I haven't updated my analysis of the military situation in a while as there hasn't been much to update.

There has been a war of attrition and there's not even any more even any talk of sending new weapons systems (much of my previous analysis being how the "next thing" sent to Ukraine isn't going to change fundamental dynamic of a war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win in any practical analysis).

However, there has been a true break through over the last couple of days.

This could be the starting of a new phase of manoeuvre warfare.

Genuinely, what reason is there to continue fighting? What could Ukraine possibly gain that would improve their bargaining positioning?

When a war is objectively lost, it's up to the leaders of the country to bite the bullet and ensure their soldiers aren't sacrificing their lives in vain. — Tzeentch

This has been true since essentially the first few months of the war, after the withdrawal of the Northern operation, that fighting to a better bargaining position is exceedingly unlikely and it has become simply more exceedingly unlikely since then.

The answer as to why? is the money.

Not just for elites but in terms of basic economic stability as well as soldiers getting paid.

In my view, people simply got used to the new system and people dying as well as the prospects of their own death.

A terrifying mix of sunk cost fallacy and defiance.

From the day-after headlines, it seems pretty clear that Trump is going to back Putin and sell Ukraine out. Reports are circulating that Putin’s conditions for a ceasefire requiring the surrendering of territory including regions not yet under Russia’s control. I suspect Trump is going to press Putin’s case in these follow-up calls with Zelenskyy and NATO, and then accuse Ukraine of being uncooperative when they won’t go along with the terms. Marjorie Taylor Greene is already Trumpeting the view that Ukraine is the real culprit in all of this. The betrayal begins.

FYI, here's how some Russians took the Trump-Putin meeting:

Had a successful summit in Alaska...
If you read "between the lines":
1) Ukrainians and Europeans need to screw themselves now, if they have enough money and will, and the United States is no longer their helper
2) The bosses obviously coordinated the road map of events for the convergence of the two countries
3) among other things, the United States will reduce its armed presence in Europe
4) the key issues of the convergence will be large joint economic projects, perhaps the creation of a joint infrastructure fund of direct investment for this purpose, and on the Russian side the contribution will be made by frozen assets (interesting what Europeans can do about it )
5) Since Trump is not "out of control", Russia will help slowing down Israel's ambitions
Next meeting in Beijing in two weeks with a little — Michael Getman · Aug 16, 2025

Александр Рудько and how do you imagine the "destruction of the United States"? — Ola Ivanova · Aug 17, 2025

Оля Иванова Civil war, the overthrow of the elites and 50 independent states as a result — Alexander Rudko · Aug 17, 2025

Not much new I guess...

Trump could trigger a financial crisis in Russia — if he wants to — but has backed off from his threat of ‘very severe consequences’
^{— Jason Ma · Fortune · Aug 16, 2025}
Trump to back ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of peace deal
^{— Edward Helmore, Pjotr Sauer · Guardian · Aug 16, 2025}

There are two types of deal Zelensky might take. One would involve trusting Putin to honor the terms of a deal. Zelensky would be a fool to do that. If Zelensky gave away x amount of territory to end the war, Putin would simply regroup and then invade him again when he's ready. For Zelensky, the status quo is better than that kind of deal.

The other type of deal would involve UN/NATO peacekeepers to enforce the peace, and/or NATO membership. Is something like that even possible?

News is breaking that Trump is demanding that Ukraine relinquish the demand for NATO membership and recognize Russian occupation of the Crimea. I have no doubt he will sell out Ukraine to placate Putin. ‘Russia hoax? What Russia hoax?’ Putin can be well pleased with his American candidate.

Zelensky won't go for that though. Trump could put leverage on him to try and force him to take the deal: deal or you don't get more mliitary aid from us.

That’s what worries me. I said he’d betray Ukraine back in February. Rubio is now saying ‘both sides have to make sacrifices.’ As if Ukraine has not sacrificed enough already.

Rubio is now saying ‘both sides have to make sacrifices.’ As if Ukraine has not sacrificed enough already. — Wayfarer

As if Putin has made ANY sacrifices towards peace...



On the contrary, Trump is making things quite easy for him!

The betrayal begins. — Wayfarer

What betrayal? Ukraine was never an ally of the US or NATO.

FYI, here's how some Russians took the Trump-Putin meeting:

Had a successful summit in Alaska...
If you read "between the lines":
1) Ukrainians and Europeans need to screw themselves now, if they have enough money and will, and the United States is no longer their helper
2) The bosses obviously coordinated the road map of events for the convergence of the two countries
3) among other things, the United States will reduce its armed presence in Europe
4) the key issues of the convergence will be large joint economic projects, perhaps the creation of a joint infrastructure fund of direct investment for this purpose, and on the Russian side the contribution will be made by frozen assets (interesting what Europeans can do about it )
5) Since Trump is not "out of control", Russia will help slowing down Israel's ambitions
Next meeting in Beijing in two weeks with a little
— Michael Getman · Aug 16, 2025
Александр Рудько and how do you imagine the "destruction of the United States"?
— Ola Ivanova · Aug 17, 2025
Оля Иванова Civil war, the overthrow of the elites and 50 independent states as a result
— Alexander Rudko · Aug 17, 2025

Not much new I guess...

Trump could trigger a financial crisis in Russia — if he wants to — but has backed off from his threat of ‘very severe consequences’
— Jason Ma · Fortune · Aug 16, 2025
Trump to back ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of peace deal
— Edward Helmore, Pjotr Sauer · Guardian · Aug 16, 2025 — jorndoe

From what I understand, micro blogging social media without making a points is now against the forum rules.

It's just weak sauce to cite other people without even making it clear if you agree, if so 100% or then 99% or whatever. The people you micro-blog aren't here to debate.

For Zelensky, the status quo is better than that kind of deal. — RogueAI

If the status quo is Ukraine cannot sustain the war of attrition then Ukraine will continue not only lose people and material but at an increasingly disproportionate rate to Russian losses, as well as continue to lose more territory and face even higher demands from Russia later to compensate the further fighting.

So, the status quo is not better for Zelensky if there is no pathway to victory or even a stalemate; the status quo simply kicks the can down the road making the situation even worse for both Zelensky and the vast majority of Ukrainians.

I have no doubt he will sell out Ukraine to placate Putin. — Wayfarer

As was predicted since the beginning of the war by parties here and many other places of sober analysis.

This was the inevitable end result ever since Russia weathered the economic sanctions (which was always extremely likely, as sanctions have never in themselves caused states to collapse in addition to Russia preparing for this very war for 8 years, if not longer, and also being backed by China who can easily substitute anything the West provided; perhaps not as efficiently in all areas but having a pump that's 39% efficient rather than 41% efficient isn't going to collapse the entire economy).

What's remarkable is that there is zero introspection all these years later on part of the people that cheerleaded Ukraine continuing to fight, for Zelensky to rebuke negotiations in every possible way (that this made him strong and intelligent), and having no plan other than to repeat that Russians should go home, and when someone points out those aren't responsible actions and just get large numbers of Ukrainians killed for no militarily achievable objective, just retort some version of "But PUTIN!"

Rubio is now saying ‘both sides have to make sacrifices.’ As if Ukraine has not sacrificed enough already. — Wayfarer

As has been explained for many pages, international relations is not a game of brownie points.

You either have the leverage or you don't.

Russia has far more leverage not just militarily over Ukraine but also in the international system, and so (as I and many other predicted) once the West, in particular the US, has squeezed all the value out of Ukraine (from the elite perspective of wanting a new cold war to dramatically increase arms spending) it's going to want to throw Ukraine under the bus and cut a deal with Russia. Russia simply has significant leverage that the West, in particular the US, can't simply ignore indefinitely.

Now if the situation that Russia has the leverage to get what it wants (i.e. Russian elites) in this situation at the expense of Ukraine is lamented and equally lamented that US also uses it's leverage to get what it wants at the expense of plenty of people, then definitely I agree the whole nation state system is lamentable.

However, for those that cheerlead US imperial actions as "rational self interest" and "benevolent hegemony" and even explain how using Ukraine to damage the Russians was a smart US imperial move and so on, it is really difficult to stomach all these "dastardly Putin!" and fist shaking in the air type of comments, is simply incredibly hollow.

On the contrary, Trump is making things quite easy for him! — ssu

Ukraine is losing, Trump likes winners.

But the end game here has nothing to do with Trump. US was never going to risk nuclear war over Ukraine (they were always clear about that: No WWIII), and so the policy was to simply prop Ukraine up the time that was useful to do (mostly to lock-in a new cold war and the EU buying US natural gas, also buy up all the assets on the Ukrainian side), and once Ukraine starts to lose to cut them loose.

The only legitimate militaristic pro-Ukraine stance would have been sending Western troops into Ukraine to "standup" to the Russians beside their Ukrainian "friends". People who have no problem with the idea that's simply not possible, as the Biden administration explained many times "for reasons", have been cheering on the exact scenario that is playing out.

The Biden administration laid it out many times: no armour, no escalation, no WWIII, no boots on the ground, no missiles, no planes, no strikes in Russia ... i.e. no pissing off the Russians too much, and what would piss them off too much is losing. The policies that did change is always after Ukraine capacity was destroyed to an extent that changing the police, such as sending the missiles, would not place the Russians at greater risk of losing (would annoy them, for sure, but not the extent of losing).

What's the end point of such a police? Ukraine losing a war of attrition "calibrated" to lose (to use the RAND terminology), and once that becomes clear blame everything on Ukrainians: they wanted to fight and we didn't force them, and they just didn't want it bad enough and those clever Russians did, and we've even been paying for everything so they should be grateful, and so on.

Prediction made by me and others years ago.

The only counter-point to the prediction that Ukrainian "friends" won't fare any better than Afghani "friends" was that Ukraine and the US were more culturally similar (aka. white) and so the US wouldn't possibly leave Ukraine hanging like they left the Afghanis (when their brown, let them down, was the attitude that explained why what happened to Afghanistan was not a cause for concern).

But the end game here has nothing to do with Trump. US was never going to risk nuclear war over Ukraine — boethius

Lol.

Putin won't risk nuclear war over Ukraine. His nuclear rambling has already paid well off for him.

And this has to do everything with agent Trumpov and how mesmerized he is with Putin. At least now Trump says something negative of Putin, but he still claps for the dictator.

The only legitimate militaristic pro-Ukraine stance would have been sending Western troops into Ukraine to "standup" to the Russians beside their Ukrainian "friends". — boethius

The good pro-Ukrainian stance would have to give them everything they needed right from the start and then also to take seriously the threat that Russia poses and truly start building up European military industry right from the start. To be afraid of Putin's nuclear rattling was the failure. This game has been played in the Cold War already, hence full commitment on your ally fighting the enemy is the correct thing to do.Trump's increase of military spending to 5% has been one of the good things that idiot has done.

Shouldn't you be doing something about the Child Trafficking Operation We Should All Do Something About? Why are you wasting time quislinging for Russia?

Lol.

Putin won't risk nuclear war over Ukraine. His nuclear rambling has already paid well off for him. — ssu

Well then why not just give Ukraine a bunch of nukes to end the war 3 years ago?

Why all this "no one wants world war 3 man" from the Biden administration to explain not sending in armour, then some armour nut not tanks, then not sending missiles, then missiles beyond a certain range, and not sending fighter jets, and limiting what can be struck and so on.

What exactly is your argument? That Putin's nuclear ramblings have paid off in terms of deterring the West from the kinds of military support that may end up in a loss? I.e. that what I explain is exactly what you're explaining, but somehow my version of the exact same thing is laughable?

Of are you saying that Putin manage to fool Biden and most if not all of the Biden administration, and even boethius of the philosophy forum, but he hasn't fooled you? You remain unfooled and would have not hesitated to send Ukraine whatever it wants because Putin's bluffing with his nuke talk?

And what ramblings? Putin rarely talks about nuclear weapons.

The deterrent effect here is having the nuclear weapons, not so much speaking about them.

And this has to do everything with agent Trumpov and how mesmerized he is with Putin. At least now Trump says something negative of Putin, but he still claps for the dictator. — ssu

Ok, sure, but then why didn't saint Biden end the war by giving Ukraine nuclear weapons or then all the good conventional stuff from day 1?

What's the sense of your argument? The current state of the war in Ukraine was determined during the Biden administration. Ukraine and its "friends" have been openly talking about their man power problem and man power disadvantage for a while now, which is not solved by more weapons even if the US had them in abundance (which they simply do not seem to have).

The weapons production problem, again, is the result of the Biden administration who could have executed a crash program of shells, and drones and other arms production to ensure Ukraine was flush with weapons while it still had a solid and substantial military core of soldiers.

A production program which, had it been executed at the start of the way, would have probably actually resulted in an actual stalemate with the Russians, but instead Ukraine has weathers under a shell disadvantage of 7-10 to 1 (in addition to being disadvantaged in every other weapons system, such as glide bombs, drones, armour and so on).

Western talking heads prattle on about Russia's arms production advantage, all while boasting of the West's economic might dwarfing Russia in GDP (when it's important to make the point that Russia is a backwrter and not a "player"), but don't put two and two together and come to the obvious conclusion that it's a Western policy choice to not produce enough arms for Ukraine to significantly hamper the Russians.

The good pro-Ukrainian stance would have to give them everything they needed right from the start and then also to take seriously the threat that Russia poses and truly start building up European military industry right from the start. — ssu

Thank you, we're in agreement.

The problem with the Western policy is that it is designed intentionally to not pose a serious threat to the Russians. It is duplicitous manipulation essentially optimized to harm Ukraine as much as possible to achieve other ends.

That is my issue with the Western policy since the start of the war, since the declaration that armour won't be sent to Ukraine, then sending a bit, then a bit more, and then keeping up the drip feed of weapons just enough for Ukraine to get decimated in it's war fighting capacity and demographics.

The reason the West was never serious (long before Trump) about supporting Ukraine is because had they done so, applied the military leverage at their disposal, that would have forced a resolution, as everyone would see Russia is being pushed to nuclear weapons use and then too many people act out of self preservation for such madness to continue.

But the goal was never to resolve this war in a way to help Ukraine under any plausible definition of the word help.

To be afraid of Putin's nuclear rattling was the failure. — ssu

It is not a failure in reasoning to be afraid of nuclear weapons.

This game has been played in the Cold War already, hence full commitment on your ally fighting the enemy is the correct thing to do. — ssu

A game played to terrifyingly close to full strategic nuclear exchange (with far more nuclear weapons than exist now).

And again, post-Soviet Ukraine is not and has never been an ally of the US or NATO or any country in NATO.

The error in reasoning that has occurred is expecting a non-ally to do ally type of things.

For if not an ally what is Ukraine? A useful tool by definition.

Trump's increase of military spending to 5% has been one of the good things that idiot has done. — ssu

It really depends on how the money is spent and also the broader impact on the economy.

None of the pro-NATO people here are concerned about how much money is spent by the West year on year and that somehow critical weapons systems run out and can't be replaced at even a small fraction of what the Russians can produce?

↪boethius Shouldn't you be doing something about the Child Trafficking Operation We Should All Do Something About? — RogueAI

I am. There are two ongoing investigations (that I know of): one by the ministry of health and another by a corporation involved. I finished compiling all the private information I have about it yesterday.

Why are you wasting time quislinging for Russia? — RogueAI

I (and many others; I'm by no means alone in saying so) predict 3 years ago that Ukraine will go the way of our Afghani "friends" and be propped up the time they are useful and then cut loose as soon as they aren't.

There's never any counter argument presented to this prediction, just endless moralizing about how bad Putin is and how great Zelensky is.

The prediction comes true as even the pro-Zelenkiytes here seem to agree, and yet there is zero self reflection on what this cheerleading for Zelensky has accomplished these 3 years.

And even now, to point out facts (such as the pattern the US has of abandoning their "friends" once no longer of use, or that Russia is a lot bigger than Ukraine in size and population, and the policy is clearly to drip feed weapons to Ukraine precisely so there is nothing "serious" that threatens the Russians and so on) is somehow even now pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.

I'm the only one here that advocated for sending troops into Ukraine, as that would very likely force a peace settlement and if done in a sensible way with sensible diplomatic options on the table would be less likely, not more likely, to escalate to nuclear weapons use. The end result would have been super likely a new security architecture to ensure peace going forward (what Russia wanted and so even entertaining the idea was "Putinistic") and far, far less Ukrainian dead and damage to Ukraine as a nation.

Of course I also explained that's not an option even being considered by Western politicians and talking heads, because helping Ukraine isn't the goal! They straight forwardly inform us the goal is to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. That's not what "friends" do, much less allies.

This whole 1 million Ukrainian dead saga is a lesson in actions speak louder than words. Doesn't matter what the West says, if they aren't going to send their own troops to a fight then it's because the issue doesn't matter that much to them; and both politicians and the vast majority of regular people in the West would all say without hesitation since the war began that of course none of their own soldiers should be sent to Ukraine. The conclusion therefore should be that clearly this issue of Ukrainian sovereignty simply doesn't matter much to the West and they shouldn't be relied on to "do whatever it takes" and deliver on other empty promises.

Seems Zelenkskyy played his hand very well in the Oval Office meeting. Media is reporting that he even got a laugh out of Trump - very difficult thing to do, and probably as significant as getting a sign-off, given Trump's character.

if they aren't going to send their own troops to a fight then it's because the issue doesn't matter that much to them — boethius

You don't think the prospect of a general European war against the country with the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet might be a consideration?

Remember when Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons for Security guarantees?

It don't go so well.

:up: to Melania if the reports are accurate:

Melania Trump Letter to Putin Handed Over in Alaska (— Newsweek · Aug 16, 2025)

Trump

• cut tracking of kidnapped Ukrainian children
• blocked aid approved by Congress
• disbanded sanctions enforcement
• opposed oil price cap at G7
• paused intelligence sharing to Ukraine
• voted against a UN resolution condemning the aggression
• provided Putin a boost in Alaska, red carpet too
• re-confirmed his odd affinity for Putin

Something's off, but what? Personality quirk or something?


Artwork by Alesha Stupin

I have to say that it's somewhat amusing to witness the response to this collective reality check. :lol:

As Nietzsche said, a man's worth can be determined by how much truth they can tolerate. This forum appears to be capable of tolerating very little.

It is not a failure in reasoning to be afraid of nuclear weapons. — boethius

But it is to think that nuclear deterrence doesn't work is wrong.

Nuclear powers keep their nuclear deterrence as the last defence and WILL NOT escalate recklessly with another nuclear power. Just look at Pakistan and India. These nuclear armed powers have now had two military conflicts under their belt when both sides have been armed with nuclear weapons.

In fact, the posturing between NATO and Russia here is a case example: The US / NATO got through the message that if Russia would use tactical nukes in the conflict with Ukraine, NATO air power would attack Russian units and targets in Ukrainian territory. Notice what here was absent: any attack on Russian strategic bases like in the Kola Peninsula etc. Such attack would be actually a huge escalation. The declared limited conventional response was credible enough, even if using nuclear weapons would severely undermine Russia's war (as China wouldn't like this escalation).

I myself have assumed that if Russia really would want to send a message with nuclear weapons, likely they would simply make an underground nuclear test at Novaja Zemlya. This would be observed, would create a panic and a media frenzy, but wouldn't lead to a military response from NATO.

Seems Zelenkskyy played his hand very well in the Oval Office meeting. Media is reporting that he even got a laugh out of Trump - very difficult thing to do, and probably as significant as getting a sign-off, given Trump's character. — Wayfarer

Quite funny when Trump didn't find at first the Finnish President who was sitting in front of him. Trump starts to show his age.

But yes, the Ukrainian president as Ukraine has the backing of Europe. Will that be enough, we'll see.

, that makes it 20 years before the new tsar broke their own law along with the agreement you mention.
Add Trump's Crimea Declaration of 2018, and whatever.
So, rules out the window, and orange-flavored appeasement?
Doesn't look promising.

Anyway, there's this tedious list of oddities on Trump and Putin's relationship.
Trump wrote "STOP" to Putin, and "CRAZY" about Putin, on his platform, and then...? Back to the old buddy-appeasement.
Bizarrely, after one of Medvedev's ramblings, Trump sent two submaries.
Mentioned list of oddities, Fiona Hill, various Kremlin (and a higher number of other Russian) comments/reactions, volte-faces like the above — taken together — is evidence to suggest that Trump has a hole in his understanding, or something.

The Trump circus has seen some incompetence.
RFK Jr might be the clearest example.
Witkoff is another (via upolitics, via thedailybeast, Niall Ferguson via instagram or facebook; via cnn or tass).
...

I have covered a lot of diplomatic negotiations since becoming a journalist in 1978, but I have never seen one when where one of the leaders — in this case Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky — felt the need to thank our president about 15 times in the roughly four and a half minutes he addressed him with the press in the room. Not to mention the flattery that our other European allies felt they needed to heap on him as well.

When our allies have to devote this much energy just to keep the peace with our president, before they even begin to figure out how to make peace with Vladimir Putin; when they have to constantly look over their shoulder to make sure that Trump is not shooting them in the back with a social media post, before Putin shoots them in the front with a missile; and when our president doesn’t understand that when Putin says to Ukraine, in effect “Marry me or I’ll kill you,” that Zelensky needs more than just an American marriage counselor, it all leads me to ask: How is this ever going to work? ....

Putin’s punishment for this war should be that he and his people have to forever look to the West and see a Ukraine, even if it is a smaller Ukraine, that is a thriving Slavic, free-market democracy, compared with Putin’s declining Slavic, authoritarian kleptocracy.

But how will Trump ever learn that truth when he basically gutted the National Security Council staff and shrank and neutered the State Department, when he fired the head of the National Security Agency and his deputy on the advice of a conspiracy buffoon, Laura Loomer, and when he appointed a Putin fan girl, Tulsi Gabbard, to be his director of national intelligence? ...

Who will tell him the truth? No one.

No one but the wild earth of Ukraine. In the trenches in the Donbas, there is truth. In the 20,000 Ukrainian children that Kyiv says Putin has abducted, there is truth. In the roughly 1.4 million Russian and Ukrainian soldiers killed and wounded as a result of Putin’s fevered dreams of restoring Ukraine to Mother Russia, there is truth. In the Ukrainian civilians killed by Russian drones at the same time that Trump was laying out the red carpet for Putin in Alaska, there is truth.

And the longer Trump ignores those truths, the more he builds his peace strategy — not on expertise but on his hugely inflated self-regard and his un-American anti-Westernism — the more this will become his war. And if Putin wins it and Ukraine loses it, Trump and his reputation will suffer irreparable damage — now and forever. — Thomas Friedman, NY Times (Gift Link)

You think Orbán ^{(2024, 2025)} and Fico ^{(2024, 2025)} are down with trading Hungary and Slovakia for Ukraine?
A territory swap, an exchange, perhaps accompanied by something else?
"The moment of truth, sir, and sir." :)
The Kremlin circle might, maybe; well, surely they would consider it, neighbors right in the middle of Europe (yummm), though still at some distance from Transnistria and the coveted Odesa.
Trump might eye a few Mar-a-Hungakia business opportunities (Putin can remove obstacles :up:).
Hungary and Slovakia would be leaving the EU and NATO, presumably.
The rest of Europe might object; well, to Russian forces moving in at least.



Now back to the real world, apologies for the distraction.

Some of these predictions are (still) accurate enough, others are somewhat off:

Vladimir Putin Could Be Laying a Trap (via yahoo)
^{— Jonathan Lemire · The Atlantic · Aug 12, 2025}

People trying to "boycott" peace out of sheer spite for Trump is probably one of the funniest things I've seen on this forum. :rofl:

I have to say that it's somewhat amusing to witness the response to this collective reality check. :lol: — Tzeentch

That's what you call your wish list now?

People trying to "boycott" peace out of sheer spite for Trump is probably one of the funniest things I've seen on this forum. — Tzeentch

Shouldn't you too? Trump is Biden 2.0 , the Blob, and other imbecile buzz words of yours and your brain doubles.

As Nietzsche said, a man's worth can be determined by how much truth they can tolerate. This forum appears to be capable of tolerating very little. — Tzeentch

You mean the dude who died crazy?

People trying to "boycott" peace out of sheer spite for Trump is probably one of the funniest things I've seen on this forum. :rofl: — Tzeentch

That's what you see?

Not supporting the Ukrainians trying (despite getting sh¦t all over again and again), wrestling free from their old northern shadow, standing up against invasion + land-grabbery, sovereignty of Ukraine, calling out Kremlin aggression + bullsh¦ttery, defending democratization, resisting Russification (≠ Russophobia) + Russian regress/oppression/colonization, whatever ...?

Hm.

People are inadvertently teaming up with the exact republican and neocon human garbage that lobbied for this war from 2008 onward.

The hawks want war, and even though the people generally don't, they are so hysterical they'd rather see no end to the war than to see Trump succeed at peace - it's not the widows, orphan and the piles of dead that keep them awake at night; it's the mere chance of Trump getting a prize.

The story people tell themselves about Ukraine deserving a better deal is just a coping mechanism to wash their hands, because a better deal is not coming and things will only get worse. Doubly so if the US ends up using failed peace talks as an excuse to walk out on the conflict altogether - Ukraine is really screwed then, and will probably not survive as a country.

The story people tell themselves about Ukraine deserving a better deal is just a coping mechanism to wash their hands, because a better deal is not coming and things will only get worse. Doubly so if the US ends up using failed peace talks as an excuse to walk out on the conflict altogether - Ukraine is really screwed then, and will probably not survive as a country. — Tzeentch

So this clown and others kept repeating in this forum since the beginning of the conflict that the Europeans are slavish vassals of the US, that the US foreign policy is the BLOB everywhere (from Ukraine to Israel, from Biden to Trump), that Zelensky is a corrupt clown put there by the BLOB to screw Ukraine AND still the US can't get what they want from their slavish vassals and corrupt clowns?!!!

What these imbecile claims keep predicting is in reality nothing more than a theory of the INTENTIONS behind plausible but still uncertain consequences of certain political decisions made by involved parties. And interpret everything in light of these alleged intentions no matter what the actual facts are.
They found a way to connect whatever fact to such evil intentions, those of the Great Satan. And yap about it. As simple as that. Pardon, as imbecile as that.

Meanwhile: "Dramatic Rise in Republican Support for Ukraine"
https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/dramatic-rise-republican-support-ukraine

"Hours Ahead of Meeting Putin, Trump Calls Kremlin’s Closest Ally"
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/world/europe/trump-belarus-leader-call-putin.html

https://x.com/BelarusMFA/status/1956374401642865068

"Lukashenko says not going to run for reelection"
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/113157/

What's the orange president cooking in Belarus?

, you've repeated that already and have already gotten responses. As to my comment, should I take that as a "Yes" + a "No", then?

How public lying can work:

Feb 27, 2014 · Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War) (— various via Wikipedia)

Feb 26, 2019 · From 'Not Us' To 'Why Hide It?': How Russia Denied Its Crimea Invasion, Then Admitted It (— Carl Schreck · Chizhov, Putin, Shoigu · RFE/RL)

Feb 20, 2022 · Moscow Has No Plans for Aggression, Has Never Attacked Anyone In Its History, Kremlin Spokesman Says (— Ilya Tsukanov · Peskov · Sputnik)

Feb 24, 2022 · Russian invasion of Ukraine (— various via Wikipedia)

Plausible deniability or unactionability for a while, until exposed or otherwise unfeasible, just long enough.
I guess there's no accountability for such lying, apart from distrust perhaps.
(The domestic audience is a bit more puzzling.)
In this case, all on Putin's watch.