 1980s Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. They literally had all of it.


This meme just struck me funny.

---

the meme struck me as stupid, wrong, and unfunny, but to each their own!

The Fall Guy said:

---

W said:

---

so much talk about Putin...

how is anyone going to get Zelenskyy to stop the war?

---

Well he didn't start it soooooo

---

right.. perhaps we should bring back the guy who really got it going with an embarrassing display of weakness exiting Afghanistan followed by a "minor incursion" taunt/ invitation to Russia. Maybe he can end what he started.

No Thank you. Also Trump is no Reagan. Reagan had a spine.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Trump has looked really weak on Putin this time around.

He has been tough on China, at least economically, but is bizarrely deferential to Russia.

I understand that this is a war he never wanted to be involved with but the fact is, we are. And he made loud promises about resolving it quickly. So far, Russia has come out on top.

---

Russia holds the cards. I'm not sure how one could end this war without Russia getting most of what it wants.

Ukraine is nothing without its western support. With it, it's at best stationary.

I know a big talking point right now is Crimea and how trump is going to cede Crimea wholly to Russia. What's another realistic option that Russia would or should accept. Ukriane isnt capable of taking it back. Europe/usa are unwilling to take it back. So, what incentive is there for Russia to willingly give it back or make it quasi independent?

The entire war is the same. What incentive is there/who is going to force russia to give up some of their ill gotten gains. Ukraine can't. Europe/usa are unwilling.

I think Trump has rightly calculated this war doesn't end unless Russia appears to get most, if not all, it wants. Otherwise, it's just an endless grinding of ukriane and western money/resources.

Trump has indeed looked weak. So did Biden. So did obama. So does Germany, France, Britain and everyone allied with ukriane. Non of them are willing to do the things that would truly make it possible for Ukraine to regain the upper hand. Putin clearly is fine with send thousands to their deaths in exchange for incremental gains and/or stagnation.

I agree Putin is not giving up Crimea, especially with losing their warm water port in Syria. Crimea also needs the fresh water channel from the mainland that they also hold. In GWB's book, he said the first time he met Putin and looked him in the eyes, he saw evil. I don't doubt him on that. However uncomfortable to think about, Putin is sitting on enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world as we know it. Trump has absolutely backed us away from that ledge. I know it sucks to have to play nice with Russia to end the war. When it comes to the safety of the ones I love, that is a real factor I'd rather not have politicians gamble with. I've seen recent polls from within Ukraine that now a majority of people support ending the war even if it means giving up territory.