Scott75

Yes, really. This fact doesn’t change your pushing other false information as if you were working for Putin propaganda outlet. Nationalist posted an article from the Miami Herald. Is that "Putin propaganda" to you? Even if you think that, even Ukraine admits that a majority of their population want a negotiated settlement as soon as possible, as I pointed out in a recent post. Quoting it below...

I also think that an anonymous substack journalist who goes by the name Simplicius is quite good. I believe a poster here named Michael Hardner is the person who introduced me to him. He also came out with an article a few hours ago on the war in Ukraine. It can be seen here: https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-102725-pokrovsk-reaches-its He ends his article with the following: ** Lastly, we’ll leave off with this indicative post from top Ukrainian drone figure Maria Berlinska, who sounds alarms over the growing collapse of the AFU:

There are some American journalists who I think are making a positive contribution to ending the war in Ukraine by talking to Russian journalists and politicians. A very good example of this is Larry Johnson of Sonar 21. He just came out with an article a few hours ago that I thought was quite good: https://sonar21.com/my-final-moscow-report/

Apparently a bit more since the article you posted- your article from August cited 69%, it went up to 74% in September according to a poll last month: https://kyivindependent.com/most-ukrainians-reluctantly-support-peace-deal-freezing-front-line-with-western-guarantees-poll-shows/ I suspect it's even higher now. That being said, there is what I consider to be bad news in the poll as well: ** According to the poll, 75% of Ukrainians said that Russia's conditional peace proposal — including Ukraine's full withdrawal from Donetsk Oblast and a ban on NATO entry — would be "completely unacceptable." Only 17% of respondents said they could accept Russia's demands, which also include lifting sanctions, granting official status to the Russian language in Ukraine, limiting the size of the Ukrainian military, formally recognizing Russian rule over Crimea and the Donbas region, and giving Russia a role in determining Kyiv’s final security guarantees. ** Until that changes significantly, I think the war will probably go on. I think there is hope that it will though- in your August article, it showed that only around 20%of Ukrainian respondents wanted to seek an end to the war as soon as possible back in 2022. That changed to 69% in August 2025. Perhaps in another year or 2, the 17% of Ukrainian respondents who said they could accept Russia's demands will also increase to a majority of respondents. I certainly hope so, as I believe that the longer Ukrainians refuse to accept the reality that Russia will win this one way or another, the worse it'll go for them.

I fully confess that a lot of this stuff is over my head. However, I trust a certain journalist when it comes to currency issues- Ellen Brown. She just came out with an article talking about Trump's GENIUS Act and what she believes is the best solution: https://scheerpost.com/2025/07/30/ellen-brown-the-genius-act-and-the-national-bank-acts-of-1863-64-taking-a-cue-from-lincoln/

As Michael Hardner pointed out in the very first comment to your thread, your own link (the first one) points out the downsides of doing this. I'll quote the point I thought was most relevant: ** Barclays and J.P. Morgan say Cruz's plan won’t deliver savings—it would just shift funds to the reverse repo market. The Fed would still be paying interest, undermining any deficit reduction. Worse, its ability to steer financial conditions would be impaired. ** Source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/market-stability-threat-cruz-taps-trump-gop-allies-to-push-fed-overhaul/critics-sound-the-alarm/slideshow/121822156.cms

No, that'd be you. I've tried to explain how you've sunk for the mainstream propaganda on the Ukraine war, but you tend to ignore such material for the most part. Case in point: I don't know if you have issues with your memory, but we have already discussed that talking point in this threat before... I imagine you ignored most of it then as well. Nope... Not sure why you'd link to that post. Because you are sitting here pretending like we have not already discussed this bogus lie you are pushing again. Saying that something is a lie is definitely an easy way out of actually trying to refute actual arguments. For the audience, I did a lot more than simply tell User that I wasn't sure why he'd link the post he linked to. Here's what I said -after- the only line of mine that he quoted: ** I responded to that post, by the way, in the very next one. You responded to that, and I then responded with not one, but 2 detailed articles on the causes of the Ukraine war. That post is here: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=48379&content_commentid=1820354 You didn't even -attempt- to refute the articles contained therein. Typical. ** It seems clear that User doesn't want to bother actually trying to -defend- his assertions against people that don't agree with them. Instead, he'd rather just call them liars or propagandists or what not and then call it a day.

Not sure why you'd link to that post. I responded to that post, by the way, in the very next one. You responded to that, and I then responded with not one, but 2 detailed articles on the causes of the Ukraine war. That post is here: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=48379&content_commentid=1820354 You didn't even -attempt- to refute the articles contained therein. Typical.

I don't know if you have issues with your memory, but we have already discussed that talking point in this threat before... I imagine you ignored most of it then as well.

Do better? That's right. No, that'd be you. I've tried to explain how you've sunk for the mainstream propaganda on the Ukraine war, but you tend to ignore such material for the most part. Case in point:

Come on User, you can do better. I've posted few if any posts here that weren't a response to someone else. Recently, that someone else has been you.

You will look for any excuse to avoid your stupid comments getting called out for what they are. One day, I hope you learn that insulting a person or their comments is counterproductive to a productive discussion.

This is idiocy already long ago refuted in this thread. Saying your ideological opponent's beliefs are idiocy doesn't actually support your belief. It -can- get your ideological opponent to insult your beliefs in turn or to tune out. I'll stick to tuning out. You tuned out because your positions are absurd. No, I tuned out because you started your post by insulting what I believe. Perhaps deep down, you wanted to stop debating the subject- if that's the case, you may well have succeeded. Yes, I think your positions here are outlandishly absurd if not outright lies. Perhaps you need a journal or something, because this is a forum where if you post things publicly, they can be criticized. I don't mind criticism, but starting a response with "This is idiocy already long ago refuted in this thread" is just a base insult. Perhaps you had something interesting to say -after- that line, but it was too late- you'd already gotten me to tune out.

Saying your ideological opponent's beliefs are idiocy doesn't actually support your belief. It -can- get your ideological opponent to insult your beliefs in turn or to tune out. I'll stick to tuning out. You ignored the argument of course. You tuned out because your positions are absurd. No, I tuned out because you started your post by insulting what I believe. Perhaps deep down, you wanted to stop debating the subject- if that's the case, you may well have succeeded.

I agree, but only because there is -one- possibility that could "defeat" Russia here. It's one any sane world leader would try to avoid- global nuclear armageddon. If that happens, -everyone- loses. Failing that, Russia will win. it's just a matter of when. This is idiocy already long ago refuted in this thread. Saying your ideological opponent's beliefs are idiocy doesn't actually support your belief. It -can- get your ideological opponent to insult your beliefs in turn or to tune out. I'll stick to tuning out.

They did. Quoting Trump doesn't change the facts. Agreed. The fact of the matter, however, is that Ukraine attacked the Donbass Republics days before Russia decided to start its military operation in Ukraine. It's not hard to see how this was the last straw for Russia. I imagine you know this, but just in case you don't, I'll quote from former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud on an article where he elaborates on the final days before Russia's military operation began: ** In fact, as early as February 16 [2022], Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over. If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21. That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them. The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance. In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge. ** Source: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

Just finished watching the following video, thought it was quite interesting...

They didn't. Trump was on point when he told Ukraine they should never have started its war with Russia: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-ukraine-should-never-have-started-it-remarks-war-russia-rcna192710 Quoting from the above article: ** President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that Ukraine was responsible for Russia's invasion of the country three years ago, arguing Kyiv could have made a deal to avoid the conflict. “You should have never started it,” Trump said of Ukraine **

The point is that Russia isn’t assured anything here. I agree, but only because there is -one- possibility that could "defeat" Russia here. It's one any sane world leader would try to avoid- global nuclear armageddon. If that happens, -everyone- loses. Failing that, Russia will win. it's just a matter of when. Yes, and it's been slowly losing territory even with that assistance. I think the only thing that war assistance assures is more Ukrainian deaths and more loss of territory.

From what I've read, all Russia's done in Europe is ensure that Ukraine ceases to kill ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine after 8 years without military pushback, starting in February, 2022. The war also ensures that Ukraine won't become a part of NATO. It's Europe itself that has severely damaged itself, by cutting off its access to cheap Russian energy.

You need to keep up. Trump is now preparing to authorize the sale of even more weapons to Europe so they can funnel them to Ukraine. Both offensive and defensive. You notice how he made sure that -Europe- foot the bill? When it comes to Ukraine, i think Trump strongly suspects how this is going to end. He knows Ukraine doesn't have the cards, so he's trying to avoid putting anymore in the pot himself. What does it matter to him if Europe buys some weapons to continue this war with a foregone conclusion? Let them go broke, he's already moved on.

Like I said, you are not interested in negotiation, but capitulation. What I'm interested in is Zelensky and his Administration waking up to reality. As Trump said not too long ago, they should never have started this war. They also should have negotiated a peace a long time ago. They didn't do either of these- now all they can do is negotiate a settlement wherein they can probably retain most of what they still have left. If they -don't- do that soon, I think it's quite possible that Ukraine as a country will cease to exist. Trump mentioned this possibility as well, way back in February: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-may-russian-someday-trump-warns-zelensky-2029205 Food for thought.

This is not a negotiation, this is you saying Ukraine must give in to the demands. Ukraine has to recognize the facts on the ground. As Trump said a while ago, Ukraine just doesn't have the cards. Russia does. To extend the analogy, Ukraine hasn't yet put everything into the pot. It can still fold its hand and walk away with most of what it has left, giving a bit of the 4 regions Russia has claimed but hasn't yet completely taken and apparently getting -back- bits of other regions that Russia has begun to take. The alternative, to keep on raising the stakes by continuing to fight Russia, may well lead to the complete dissolution of Ukraine as a country. As I've mentioned before, Ukraine should have taken the deal Russia offered near the start of the war- Russia had been prepared to walk away from -everything- but Crimea at that point. Now, Russia's going to keep 4 more regions previously under Ukrainian control, but it can still get worse. And ofcourse there are all the Ukrainians that are dying as well. The longer Ukraine waits to negotiate an end to this, the worse things will get.

You just stipulated that "negotiations" were basically to accept everything Russia is demanding. That is surrender. That is not a negotiation. No, surrender is when an army essentially agrees to do -whatever- another country wants. The other country doesn't even need to specify what the conditions are. I notice you cut off what I said -after- the bit about what surrender truly means. For the audience if not for you, I think it bear repeating: ** [Ukraine may in fact ultimately surrender at] some point if Ukraine continues to avoid agreeing to a negotiated settlement with Russia, but at this stage, it still has the option to reach a negotiated settlement. The terms they'd need to accept for such a negotiation to succeed are outlined in a speech Jeffrey Sachs gave earlier this year to European Parliament. This speech can be seen here: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/ I'll leave with part of what he had to say to European Parliament: ** Let me end with a few words about President Donald Trump. Trump does not want Biden’s losing hand. This is why Trump and President Putin are likely to agree to end the war. Even if Europe continues with its warmongering, it won’t matter. The war is ending. So, please, get it out of your system. Please tell your colleagues. “It’s over.” It’s over because Trump doesn’t want to hold on to a loser. The one that will be saved by the negotiations taking place right now is Ukraine. ** So, you may ask, what would be "saved" if Ukraine accepts Russia's terms now? Lives. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs shows that there is precedent here. From the same article as the quote above: ** Michael von der Schulenberg and I met at the Vatican with a group of experts in Spring 2022, and we wrote a document explaining that nothing good can come out of continued war. (The meeting at the Vatican was the Fraternal Economy Session on Jubilee 2025: “Hope in the Signs of the Times.”) Our group argued strenuously, but to no avail, that Ukraine should negotiate immediately, because delays will mean massive deaths, risk of nuclear escalation, and possibly an outright loss of the war. I wouldn’t want to change one word from what we wrote then. Nothing was wrong in that document. Since the U.S. talked Ukraine out of the negotiations, perhaps one million Ukrainians have died or been severely wounded. And American senators who are as nasty and cynical as imaginable say this is a wonderful expenditure of U.S. money because no Americans are dying. It’s the pure proxy war. One of our senators nearby New York State, Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, said this out loud. Mitt Romney said this out loud. It’s the best money America can spend. No Americans are dying. It’s unreal. Now, just to bring us up to yesterday, the U.S. Ukraine Project has failed. The core idea of the project all along was that Russia would fold its hand. The core idea all along was Russia can’t resist, just as Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997. The Americans thought the U.S. surely has the upper hand. The U.S. will win because we’re going to bluff them. The Russians are not really going to fight. The Russians are really going to mobilize. We’ll deploy the economic “nuclear option” of cutting Russia out of SWIFT. That will destroy the economy. Our sanctions will bring Russia to their knees. The HIMARS will do them in. The ATACMS, the F-16s, will do them in. Honestly, I’ve listened to this kind of talk for more than 50 years. Our national security leaders have spoken nonsense for decades. I begged the Ukrainians: stay neutral. Don’t listen to the Americans. I repeated to them the famous adage of Henry Kissinger, that to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. Let me repeat that for Europe: To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. **

Yes, a joke. What you want is for Ukraine to surrender. Not negotiate. No, were Ukraine to surrender, Russia would just do whatever it likes in Ukraine. This may happen at some point if Ukraine continues to avoid agreeing to a negotiated settlement with Russia, but at this stage, it still has the option to reach a negotiated settlement. The terms they'd need to accept for such a negotiation to succeed are outlined in a speech Jeffrey Sachs gave earlier this year to European Parliament. This speech can be seen here: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/ I'll leave with part of what he had to say to European Parliament: ** Let me end with a few words about President Donald Trump. Trump does not want Biden’s losing hand. This is why Trump and President Putin are likely to agree to end the war. Even if Europe continues with its warmongering, it won’t matter. The war is ending. So, please, get it out of your system. Please tell your colleagues. “It’s over.” It’s over because Trump doesn’t want to hold on to a loser. The one that will be saved by the negotiations taking place right now is Ukraine. **