https://www.youtube.com/live/nNJOUy_luDM?si=Fl5VVUb-z_XgFcFN — Mikie

Lavrov is just trotting out the same old bυllshιt that everyone has heard and taken into consideration already, more than once.
Right, so, Russia is a fine democracy, and he tops it off with the old Ukraine is ruled by the Nazi Kyiv regime.
Maybe an old dog can't be taught new tricks? :) He should catch up on Shevchenko, ol' influential Ukrainian symbol or folk hero.
Stalin killed the most Slavs in the 20th century. Putin has killed the most Slavs in the 21st century. :death:

By the way, my impression is that the invasion of Iraq doesn't have many defenders, maybe I'm wrong.
Notably after the nuclear weapons threat was shown false?
One of Bush's supposed rationales was plain bυllshιt.

Markov and Kosachev comments:

Russia's answer to the proposal for a truce may not be "No", but "Yes, But". That is, to agree to the proposal for a truce for 30 days, on the condition that an arms embargo on arms supplies to Ukraine will be introduced for the same period. Moreover, the embargo must be signed by all 52 countries members of the Ramstein group. And first of all, by the countries of Europe.
Europe must support the truce in Ukraine not with words, but with deeds - an embargo on arms supplies to the conflict zone is a well-known formula in diplomacy.
More energy is needed! — Sergei Markov · Mar 11, 2025

The results of the American-Ukrainian talks in Jeddah show only one thing: the "tail wags the dog" plot performed by Zelenskyy with Trump, unlike Biden, definitely does not work.
The conditions are American, not Ukrainian. The Ukrainians agree to what they are told. And at the same time they bow and fawn - what is the formula alone worth "we will sign an agreement on resources when it is convenient for Washington"! Zelensky is in deep defense. Or, as the State Department representative put it, "Trump put Zelensky in his place."
Russia is advancing, and therefore it will be different with Russia. Any agreements (with all the understanding of the need for compromise) - on our terms, not American. And this is not boasting, but an understanding that real agreements are still being written there, on the front. Which should be understood in Washington too.
In the meantime, the most important thing is not to interfere with Russian-American negotiations with third-party comments. Let the negotiators do their job. Victory will be ours. — Konstantin Kosachev · Mar 11, 2025

If the U.S. has other agenda in mind and if war is what the U.S. wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end. — Lin Jian · Mar 4, 2025

Hate to admit it, but the Chinese foreign ministry seems to be more or less right about the fentanyl accusations. They did take the opportunity to raise threats.

Investors spy the dawn of a tectonic shift away from US markets
^{— Dhara Ranasinghe, Amanda Cooper, Yoruk Bahceli, Tom Westbrook, Samuel Shen, Elisa Martinuzzi, Richard Chang · Reuters · Mar 6, 2025}

I suppose something like this might happen. Who would Trump blame, then?

To Republicans, Conservatives, and all great Americans, Elon Musk is “putting it on the line” in order to help our Nation, and he is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! But the Radical Left Lunatics, as they often do, are trying to illegally and collusively boycott Tesla, one of the World’s great automakers, and Elon’s “baby,” in order to attack and do harm to Elon, and everything he stands for. They tried to do it to me at the 2024 Presidential Ballot Box, but how did that work out? In any event, I’m going to buy a brand new Tesla tomorrow morning as a show of confidence and support for Elon Musk, a truly great American. Why should he be punished for putting his tremendous skills to work in order to help MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN??? — Donald J. Trump · Mar 11, 2025

How many in his audience will buy that one can boycott illegally? When someone in his position rants like so, there will be people who buy it (sort of seeding/feeding the crap), so maybe a better question is what effects it will have.

As far as I can tell, Putin switched Russia to a wartime economy some time ago, in part anyway.
Maybe someone can correct/confirm or offer insights?


Russia’s War Economy
^{— András Rácz, Ole Spillner, Guntram Wolff · DGAP · Feb 14, 2023}
The Russian economy on a war footing: A new reality financed by commodity exports
^{— Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Iikka Korhonen, Elina Ribakova · CEPR · May 2, 2024}
Russia’s Wartime Economy isn’t as Weak as it Looks
^{— Richard Connolly · RUSI · Jan 22, 2025}
Exclusive: Putin growing concerned by Russia’s economy, as Trump pushes for Ukraine deal
^{— Darya Korsunskaya, Guy Faulconbridge, Gleb Stolyarov, Andrea Shalal, Frank Jack Daniel · Reuters · Jan 23, 2025}
Economic impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
^{— Wikipedia}

Just FYI, someone summarized Trump's Canada talk. Feb 24, 2025 remains a favorite among readers.

Is this Project 2025 Tracker legit? Anyone know the details?

, well, you know what they say: "Don't like the USA? Leave." ;)

, did you copy that from a meme? :D

A new trend?

Russian Deputy Proposes Renaming Black Sea to ‘Russian Sea’ (— UNITED24 Media · Jan 21, 2025)
Russia discusses renaming the Black Sea (— ФАКТИ·БГ · Jan 22, 2025)

The path Putin's Russia has taken is decidedly unfavorable, it's been covered, domestic and foreign regress both.
Something analogous could be said for Trump's US recently.
Trust gone or eroding.

I suspect this is a Johnson or Vance thing, or from someone in those circles:

Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias
^{— The White House · Feb 6, 2025}

The title might as well be read as "Promoting Christianity".

Project 2025 (Wikipedia)
Who are the Dominionists backing conservative candidates? (Northeastern University · Nov 15, 2022)

, the youtube isn't accessible from here ("The uploader has not made this video available in your country").

FYI, this one is:

Watchdogs fired by Trump raise alarms over future of independent government oversight (— Scott Pelley, Aliza Chasan, Maria Gavrilovic, Alex Ortiz · CBS · Mar 9, 2025)

Reportedly, flights from Pearson airport (Toronto, Canada) to the US were more or less empty on the weekend; they're usually bustling with students and such around this time.
Vacations canceled, refundable or not.
American liquor taken off shelves here and there (voluntarily).
Canadians have been putting properties in the US up for sale.
Seems like a trend; don't know the effects, or how easy/difficult it'll be to recover the relationship.

First, we have not given everything that Ukraine has needed, the effort hasn't been to support Ukraine so much that it could destroy Russian capability so much that Russia would accept a negotiated peace, it was give only so much, that Ukraine doesn't lose. That has been the error here. If everything would have been given then immediately, the F-16s, the long range artillery missiles, things would have been different. Biden opted not to do that. And now Trump is effectively hampering down the capabilities of Ukraine to defend itself, which just helps Russia to improve it's stance. — ssu

I'd go a bit further: there should have been a much stronger response in 2014, enough to be a deterrent. Putin took a risk, the Ukrainians were hesitant/unprepared, everyone was caught by surprise. Of course that's easy to say in retrospect; things looked different back then. (Say, what might happen if unidentified/unmarked soldiers showed up on St Lawrence Island (Alaska) or something...?)

if we can't take back territory — ChatteringMonkey

Why keep assuming so? Sure it can be taken back, and the Ukrainians are eager to. They don't want to march on Moscow, they want to throw the invaders out of Ukraine. And Hungary ain't helpin'.

, they're talking about Russia circumventing sanctions.
Trump came into the picture because he appears to want to remove sanctions.

We should spend less time worrying about Putin, and more time worrying about migrant rape gangs, drug lords, murderers, and people from mental institutions entering our Country - So that we don’t end up like Europe! — Donald J. Trump (Mar 2, 2025)

To the point:

US Senator Jeff Merkley, "Is President Trump a Russian asset?"
^{— Jeff Merkley · Mar 8, 2025 · 3m:56s}

"Asset" might be a bit vague. Not that he must be, yet there's more evidence than what Merkley brings up. There seems to be enough to warrant an independent investigation.

Business as usual I guess

How spy ring did Russia's dirty work from the UK
^{— Chris Bell, Tom Beal, Daniel De Simone · BBC · Mar 6, 2025}

America vetoes G7 proposal to combat Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers
^{— David Connett · Guardian · Mar 8, 2025}

For what it's worth:

In the KGB, control wasn't about force.

It was about influence.

The ability to walk into a room, say nothing, and still dominate the conversation.
The power to make someone believe your idea was theirs.
The skill to get exactly what you want - without them ever realising you played a role.
Successful CEOs and elite operators? They use the same tools:

• Psychological triggers
• Behavioural conditioning
• Subconscious persuasion

Most people? They don't even realise they're being played.
Senior staff meetings at the boardroom is just another battlefield.

High-stakes deals.
Mergers.
Negotiations.

Every executive move is a psychological game.
The best? They don't out-muscle their competition.

They out-think them.

They see through deception, break down resistance, and ethically shape outcomes.
This isn't theory. It's field-tested, real-world influence.
I spent years mastering human behaviour where mistakes could have had life-or-death consequences.

Now, I teach leaders how to ethically use the same strategies.

• To close billion-dollar deals.
• To command respect without demanding it.
• To turn resistance into buy-in.

The secret? Influence isn't about talking louder.

It's about understanding what moves people.

Those who master it? They rarely lose. — Jack Barsky

, if we're doing jokes, I'll just relay this one :D

Oddly though, there's been no bullying of Russia at all. Russia seems to stand apart, with no demands made of them at all. — Echarmion

I haven't come across any examples of Trump criticizing Putin. Anyone?

Busy news recently...

Russian top diplomat Lavrov praises Trump on US president’s dealings with Ukraine
^{— Lucy Leeson · The Independent · Mar 2, 2025}
Trump's stunning string of Putin-friendly moves
^{— Dave Lawler · Axios · Mar 4, 2025}
Hegseth dismisses as "garbage" critique of US stance on Russia
^{— Phil Stewart, Idrees Ali, Sachin Ravikumar, Diane Craft · Reuters · Mar 6, 2025}
Russia launches huge strikes across Ukraine as US halts intelligence-sharing
^{— Luke Harding · Guardian · Mar 7, 2025}

Someone mentioned rebranding "surrender" as "peace".
"Trump's peace" is "Putin's peace"?
It's clear enough that this would be a major victory for Putin, who otherwise could have ended up facing some (harsh) problems at home.
The Kremlin circle's responses to the Oval Office incident (Feb 28, 2025) are telling.
None of this would make the Kremlin peaceful or deterred.

, presumably in their Overton window. Can't speak for though.

We Finns understand Ukraine’s struggle for freedom and independence. Ukraine’s cause is ours. (— Alexander Stubb · Feb 25, 2025 · 8m:30s)

Exclusive: NIH to terminate hundreds of active research grants
^{— Max Kozlov, Smriti Mallapaty · Nature · Mar 6, 2025}

Some parts of the current US government want a cultural revolution (by imposition).
Maybe revolution isn't the right word.
I'm guessing they intend not to stop with putting Bibles back in schools and getting rid of homosexual marriage.

What's up with that?

Pam Bondi ends FBI effort to combat foreign influence in U.S. politics
^{— Ken Dilanian · NBC · Feb 6, 2025}

I guess the Russian Reset (2009-2013) was forgotten already?
There were smiles and handshakes and button-presses and such, four US administrations ago, roughly the same Russian administration as now, that decidedly ended with the invasion of the Little Green Men and what followed.

, another factor is that the non-MAGA'ers tend to be those that respect democracy (+ are less susceptible to conspiracy theories), and Trump did win the election after all.

:up:

Trump threatens to cut funding for schools that permit ‘illegal protests’ and vows to arrest ‘agitators’
^{— Yelena Mandenberg, Steve Frank · Irish Star · Mar 4, 2025}

, I wasn't quoting Trump, but rather you. Ya' know, parroting old Kremlin crap is kind of telling, not the best (but you did manage to attract a confirmation of sorts). ;) Anyway, nevermind, since this is now shifting to mere mudslinging.

being ethnically-cleansed — NOS4A2

Cute when echoing old Kremlin lines (again). ;)

, they didn't. They were pseudo-subsumed into Putin's Russia.

“Nyet means Nyet. Russia’s NATO enlargement Red Lines”. — NOS4A2

Ukraine also has red lines known as borders; most sovereign nations do.

Trump's relationships are transactional. What's he getting out of it? I think part of the answer is that he's clearing his desk in order to attend to China and another part is that he's trying to peel Russia away from China. Ideally, he would like Putin as an ally, but making him neutral would help too. It's quite likely that he sees Putin as a better ally than Europe. — Ludwig V

I guess he should transact away, though there's more to politics.
Backstabbing long-standing allies then means no more trust.
If he ditches NATO, moves all focus to China and there's an uptick in related activities, then he shouldn't be surprised if he's alone in case "Little green men" start appearing in Alaska or whatever.
Economics, trade, US$ dependencies, whatever, seems to be moving off, which I'm sure he'll find someone else to blame for, and his flock will believe him.

Trump has just banned all protest on college campuses, on price of jail. — Punshhh

I couldn't find that anywhere. Do you have a reference? (Not that it'd be surprising.)

I’ve just heard an interview with general Sir Richard Sherriff (ex chief of the European arm of NATO). Who has his finger on the pulse. That the Russian army is in a bad way. They are putting disabled people and teenagers onto the from line and using civilian vans and vehicles, even golf trolleys to supply them and morale is low. — Punshhh

So, this is a good time for Putin to be relieved of pressure. Trump, at least, seems to be accommodating him.

Allegedly ChatGPT regarding the Oval Office crap on Feb 28, 2025:

1. Blaming the victim for their own situation

Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering. The implication is that Ukraine itself is responsible for being occupied by Russia and for the deaths of its people.

2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’

Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights.

3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’

Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender.

4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war

Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’

5. Devaluing the victims of war

“If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to regroup and strike again.

6. Dominance tactics

Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” and “You’re not in a position to dictate to us.” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelensky is the subordinate.

7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’

Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged.

8. Projection and distortion of reality

Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelensky.

9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US

Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion.

10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance

Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.

I suppose, by the defeatist argument, South Korea has already lost to North Korea?
"Surrender now or nukes will level Seoul and other places."
(Kim Jong Un to generals: "Gather 1,000 children in Pyongyang and broadcast them playing.")

What concessions will Putin be asked to make?
So far, all the “peace talks” have been about what Ukraine must give up—territory, NATO aspirations, sovereignty. So what exactly is Putin offering?
Is he withdrawing his troops? Paying reparations? Acknowledging war crimes? Or is his big “compromise” just taking less of Ukraine than he originally wanted? — Talgat Azimov

If a guy steals your house and offers to return half of your living room, that’s not a “compromise”—that’s a hostage deal.
When one side just wants a “pause” to reload, that’s not diplomacy—that’s preparation for the next invasion.
A peace deal where only one side makes sacrifices isn’t peace—it’s surrender with better branding. — Talgat Azimov

First I've heard of the (alleged) Patrushev comment:

March 2, 2025 (Sunday)

On February 28, the same day that President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance took the side of Russian president Vladimir Putin against Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, Martin Matishak of The Record, a cybersecurity news publication, broke the story that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stop all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions.

Both the scope of the directive and its duration are unclear.

On Face the Nation this morning, Representative Mike Turner (R-OH), a strong supporter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Ukraine, contradicted that information. “Considering what I know, what Russia is currently doing against the United States, that would I’m certain not be an accurate statement of the current status of the United States operations,” he said. Well respected on both sides of the aisle, Turner was in line to be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee in this Congress until House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) removed him from that slot and from the intelligence committee altogether.

And yet, as Stephanie Kirchgaessner of The Guardian notes, the Trump administration has made clear that it no longer sees Russia as a cybersecurity threat. Last week, at a United Nations working group on cybersecurity, representatives from the European Union and the United Kingdom highlighted threats from Russia, while Liesyl Franz, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for international cybersecurity, did not mention Russia, saying the U.S. was concerned about threats from China and Iran.

Kirchgaessner also noted that under Trump, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which monitors cyberthreats against critical infrastructure, has set new priorities. Although Russian threats, especially those against U.S. election systems, were a top priority for the agency in the past, a source told Kirchgaessner that analysts were told not to follow or report on Russian threats.

“Russia and China are our biggest adversaries,” the source told Kirchgaessner. “With all the cuts being made to different agencies, a lot of cybersecurity personnel have been fired. Our systems are not going to be protected and our adversaries know this.” “People are saying Russia is winning,” the source said. “Putin is on the inside now.”

Another source noted that “There are dozens of discrete Russia state-sponsored hacker teams dedicated to either producing damage to US government, infrastructure and commercial interests or conducting information theft with a key goal of maintaining persistent access to computer systems.” “Russia is at least on par with China as the most significant cyber threat, the person added. Under those circumstances, the source said, ceasing to follow and report Russian threats is “truly shocking.”

Trump’s outburst in the Oval Office on Friday confirmed that Putin has been his partner in politics since at least 2016. “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,” Trump said. “He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia… Russia, Russia, Russia—you ever hear of that deal?—that was a phony Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, scam. Hillary Clinton, shifty Adam Schiff, it was a Democrat scam. And he had to go through that. And he did go through it, and we didn’t end up in a war. And he went through it. He was accused of all that stuff. He had nothing to do with it. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bathroom.”

Putin went through a hell of a lot with Trump? It was an odd statement from a U.S. president, whose loyalty is supposed to be dedicated to the Constitution and the American people.

Trump has made dismissing as a hoax what he calls “Russia, Russia, Russia” central to his political narrative. But Russian operatives did, in fact, work to elect him in 2016. A 2020 report from the Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed that Putin ordered hacks of Democratic computer networks, and at two crucial moments WikiLeaks, which the Senate committee concluded was allied with the Russians, dumped illegally obtained emails that were intended to hurt the candidacy of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump openly called for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails.

Russian operatives also flooded social media with disinformation, not necessarily explicitly endorsing Trump, but spreading lies about Clinton to depress Democratic turnout, or to rile up those on the right by falsely claiming that Democrats intended to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. The goal of the propaganda was not simply to elect Trump. It was to pit the far ends of the political spectrum against the middle, tearing the nation apart.

Fake accounts on Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook drove wedges between Americans over issues of race, immigration, and gun rights. Craig Timberg and Tony Romm of the Washington Post reported in 2018 that Facebook officials told Congress that the Russian campaign reached 126 million people on Facebook and 20 million on Instagram.

That effort was not a one-shot deal: Russians worked to influence the 2020 presidential election, too. In 2021 the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that Putin “authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President [Joe] Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical division in the US.” But “(u)nlike in 2016,” the report said, “we did not see persistent Russian cyber efforts to gain access to election infrastructure.”

Moscow used “proxies linked to Russian intelligence to push influence narratives—including misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden—to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration,” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded.

In October 2024, Matthew Olsen, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, warned in an interview with CBS News that Russia was bombarding voters with propaganda to divide Americans before that year’s election, as well. Operatives were not just posting fake stories and replying to posts, but were also using AI to manufacture fake videos and laundering Russian talking points through social media influencers. Just a month before, news had broken that Russia was funding Tenet Media, a company that hired right-wing personalities Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, Lauren Southern, Tayler Hansen, and Matt Christiansen, who repeated Russian talking points.

Now back in office, Trump and MAGA loyalists say that efforts to stop disinformation undermine their right to free speech. Project 2025, the extremist blueprint for the second Trump administration, denied that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election—calling it “a Clinton campaign dirty trick”—and called for ending government efforts to stop disinformation with “utmost urgency.” “The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth,” it said.

On February 20, Steven Lee Myers, Julian E. Barnes, and Sheera Frenkel of the New York Times reported that the Trump administration is firing or reassigning officials at the FBI and CISA who had worked on protecting elections. That includes those trying to stop foreign propaganda and disinformation and those combating cyberattacks and attempts to disrupt voting systems.

Independent journalist Marisa Kabas broke the story that two members of the “Department of Government Efficiency” are now installed at CISA: Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old known as “Big Balls,” and Kyle Schutt, a 38-year-old software engineer. Kim Zetter of Wired reported that since 2018, CISA has “helped state and local election offices around the country assess vulnerabilities in their networks and help secure them.”

During the 2024 campaign, Trump said repeatedly that he would end the war in Ukraine. Shortly after the election, a newspaper reporter asked Nikolai Patrushev, who is close to Putin, if Trump’s election would mean “positive changes from Russia’s point of view.” Patrushev answered: “To achieve success in the elections, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations. And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them.”

Today, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told a reporter: “The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations. This largely aligns with our vision.” — Heather Cox Richardson

If true, then treason.

, Anne Frank had "peace" :/ Freddie Knoller got peace ... Putin needs determined deterrence. Can be done without Trump, but not with defeatism and believing whatever comes out of the Kremlin without further ado. Do you think Zelenskyy should return home to the Ukrainians and the Rada with "Trump's peace"?

, "Trump's peace" is "Putin's peace", as it turns out.

Putin would walk away scot-free with no concessions, no change except no further resistance, incidentally also free to continue their modus operandi against the rest of Ukraine (like proxy or similar, somewhat deniable, Russification campaigns). Almost like invisible/absent in any peace talks or deals, though a great victory in the eyes of his domestic peers; might otherwise have turned out bad for him at home.

Trump would walk away with rights to Ukrainian resources/minerals/metals (good for Musk, incidentally). Much like Putin would be free to drain resources/minerals/metals in Donbas (plus, free of pressure, redirect efforts). Trump would have, though belatedly, ended the war he said he'd end in a day if elected.

The Ukrainians would get American workers on the ground, concessions to the Kremlin, and US$s. No (other) security guarantees though? Evidently, the US + Russia + the UK + France (+ China) couldn't provide such guarantees before, which Putin has violated since 2014; NATO plausibly could. As an aside, what could they do if some "American workers" turned out to have, let's say, ulterior motives?

I wouldn't call the deal a work of art (pun intended), especially not for the Ukrainians, and it's about them. It's fairly easy to come up with hypothetical analogies for your (whoever's) home soil, try it.

Well, maybe it's time for democracy to concede or give way to aggressive-regressive authoritarianism?

, I don't think Trump cares so much about peace, as he cares that he said he'd end the war in 24 hours if voted in.
Since that failed a month in, he needed someone to blame, anyone, and had one plan for that someone to be Zelenskyy.
No hint of admission of failure, certainly no apologizing to his voters, nothing, but instead blame the victim in the war, by any means possible that his voters might buy (just watch them amplifying it all over the place).
Trump and Vance displayed vulgar arrogance in front of everyone (some roots in Kremlin (and Netanyahu) lines). They more or less assaulted someone alone and surrounded on their turf; well, Rubio seemed to wish he was somewhere else. Circus. AP banned, Russian state media present.
It's been clear for some time that Trump's word is worthless, even though they all have to be considered carefully.
Zelenskyy is accountable to the Ukrainians and the Rada — not to Trump — and has other allies that don't ramble or turn so easily, and don't have an affinity for Putin.
Trump apparently chose to play Putin's game, which would make his voters extensions of the Kremlin. Well played, Putin.

They respect me. Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia, Russia, Russia. — Trump

What an embarrassment.