-->
@Lemming
As well as appeasement encouraging aggression by other countries.
Peace through strength.
When Europe decides it wants to have peace, they will get a strong military.
As well as appeasement encouraging aggression by other countries.
Nuke who? Another country with nukes?
a lot of Vance's comments were aimed at previous Biden/Democrat administration and their handling of the war(like how we will conduct diplomacy better because dems fumbled diplomacy), they were purely made for domestic conservatives audience. But Zelensky is a tard who just cant read the fucking room and had to take baits not even aimed at him, because huh huh look at me I am the main character and the defender of the free world and all that. Literally all he had to say is just repeat Starmer's point and try to get Trump to at least commit a US air force presence security guarantee, that all he had to fucking do
Why do people not understand realpolitik?
This minerals deal was a backdoor scheme to pull Ukraine under the US's security umbrella almost immediately. To get around the fact that Ukraine has ZERO legal path to NATO membership before 2040, at the earliest?
NATO has rules. Its an organization with a charter, bylaws, etc. UKRAINE CANNOT JOIN. Not until it is no longer in a military conflict, and all of its border disputes are settled with treaties. And then a ten year waiting period.
NATO countries are NOT ALLOWED to have troops in Ukraine, simply by virtue of being members of NATO, while Ukraine is in a military conflict with disputed borders.
Ergo, there is ZERO possibility of any troops from NATO countries being stationed there before 2040, IF EVER.
So how could the US find a way around all of these limitations that we can actually protect Ukraine from future Russian invasion?
Diplomatic-legal chicanery: have US-domiciled companies running businesses that are considered vital to the national security interests of the US operating inside Ukrainian borders.
That way, if Russia considers future invasions, the USA can pre-empt the Russkies and say "our national security interests are at stake, so we would consider any such action on Russia's part an act of war against the US".
So this deal would have given Ukraine an IMPLICIT security guarantee from the USA itself. Not even weak-willed NATO, but the USA. And from day 1; not 10 years after all military conflicts are ended and all border conflicts have come to a legal conclusion.
Because Ukraine CANNOT have an EXPLICIT security guarantee.
Yet Trump figured out a way around all of this. Found a way to get Ukraine under its security umbrella. Almost immediately, in fact, if Ukraine wanted it:
- declare a ceasefire;
- get the US mineral deal signed;
- make a peace with Russia; and
- US companies with national security goals go in
"Don't tell us what to feel, you are in no position to dictate to us how to feel"My favorite quote.
Khrushchev was right.“We will take Americawithout firing a shot. We do not have to invade the U.S. We will destroy youfrom within”. - Nikita Khrushchev 1956I think it's underestimated how much leeway America has to screw up and not collapse. The country survived some pretty awful leaders, slavery, the Jim Crow era, Civil War, and basically throwing money in a hole every year. Some things are too big to fail easily.
Ukraine's military can not defeat Russia's military no matter how much outside funding they get
What I decided, is that I feel terribly embarrassed for America, by that meeting.
Zelensky left that room with his head held high and has the world behind him.
There's a sleeping beast stirring in Europe.
What is your sad little life on this website
That's what everyone thought about Germany in the 1930s.
I would think it is in America's interest for Russia to be made weaker, rather than let them absorb Ukraine and become stronger?