Russia must withdraw its troops to February 2022 line, Zelenskyy says
-
Oh, FlyingSquid, your intellectual gymnastics are as impressive as a toddler tripping over their own feet. Reducing my critique of Europe’s strategic ineptitude to “let Putin take whatever he wants” is the kind of straw man argument that would make a scarecrow blush.
If you’re going to engage in geopolitical discourse, at least muster the effort to comprehend the argument. Your moral posturing is as shallow as a puddle after a drizzle—loud, messy, and ultimately irrelevant. Stick to bumper sticker slogans; they suit your depth better.
-
Stopped reading at the word "toddler." Not interested in Reddit-style insult wars.
-
It would be nice if that was true because in that case nobody could hear your bullshit
-
That's my point, as good as usa is at logistics, you are applying the argument wholesale without considering the needs of this conflict. This is happening at Europe's doorstep, this time the logistics are easy, especially if you compare it to invading the middle east from north America.
Ukraine coordinating Intel? Sure? Well, there goes your original argument, leave to goalpost where it was.
Tell me more about American resolve, but maybe wait until Vance comes back home from selling Ukraine to Russia while trump threatens to invade Canada. Meanwhile Europe was able to replace 60% of its energy sourcing in two years and remain united. Usa left and joined the Paris accord 3 times in a decade and now is threatening to leave NATO. America lost its resolve a while ago.
-
Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism
Trump brokering a deal is not negotiable, he's going to do it for the simple reason that he sees himself as the best deal-maker, the best negotiator, the best. It would be futile to try to stop him, and it doesn't hurt Ukraine's position that he try, so why the hell would they attempt to stop him.
There's basically two outcomes, here: Trump thinks Putin is nuts when it comes to demands, Trump still wants to look good domestically, so he's doubling down on Ukraine support. Then, Trump thinks Putin is in a strong position, he tries to dictate terms to Ukraine, but will fail. US support may or may not stop after that, depending on how he can spin it domestically, in any case Europe is there to have Ukraine's back.
This decision point -- is Trump going to squeeze a deal that's acceptable for Ukraine out of Putin -- has to be awaited before Ukraine can move, because otherwise you're pissing Trump off and making the US pull out instead of double down more likely.
tl;dr: It's strategically opportune to hold Trump's beer right now, you might not believe he can get anything out of Putin but you got to let him try, and fail, on his own.
-
Europe’s doorstep? What a convenient excuse for mediocrity. If proximity magically solved conflicts, Europe wouldn’t need American logistics to move a few crates of ammo. Comparing this to the Middle East? Laughable. The U.S. doesn’t fumble because it’s far away; it succeeds because it plans ahead—something Europe clearly struggles with.
Intel coordination? Sure, Europe can shuffle papers while America does the thinking. Calling out “goalpost moving” is rich when your entire argument hinges on redefining failure as effort. NATO’s brain is American because Europe’s head is buried in bureaucracy.
And “resolve”? Spare me the Paris Accords sob story. Signing treaties you don’t enforce isn’t resolve; it’s theater. Europe outsourced its energy and security, then cries betrayal when reality bites. Pathetic.
-
Trump’s self-image as the “best deal-maker” is precisely the problem. His deals are transactional theater, not strategy. He doesn’t broker peace; he brokers leverage—for himself. Ukraine’s survival isn’t a stage for his ego or America’s domestic optics; it’s existential. Betting on Trump isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous.
Your two outcomes ignore a third: Trump undermines Ukraine to curry favor with Putin, framing it as “peace.” Europe might have Ukraine’s back, but Trump’s America-first rhetoric would leave Kyiv holding the bag. The US pulling out isn’t a threat—it’s a gift to Russia.
Strategic opportunism? No, it’s capitulation dressed as pragmatism. Letting Trump “try and fail” risks lives, sovereignty, and global stability. Ukraine can’t afford to be someone’s PR stunt.
-
I didn't choose where Putin decided to invade. Next time I'll ask him to invade Mongolia so muricans can flex those cargo planes. Europe doesn't need America to invade Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, you do that on your own. Tell me more about how USA succeeded in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan!
Shuffling papers is what intelligence is. So thanks for confirming!
Keep on selling out your allies and moving goalposts.
-
How, in your mind, would Ukraine go about stopping Trump from doing whatever he's going to do in Saudi Arabia, and what would be the costs?
-
Europe’s mediocrity isn’t Putin’s fault, and pretending it is just proves my point. Logistics aren’t about flexing; they’re about capability, something Europe conveniently lacks when it matters. If you want to compare Vietnam or Iraq, at least acknowledge the difference: America acts, Europe dithers.
Intelligence? Shuffling papers isn’t intelligence; it’s bureaucracy masquerading as strategy. Your “moving goalposts” jab is ironic when Europe’s entire playbook is redefining failure as resilience.
Keep pretending treaties are resolve and outsourcing security is independence. The reality? Europe is a spectator in its own theater of irrelevance.
Stay mad while America keeps carrying your dead weight.
-
Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of stopping Trump or anyone else—it’s not about controlling his actions but surviving the fallout. If Trump cozies up to Saudi Arabia or Russia, Ukraine’s best move is to double down on alliances with Europe and any U.S. factions still committed to its sovereignty.
The cost? Likely higher dependence on European support and a brutal recalibration of strategy to counteract waning American backing. But the alternative—appeasing Trump’s whims—is worse. It risks turning Ukraine into a bargaining chip in his transactional games, where sovereignty is just another line item on a deal sheet.
Ukraine’s survival hinges on resilience, not waiting for foreign leaders to act rationally. Betting otherwise is playing Russian roulette—literally.
-
Ukraine doesn’t have the luxury of stopping Trump or anyone else
So why would they try? Why are you characterising them not attempting the impossible as "banking on Trump"?
Noone but MAGA has Trump as Plan A, B, and C.
Ukraine's Plan A here is dictated by happenstance: Gotta wait for Trump because he's gotta have his try. Plan B is going it alone with Europe. Plan C is their own military production. Plan D is partisan warfare. Ukraine is prepared for all of them.
-
Europe is doing just fine, and it matters now, so are you arguing against your point? America "acts" all right, like a mad dog, to lose wars left and right since ww2 (last one where Europe helped you). No wonder you got so mad that you renamed French fries, you can't win a war without France... even the independence one.
That goalpost moving is an impressive logistics show, well done! Just don't leave it in the middle east out of habit!
Keeping treaties is what gives countries power for the next treaty. And if someone can outsource security, "that makes them smart", in the words of dear leader. Are you disappointed you got tricked? Are you sad that America spends 8x the money of Russia on military and Putin still has more power?
-
Why would you think Ukraine is banking on Trump? That’s not strategy—it’s survival instinct. They’re not playing a chess game where every piece moves in perfect order; they’re scrambling to keep the board from flipping entirely.
Your "Plan A, B, C" framework assumes Ukraine has the luxury of options. They don’t. Every “plan” you outlined depends on external powers acting in good faith, which history shows is a laughable gamble. Europe might step up, but only after dragging its feet through bureaucratic sludge. The U.S.? A partisan circus.
Ukraine isn’t waiting for Trump or anyone else to save them—they’re hedging against betrayal while clinging to sovereignty. Pretending otherwise oversimplifies a geopolitical nightmare into a bad flowchart.
-
Here's the numbers per capita for those interested.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/USA is number 17. 1-16 are all from Europe with the exception of Canada, which supports Ukraine with more GDP per capita than the USA as well.
Another date set here also shows the support of the EU commission.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Which is comparatively low if we just look at the EU funding and not the individual countries.There's plenty of countries within the EU that do not give a shit at all unfortunately, such as France, Italy, Ireland, Hungary and a few others. Overall, EU gives more total support than the USA while having a lower gdp and you are entirely full of shit.
-
Negotiations without Kyiv’s seat at the table?
Really makes one question the narrative of the defensive war in favour of the proxy war between Russia and US doesn't it?
-
Odds are that Putin wants all of Ukraine
That doesn't make any sense. Russia knows it can't control Ukrainian-majority areas in any meaningful way. This war isn't a war of annexation and expansionism, it's a proxy war between Russia and the US in which Russia is showing its neighbouring countries that it won't simply allow its influence sphere to disintegrate.
-
Why would you think Ukraine is banking on Trump?
I don't. You implied they do:
Zelenskyy’s demand for Russia to retreat to pre-invasion borders is less a roadmap than a plea wrapped in geopolitical theater—knowing full well Putin’s playbook doesn’t include rewinding clocks. Banking on Trump to broker peace reeks of tactical nihilism, betting on a man whose transactional whims could pivot faster than a TikTok trend.
If you did not want to be interpreted that way, may I suggest not using language such as "reeks of tactical nihilism" right after criticising Zelensky's approach.
What he's actually doing here is framing what "success" and "failure" means for Trump's initiative, "If Trump can't get this then it was a failure". The point itself (pre-Feb-2022 lines) is rather unlikely in practical terms, it's chosen so that a) Putin will not accept it, he wants way more and b) It is not Ukraine’s maximum position, either, so that afterwards it cannot be said "Ukraine could have had peace if they were only reasonable and realistic".
There's also a reason Zelensky only talked about "Russia must withdraw to", not "Russia can keep". Sounds more like "If Russia withdraws there, we can start talking about exchanging the rest for Kursk". They're establishing the desired framing of the Trump negotiations without giving up anything, even if Trump should succeed in pressuring Putin.
Now I don't want to imply that Zelensky is running circles around both Trump and Putin when it comes to 4D chess. It's not the man, it's his whole administration. They've gobsmacked me more than once.
-
132bn Euro divided by 450m Europeans == 910 Euro per capita. Not including already decided on money which has yet to be paid out, that'd nearly be double. Also not including refugee costs.
114bn Euro divided by 335m USians == 853 Euro per capita. Vastly exaggerated as they're valuing ancient Bradleys they would have to pay to decommission at the price of buying a new, modern one, same with old ammunition. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the US are saving money by giving Ukraine weapons, there's also shipping costs etc, but it's definitely exaggerated.
-
You’re right, I misstepped by replying to my own post. Let’s chalk that up to a momentary lapse in focus rather than an intentional attempt at self-debate. But since we’re here, let’s address the substance of your reply.
The framing of Zelenskyy’s demands as “tactical nihilism” wasn’t meant to dismiss his position but to highlight the futility of relying on Trump’s erratic tendencies. You’re correct that Ukraine isn’t setting itself up for failure intentionally, but desperation often forces impossible choices.
As for the distinction between “Russia must withdraw” and “Russia can keep,” it’s a semantic shift that underscores how little leverage Ukraine has. They’re playing a losing hand with no good options, and the world’s apathy is the real indictment here.
