Putin and Trump Talk and Come To a Predeal Deal

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, herbie said:

The highschool bully and your teacher have come to an agreement that he will stop beating the shit out of you and the teacher will stop punishing him  if you will simply stop trying to fight back and hand over 25% to the bully and half of what's left to the teacher.
Good deal, eh?

BTW don't forget to tell your teacher 'Thank You'.

That's not what's happening here at all. What's happening to Ukraine now was predicted around 10 years ago by Professor John Mearsheimer:

To use your school analogy, it's kind of like this Biden kid encouraged the Ukrainian student to pick a fight with that Russian fellow and that he'd back up the Ukrainian. After doing so, and helping the Ukrainian a bit, the Biden kid had to go, but he was replaced by this Trump fellow. The Trump fellow, much smarter than this Biden kid, realized that continuing to help the Ukrainian kid could get not just the Ukrainian out for the count (he was already looking pretty bad), but stood a very good chance of wrecking Trump as well. Trump, to his credit, decided to try to work out a deal with the Russian fellow. Now, Trump had a lot of friends that wanted to see the Russian fellow come to harm, so he couldn't make things -too- easy for the Russian to make a deal. I think Simplicius may be on to something with the following theory that he voiced in a recent article he wrote. Quoting:

**

For now, the above clearly fruitless call infact gives opportunity for Trump to re-characterize it as a ‘success’, which allows him to sell the ongoing negotiations as positive and friendly, which keeps the hyenas and hawks off his back, allowing him to put off being forced to ‘act tough’ and tighten the proverbial vise on Russia. This could be what the secret backdoor ‘plan’ with Russia is all about: keep stringing these useless “negotiations” along while pretending they are “making headway”, all while giving Ukraine a symbolic amount of “aid”, while in effect waiting for Russia to slowly finish Ukraine off until such time that Kiev becomes “amenable” to real war-ending concessions.

**

Full article:

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/historic-putin-trump-call-is-small?publication_id=1351274&post_id=159353837&isFreemail=true&r=z34xz&triedRedirect=true

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Because the create more problems than they're worth.

Sorry but ^your OPINION is IRRELEVANT.

[Scott75]

18 hours ago, herbie said:

On 3/19/2025 at 7:29 AM, gatomontes99 said:

How many Nukes did Iraq have?

[snip] are you claiming standing up for Ukraine requires invading Russia?

First of all, your characterization that the U.S. is "standing up for" Ukraine is nonsense. Ukraine was always just a bit player for the U.S. to help "weaken" Russia. Zelensky said it so well back around 10 years ago, back when he was still just a comedian:

"We will join NATO soon, as an American henchman, ofcourse."

Source:

Alas, the fate of henchman generally isn't very good. Aside from never getting into NATO after 10 years, Ukraine has already shrunk considerably and I doubt that'll change. Even worse is the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who have died in this war. As retired U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman said 2 years ago in an interview:

**

And the West was basically saying, ‘We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence,’ which essentially remains our stand.  It’s pretty cynical, despite all the patriotic fervor.  And I’d add, I have heard, I know people who have been attempting to be objective about this, and they’re immediately accused of being Russian agents. 

**

Source:

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/24/us-fighting-russia-to-the-last-ukrainian-veteran-us-diplomat/

 

Secondly, most of the territory that Russia now controls has officially become part of Russia which means that, yes, booting Russia out of "Ukraine" would, in Russian eyes, be invading Russia itself. The best example of this type of scenario being on the other foot was when Russia put nukes in Cuba. There were 4 times during those few days where a nuclear strike was only barely averted at the time. It may be that one such 'almost miss' almost happened during the current Ukraine war:

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/

Edited March 20 by Scott75
typo fix

[eyeball]

22 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Obviously the deal has to have strong language back with material losses if Russia breaks it. And the same goes for Ukraine. I don't trust either party here.

It should be the broker between these two that's at issue in the context of trust.

Trump...seriously?

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

enough to make the USA invade again...  of are you claiming standing up for Ukraine requires invading Russia? Not just booting them out of Ukraine?
Was it to risky for MAGA chickenshits to push the Norks back to the 38th parallel too?

The answer is zero. They had a successful chemical weapons program. But they never made a nuke. And wtf does NK have to do with anything?

Any conflict with Russia could trigger a nuclear war. Is that a risk you are willing to take? Are you certain we can Intercept a hypersonic nuke? I think we can but i don't know we can.

[gatomontes99]

12 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

First of all, your characterization that the U.S. is "standing up for" Ukraine is nonsense. Ukraine was always just a bit player for the U.S. to help "weaken" Russia. Zelensky said it so well back around 10 years ago, back when he was still just a comedian:

"We will join NATO soon, as an American henchman, ofcourse."

Source:

Alas, the fate of henchman generally isn't very good. Aside from never getting into NATO after 10 years, Ukraine has already shrunk considerably and I doubt that'll change. Even worse is the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who have died in this war. As retired U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman said 2 years ago in an interview:

**

And the West was basically saying, ‘We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence,’ which essentially remains our stand.  It’s pretty cynical, despite all the patriotic fervor.  And I’d add, I have heard, I know people who have been attempting to be objective about this, and they’re immediately accused of being Russian agents. 

**

Source:

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/24/us-fighting-russia-to-the-last-ukrainian-veteran-us-diplomat/

 

Secondly, most of the territory that Russia now controls has officially become part of Russia which means that, yes, booting Russia out of "Ukraine" would, in Russian eyes, be invading Russia itself. The best example of this type of scenario being on the other foot was when Russia but nukes in Cuba. There were 4 times during those few days where a nuclear strike was only barely averted at the time. It may be that one such 'almost miss' almost happened during the current Ukraine war:

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/

I'm still concerned about Ukraine having chemical weapons programs. They aren't angels. Their people need to be safe though. The government, on the other hand, is a problem.

[Scott75]

23 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Are you certain we can Intercept a hypersonic nuke? I think we can but i don't know we can.

It's quite possible if not probable, but that's not the problem. The problem is how -many- the U.S. could intercept. Quoting from an article on the subject from 2017:

**

Right now, a constellation of sensors and 36 interceptor missiles make up the ground-based midcourse defense system, or GMD. It’s intended to act as insurance against a small-scale nuclear attack from North Korea, or possibly Iran, according to the Department of Defense. (Neither country has missiles capable of reaching the US, although US officials say North Korea is getting closer.) It’s not meant to ward off an unlikely attack from the much larger and more sophisticated arsenals of Russia or China — nor would it be able to.

**

Source:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/30/15713966/ballistic-missile-attack-department-of-defense-pentagon-north-korea

I think the number has now increased to 45 interceptors.

Why is it not meant to ward off arsenals from Russia or China? Well, China has 600 nuclear warheads:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Russia has over 5,000:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

To be fair, only about 1,700 are ready to be launched at a moment's notice, but I think it's pretty obvious that the U.S. interceptors aren't going to make much of a dent if they got serious.

21 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I'm still concerned about Ukraine having chemical weapons programs. They aren't angels. Their people need to be safe though. The government, on the other hand, is a problem.

Concerned for who, the Russians? If so, that's certainly commendable, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference on the battlefield.

Edited March 19 by Scott75

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think we're better off with a pact against invasions.  I think that a Canadian Nationalist would likely agree with me, my guess.

Nope. A Canadian Nationalist would not be interested in wars that don't concern him.

[herbie]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

it's kind of like this Biden kid encouraged the Ukrainian student to pick a fight with that Russian fellow

Yeah they didn't need to fight the invaders, they could've just surrenders. We're the arseholes for not maklng them give up.

[herbie]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

And wtf does NK have to do with anything?

Mr S-L-O-W. Look it up, dummy. The 'free world' pushed them back to pretty much their original border BEFORE a ceasefire, they didn't call SK ingrates, question their support and make concessions before they started. Or S Korea would be the Pusan perimeter still.

Sad to have to deliver a history lesson, but go ahead and look it up an the DPRK website and call it fake news.

[Scott75]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

17 hours ago, Scott75 said:

it's kind of like this Biden kid encouraged the Ukrainian student to pick a fight with that Russian fellow

Yeah they didn't need to fight the invaders, they could've just surrenders.

The question you should be asking is, where did all of this start? It certainly wasn't when Putin decided to start his military operation on February 24, 2022. As I pointed out in the post you just responded to, Professor John Mearsheimer predicted that Ukraine was going to get wrecked in large part due to the west's policies in regards to Ukraine way back in 2015. In case you missed it, here's the video again:

Since then, Ukraine just became even more brazen in regards to Russia's interests. What I think was the last straw for Russia was Ukraine's renewed assault on the Donbass Republics literally days before Russia's military operation in Ukraine began. I know of only a single writer who laid out the evidence for this, former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud, in an article he wrote shortly after Russia's military operation in Ukraine began. Quoting from said article:

**

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.

**

Full article:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

Edited March 20 by Scott75

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Nope. A Canadian Nationalist would not be interested in wars that don't concern him.

Weirdly, you answered another thing I didn't say.

[gatomontes99]

49 minutes ago, herbie said:

Mr S-L-O-W. Look it up, dummy. The 'free world' pushed them back to pretty much their original border BEFORE a ceasefire, they didn't call SK ingrates, question their support and make concessions before they started. Or S Korea would be the Pusan perimeter still.

Sad to have to deliver a history lesson, but go ahead and look it up an the DPRK website and call it fake news.

They also didn't have nukes. And we lost 34,000 men. Are you willing to kill as many, if not more, in Russia?

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Weirdly, you answered another thing I didn't say.

Hilarious.

"I think that a Canadian Nationalist would likely agree with me, my guess."

Don't play games Mike.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Hilarious.

"I think that a Canadian Nationalist would likely agree with me, my guess."

Don't play games Mike.

What games?

 

I said something and you hopscotched around it, which is a game.

[Deluge]

On 3/18/2025 at 6:49 PM, herbie said:

The highschool bully and your teacher have come to an agreement that he will stop beating the shit out of you and the teacher will stop punishing him  if you will simply stop trying to fight back and hand over 25% to the bully and half of what's left to the teacher.
Good deal, eh?

BTW don't forget to tell your teacher 'Thank You'.

The high school student and the teacher have come to an agreement that the student will stop beating the shit out of you if you stop pushing your homosexual romance novels on him. 

Sounds like a GREAT deal.  

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What games?

 

I said something and you hopscotched around it, which is a game.

So you are trying to say your reference to Canadian Nationalist was not directed to me?

[Legato]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

Mr S-L-O-W. Look it up, dummy. The 'free world' pushed them back to pretty much their original border BEFORE a ceasefire, they didn't call SK ingrates, question their support and make concessions before they started. Or S Korea would be the Pusan perimeter still.

Sad to have to deliver a history lesson, but go ahead and look it up an the DPRK website and call it fake news.

Yes and SK did it without any help [/s]

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

So you are trying to say your reference to Canadian Nationalist was not directed to me?

I was coyly invoking your name, that is true, but really talking about what a nationalist would generally value. 

Such a small country like this cannot defend itself against two bordering superpowers, so presumably we would be invested in an international framework that prevents imperialism, or at least mitigates against it

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I was coyly invoking your name, that is true, but really talking about what a nationalist would generally value. 

Such a small country like this cannot defend itself against two bordering superpowers, so presumably we would be invested in an international framework that prevents imperialism, or at least mitigates against it

Don't be coy.

A Nationalist would want his/her nation to have their own military defense...like nukes.

Edited March 20 by Nationalist

[herbie]

50 minutes ago, Legato said:

Yes and SK did it without any help [/s]

Or turning over their country's resources.

[Legato]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Or turning over their country's resources.

Without any help.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

1. Don't be coy.

2. A Nationalist would want his/her nation to have their own military defense...like nukes.

1. Sorry, I'm a coy boy.

2. Suuure... I suppose that's true but maybe a broader answer is "whatever works"... 

Blue sky question, in the decades immediately after WW2 were any leaders pushing for our own nuclear option?  I honestly don't know the answer...

 

[herbie]

And now for the latest: How Ukraine's nuclear electrical plants would be so much better and safer if they were American owned... how convenient....
 

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Sorry, I'm a coy boy.

2. Suuure... I suppose that's true but maybe a broader answer is "whatever works"... 

Blue sky question, in the decades immediately after WW2 were any leaders pushing for our own nuclear option?  I honestly don't know the answer...

 

We had nukes early on. I believe they weren't phased out till 1968 or thereabouts