Russia must withdraw its troops to February 2022 line, Zelenskyy says
-
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.
-
I don't think that Russia would be giving up Crimea in any case, regardless of who's in the Whitehouse. The Donbas is a different question, they probably would've been prepared to give them back in whole or in part in negotiations, but I don't think Crimea would've ever been up for negotiations.
-
In pre-2022 positions, Crimea could be strangled; it's difficult to supply. Unfortunately, 2022 borders are only likely to be restored by negotiation, with US help unlikely, and not military success.
-
fuck putin!
-
this was was always going to end with Russia taking a large chunk of Ukraine. there was some collective delusion for a while that it wasn't because of strong state war propaganda
but Russia is always going to care more about Ukraine than the US. It's their neighbor who they have more or less controlled directly or indirectly for hundreds of years.
US support was always limited and self-interested. Just like every time US hypes up some international ally to inevitably discard them. Remember the Kurds? I'm guessing Taiwan is the next one going forward
-
Yeah, all of those "disgruntled citizens" starting a coup in eastern Ukraine with russian equipment were later confirmed to be Russian mercenaries.
In the end it all comes down to this: Russia will attack any country that was allied with them, but now wants to move away from that.
-
Also not including refugee costs.
To put that into perspective: Germany alone pays 5.5 - 6 billion € annually to support the 1.1 million Ukrainian refugees, that's additionally at least 65€ per capita in Germany
-
Based on downvotes people don't like getting told it
-
Zelenskyy knows that Europe does not have the money or political will to see this through if the US backs off. Realistically this is a discussion between the US and Russia, with Europe and Ukraine being a peanut gallery. Without Russia, no war. Without the US, no Ukraine.
-
I think the downvotes were for the thinly veiled jab you threw in at the mods.
-
Not according to Putin, who has stated multiple times that Ukraine isn't really a country and Russia owns it.
“Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.” Since then, Putin has repeated similar claims on many occasions. As recently as February 2020, he once again stated in an interview that Ukrainians and Russians “are one and the same people”, and he insinuated that Ukrainian national identity had emerged as a product of foreign interference."
-
I wish.
We would much prefer you walk into the woods and scream where nobody can hear you.
