And I don't think Trump is doing Putin's bidding, he just wants out because he thinks that is in US interests... and for that he needs to find some common ground with Putin. — ChatteringMonkey

He isn't, really?

If you listen for example to Tucker Carlson interviewing Steve Witkoff, Trump's real estate friend turned negotiator, you can clearly see the wonderful relationship Trump has with Putin. After praising Donald Trump for his wisdom, Witkoff praises Putin several times and says that Putin isn't a bad guy. Witkoff tells to Carlson how Putin has prayed for Trump and how Putin presented a picture of Trump for Witkoff to take to Trump and how moved the American President is from the action. This is nearly something like the US being a negotiator between Israel and Hamas, with the role of Hamas given to Ukraine, the problematic party here that doesn't get it and is disrespectful. And that Ukraine is totally doomed and Russia will otherwise triumph over it.

And the EU? Witkoff tells that the Europeans are simplistic, that it's just all just posture and a pose. And Wittkoff states that with 100% Russia does not want to "march through Europe". Oh, how benevolent and friendly Russia is and how it just wants peace.

Sorry, but that praising and incredible bullshit made me feel like vomiting. Yet with appeasement you do get peace. Putin can have it all. Surrender is the easiest way to get peace. That is the fucking "common ground" the US is pushing basically here.

Trump wants some lucrative deal from Russia and the Nobel peace prize and doesn't care a shit what happens to Ukraine or NATO. For Trump his personal interests are also naturally the interests of the US. He is the US president, after all.

And if you say I'm wrong, that this is the way to negotiate with Russian, then please tell why ALL the previous US negotiators that brokered the nuclear limitation talks or even the kilotons to kilowatts -agreement with the Russians said something else. They all repeat the similar story that you have to be tough as the other side, the Russians, are tough negotiators, and one shouldn't trust, and if you trust, verify.

Putin wants a neutered and broken up Ukraine and after that he will go against the EU with the help of Trump.

Europe truly needs to gets it's act together and understand what a threat the Trump-assisted Putin is for peace in our continent.

I think he says that because we keep pretending like we are not in the war, i.e. that we're only providing help "to protect Ukraines sovereignty". — ChatteringMonkey

Giving arms to a belligerent isn't the same as being in war. That we've learnt from the Cold War. He simply says this to justify his action to attack Ukraine and continue the war in Ukraine. The lie that Ukraine is ruled by Neo-Nazi drug users flies only so far.

But yes we need to find a workable security arrangement for Ukraine, I do agree with that because otherwise you have the same problem in a few years. — ChatteringMonkey

Not according to the Trump people. Putin is totally reliable for them. And that should tell us Europeans a lot.

And then what, we end up in a Weimar Germany kind of situation? You don't think that is something we should be trying to avoid at all cost? — ChatteringMonkey

I think sooner or later the paper money system will collapse. But it's not the end of the World. Debts are then either defaulted or repaid by inflation and those that do have their savings in bonds and cash will lose that wealth. But then life goes on.

Trump is not going to side with Russia in attacking Europe. They only real care about China, which is the only one who can compete. If they have an interest in Russia it's to drive a wedge between Russia and China who are helping eachother in this war.

And Russia isn't going to attack Europe on its own, because they can't.

Non of this is real.

I think sooner or later the paper money system will collapse. But it's not the end of the World. Debts are then either defaulted or repaid by inflation and those that do have their savings in bonds and cash will lose that wealth. But then life goes on. — ssu

There would be massive social and political upheaval the likes we haven't seen in our lifes... but sure life would eventually go on I guess, after all the dust has settled.

It's really something, how blinded most Europeans are by imagined threats so they can't see the real danger right in front of them.

And Russia isn't going to attack Europe on its own, because they can't.

Non of this is real. — ChatteringMonkey

They already have...

doppelganger, matrioska, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2025, 2025, ... (plus they invaded Ukraine)

And then...

Pete Hegseth Orders US Cyber Command to Stand Down on Russia: Reports (— Brendan Cole · Newsweek · Mar 3, 2025)

You know what I meant.

We need to borrow more money because COVID, because Russia, because climate change, because an aging demographic, because there is allways a reason!

And then what, we end up in a Weimar Germany kind of situation? You don't think that is something we should be trying to avoid at all cost?

If that were true, the world economy would grind to a halt. Money is only a token, people will just replace, or change the token. The Weimar situation was quite different, they basically committed economic Hara Kiri.
Yes, there would be turmoil, but not catastrophic and assets in the form of gold or property will retain their value.

Trump is not going to side with Russia in attacking Europe. — ChatteringMonkey

That attack might not take the form which it took in February 24th 2022. Please understand that the objective is to 1) destroy the Transatlantic alliance and 2) weaken the EU. With these objectives Russia gains power and influence over Europe and then can work on enlarging it's sphere of influence.

And Russia isn't going to attack Europe on its own, because they can't.

Non of this is real. — ChatteringMonkey

It is real alright. I can list just like @jorndoe the hybrid attacks now being implemented against Europe, but if don't care about that. Yet the truth is the following:

(CSIS) Russia is engaged in an aggressive campaign of subversion and sabotage against European and U.S. targets, which complement Russia’s brutal conventional war in Ukraine. The number of Russian attacks in Europe nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024, after quadrupling between 2022 and 2023. Russia’s military intelligence service, the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (or GRU), was likely responsible for many of these attacks, either directly by their own officers or indirectly through recruited agents. The GRU and other Russian intelligence agencies frequently recruited local assets to plan and execute sabotage and subversion missions. Other operations relied on Russia’s “shadow fleet,” commercial ships used to circumvent Western sanctions, for undersea attacks.

The data indicate that Russia poses a serious threat to the United States and Europe and that the Russian government, including President Vladimir Putin, cannot be trusted. Roughly 27 percent of the attacks were against transportation targets (such as trains, vehicles, and airplanes), another 27 percent were against government targets (such as military bases and officials), 21 percent were against critical infrastructure targets (such as pipelines, undersea fiber-optic cables, and the electricity grid), and 21 percent were against industry (such as defense companies). Many of these targets had links to Western aid to Ukraine, such as companies producing or shipping weapons and other matériel to Ukraine. Russia also used a variety of weapons and tactics. The most common (35 percent) involved explosives and incendiaries. Other weapons and tactics included blunt or edged instruments (27 percent), such as anchors used to cut undersea fiber-optic cables; electronic attack (15 percent); and the weaponization of illegal immigrants (8 percent).

Yes, there would be turmoil, but not catastrophic and assets in the form of gold or property will retain their value. — Punshhh

Yes, as per usual it will be the bottom and lower middle classes who will bear the brunt of it... and cost of living is already becoming a problem for them as we speak.

Add to that climate change related issues like mass migration out of Afrika or crop-failures all over the world, an ageing demographic that needs more and more care, increasing geo-political instability, technological disruptions like the AI-revolution, fossil energy-depletion etc etc... and you have a recipe for something really special!

The younger generations will have nothing to look forward to, and if history is any lesson they will not go quietly in the night. We need to give them some perspective for a future Punshhh, getting stuck in an endless war is the opposite of that.

And we used the "nuclear bomb" of financial measures against them. Of course they will use what they have against us... we are trying to break them, they are trying to break us.

We are at war, what do you expect? That Russia would just say, go ahead Europe, you can freeze all our foreign assets, throw us out of the global banking system, give financial and military support to our enemy we are at war with?

And we used the "nuclear bomb" of financial measures against them. — ChatteringMonkey

The financial measures are always overstated, because for Putin this is an existential endeavor. He will put nearly everything on the line and only won't dare to touch the pool of reservists in the Moscow and St. Petersburgh region. But ethnic minorities, they can be thrown to the meatgrinder.

We are at war, what do you expect? — ChatteringMonkey

We are not in war. In war, the missiles would be flying into the city you or I live in. That's not happening. Basically there's a term in Finnish for what we are in now: harmaa aika, basically "grey time" as these things aren't black and white. And likely Russia will also want to have the time to continue like this.

That Russia would just say, go ahead Europe, you can freeze all our foreign assets, throw us out of the global banking system, give financial and military support to our enemy we are at war with? — ChatteringMonkey

And when Russia attacks an non-aligned country that doesn't pose a threat to it, when NATO wasn't on the table (even Germany made this absolutely clear prior to the February 2022 invasion), and Russia breaks dozens of international agreements starting from the UN charter, we shouldn't respond?

Don't lose touch of what is the reason and what is the consequence here.

We can quibble over who is the cause of what, and who is in the right. You say it's all Russia's fault, I say its the result of the two reacting to eachother... whatever. I don't think it matters nearly as much as what the actual situation is on the battlefield. We are not in a position to enforce the demands we want, there's really not much more to it.

And if the support for Ukraine is dropped, Russia will surely prevail.

Yes and the US is threatening to withdraw their support if we don't coöperate to get a peacedeal. That is the situation we are in. We can either coöperate, or try to go on without them with no other plan than to just keep Ukraine afloat... which in all likelyhood means we have to accept a similar or worse peacedeal a couple of years, and thousands of lifes, later.

In the end it's not our decision to do. It's the Ukrainians that should decide how to go forward.

And I think it's totally consistent to back up Ukraine, as they know better what they can do and what they are facing. The idea of others deciding on behalf of Ukrainians is not only arrogant and condescending, but inherently dangerous.

The decision to support them or not, and under what conditions, is ours. The idea that we should just follow them, wherever that may lead us, is insane considering what is at stake.

Of course they will use what they have against us — ChatteringMonkey

The sanctions were reactionary. It's not customary to impose sanctions out of the blue. :D Getting into re-re-repetition here.

The Kremlin invaded annexed assimilated. While being bombed, Ukraine has been in the process of reforms (with results). Putin's Russia has regressed longer (press + media freedom, freedom of assembly, democracy + free fair certified elections, gone; industrialized manipulation + propaganda, implemented). Expect reactions.

Re-re-repetition indeed.

Let's all sing in choir, "It doesn't matter that you are right if you can't enforce your demands on the battlefield".

I was making a comment about indebtedness.

And I don't disagree with your comment. I didn't mean to imply that we are in the exact same situation as Weimar Germany... just that these kind of things do tend to cause serious problems.

On its own it's not necessarily the end of the world, that's right. My point is that we won't be experiencing the consequences of it in isolation, but together with all the other challenges we can expect to face in the near future, which will compound on eachother.

The decision to support them or not, and under what conditions, is ours. The idea that we should just follow them, wherever that may lead us, is insane considering what is at stake. — ChatteringMonkey

The Ukrainians haven't been supported unconditionally. (Imagine if someone like Utkin had been at the helm in Kyiv. :gasp:) Actually, there's been so much caution that some of it amounted to tip-toeing — which is playing Putin's game; recall, the Kremlin says what they want others to hear regardless; they're not omnipotent.
The Ukrainians, the victims, have said "No"; most of the world concurred. :shrug:
As mentioned, expect responses. (Do you really want to see the Ukrainians being shιt all over (again), plus open expansion of anti-democracy?)
Putin can be deterred if the Ukrainians want to. Non-appeasement + discouragement also mean wider impact.
(Meh Why do the re-re-repetitions (have to) keep coming?)

What's your point Jorndoe? That it would be bad for Urkrainians? I never claimed otherwise.

We have been supporting them unconditionally in rhetoric only yes, and probably never really had the intention to go all the way. I wish we would stop the empty promisses, so as to not give Ukraine false hope, and not to hinder peace negotiations. I think it's disgusting the way we are handling it, with so much at stake either we do as we say, or we shut up.

The decision to support them or not, and under what conditions, is ours. The idea that we should just follow them, wherever that may lead us, is insane considering what is at stake. — ChatteringMonkey

So when it's your country who will need assistance, will you be then happy with allies that decide that what they can do to answer your call for article 5 assistance is to send your country bodybags, because you need those and anything else would be too "escalatory" for their own safety? After all, they have to think about their own security and not put that on line with you and your decision...

Let's just remind us what Europe has done to help Ukraine: it has given weapons assistance, financial aid and is giving refuge to millions of Ukrainians. Europe is not giving manpower as North Korea is doing. It isn't letting it's airspace or territory to Ukraine to attack Russia like Belarus is giving to Russia.

You should think first how the allies of Russia are behaving here. And just how they are left alone.

And then come the threats from Russia and all the hybrid attacks that it already is making and has made even before 2022. Against my country even before we were part of NATO.

As I've said, appeasement is not only historically, but in this situation logically it is the worst thing to do.

. I wish we would stop the empty promisses, so as to not give Ukraine false hope, and not to hinder peace negotiations. I think it's disgusting the way we are handling it, with so much at stake either we do as we say, or we shut up. — ChatteringMonkey

This is actually confusing. On one hand you argue that the promises are empty, on the other hand it seems that we should not give the promises.

So when it's your country who will need assistance, will you be then happy with allies that decide that what they can do to answer your call for article 5 assistance is to send your country bodybags, because you need those and anything else would be too "escalatory" for their own safety? After all, they have to think about their own security and not put that on line with you and your decision... — ssu

Of course I wouldn't be happy with it. And I think Ukraine has every right to be unhappy with it too. They are fighting for their survival, I don't blame them for anything. But we are not Ukraine, and we do have other things to consider then only Ukraines security.

As I've said, appeasement is not only historically, but in this situation logically it is the worst thing to do. — ssu

This only follows if we were in the same situation as with Nazi-Germany, which we aren't. Hybrid attacks are not the same as a conventional invasion.

And I'm also not saying we should keep appeasing Russia as a general strategy going forward, just that at this particular moment that makes the most sense, because our main ally who we relied on for some key military functions, isn't willing to help anymore.

This is actually confusing. On one hand you argue that the promises are empty, on the other hand it seems that we should not give the promises. — ssu

I don't see what's confusing about it. Empty promises are worse than no promises, right?

, the point was just that there hasn't been unconditional support.
Right, the deeds of the supporters haven't been on par with their words.
And then governments change, and things go up in the air (again).

Why did the U.S. shift focus from Ukrainian elections to changing Ukraine’s Constitution?

Maybe because they finally read the Constitution of Ukraine.

Previously, the thinking was: Zelensky is bad because he refuses to sign a capitulation. So, let’s replace him with a “good” candidate — Zaluzhnyi, Poroshenko, Tymoshenko, or someone else. That would require elections.

Then it became clear that no current political figure is willing to sign a capitulation either because it goes against the Constitution of Ukraine. So, the new plan: find a candidate willing to change the Constitution.

But that scenario won’t work either. Only the parliament, which represents the Ukrainian people, can amend the Constitution — and only one-third of Ukrainians are even considering the possibility of territorial concessions.

So what’s left for the Americans to do? Increase political pressure on Ukraine — which is exactly what they’re doing.

And the russians? Step up attacks at the front, intensify airstrikes and the information war — anything to trigger collapse.

But there’s one fundamental contradiction here: Russia’s strategy is to drag things out. More attacks. Delayed negotiations. More visits by Witkoff. Trump portraits, and so on. They have time until the end of the year — and they intend to use it to either break Ukraine or seize more territory.

Meanwhile, the U.S. needs speed. The “best negotiator” and “great peacemaker” has promised to end the war in 24 hours. Now, it’s becoming clear that his capitulation plan isn’t working, and he has to come up with new excuses daily — in front of the cameras and the American people.

What’s the outlook?

Once the U.S. realizes that pressure on Ukraine isn’t working, they’ll either start pressuring Russia — or walk away and dump the problem on Europe. — Валерій Пекар via Roman Sheremeta · Mar 23, 2025

Yes our involvement has been half-hearted from the start. They probably didn't really want to get involved all that much, but then they had to virtue-signal a bunch to the public that they would support Ukraine because that's what was perceived to be the right thing to do.

In many ways that half-hearted approach was probably the worst thing that could happen to Ukraine, because it encouraged them to fight on thinking they had more support then they actually were going to get.

It's this callous political calculus of our leaders, without much regard for the very real consequences, that is so infuriating.

Once the U.S. realizes that pressure on Ukraine isn’t working, they’ll either start pressuring Russia — or walk away and dump the problem on Europe. — Валерій Пекар via Roman Sheremeta · Mar 23, 2025

And if the problem gets dumped on Europe, you'll probably see the same thing happening again. Now European leaders are stumbling over eachothers feet to shout vacuous slogans like "We stand by Ukraine" and the like. But then when the time comes to actually step up, when it dawns on them what it will actually cost to help Ukraine win the war, the backpedalling usually begins... and Ukraine will probably be the victim of our halfheartedness once again.

The support is never unconditional in reality, we should be explicit and clear about that.

Of course I wouldn't be happy with it. — ChatteringMonkey

But you would be OK that actually no ally will come to help you. So what's the point of talking about an alliance?

Hybrid attacks are not the same as a conventional invasion. — ChatteringMonkey

Hybrid attacks shouldn't be tolerated. If you turn a blind eye to them, you don't have deterrence. There isn't going to be the time that you will change your posture from appeasement.

And I'm also not saying we should keep appeasing Russia as a general strategy going forward, just that at this particular moment that makes the most sense — ChatteringMonkey

:roll:

Just that at this particular moment...

Obviously you don't have any idea how deterrence works.

Yes yes, we should allways keep the war going no matter what the chances of winning are, no matter how many people will die, no matter what the strenght of the alliance is, no matter if it could escalate into nuclear war, no matter what economic price we pay... there can be no appeasement ever!

Jesus* man, can't you see how extreme your position is? What is it that makes you so imperivious to all reason on this topic, do you hate them so much?

(*still the root of all evil!)

Jesus* man, can't you see how extreme your position is? What is it that makes you so imperivious to all reason on this topic, do you hate them so much? — ChatteringMonkey

No, you truly don't seem to understand it:

Putin will stop the war, when continuing the war is possibly a worse outcome than having a peace.

That's it.

Putin could stop the war when he wants! If Putin now says that "OK, we'll have a cease-fire", you think Ukraine would say no? Of course not! Ukraine is OK for a cease-fire. They have shown their willing to accept a cease-fire. It's their call, Ukrainians have to decide that. Russia isn't bombing your country, so why on Earth would you make the decisions on behalf of Ukraine?

Why cannot you get this? You seem to have no understanding how Russia and it's military doctrine works at all.

If you start with your the attitude: "We have to appease now Russia", then you haven't any credible deterrence whatsoever. Never, in anything. Because Russia isn't even pushing your country much. If you appease them now, you will appease them anytime.

At worst, it's like if your country would be attacked, then you "allies" would say to you: "Do not fight! Do not defend yourself, but listen to the attacker what they want and accept that, because that would be better for us."

That's what you are proposing.

For example, do you negotiate with terrorists? At some time, yes. Do you tell after a terrorist attack, "Oh, we will fight them a bit until we negotiate with them" or even say "These terrorists have killed our civilians, so we have to negotiate with the small group now and listen to what they want". So when next time ISIS or somebody attacks people in your country, please urge the people then to listen to the demand of ISIS. That's not what you do.

I think your problem is that for you these conflicts are just forever-wars, something that you can choose to participate and if you participate in something, there's no negative issues. And you can later just withdraw. That might be the problem here.

No, you truly don't seem to understand it:

Putin will stop the war, when continuing the war is possibly a worse outcome than having a peace.

That's it.

Putin could stop the war when he wants! If Putin now says that "OK, we'll have a cease-fire", you think Ukraine would say no? Of course not! Ukraine is OK for a cease-fire. They have shown their willing to accept a cease-fire. It's their call, Ukrainians have to decide that. — ssu

Putin has no reason to stop because he is winning. A cease-fire is tactically not advantageous for the party that is winning, because it gives the losing party the time to regroup and/or rearm, and thus level the playing field. What could persuade him to consider a deal is pressure from the US and to a lesser extend from Europe. That is why I would push for a peace-deal now while the US is still involved.

If the US goes, you lose a lot of the possible pressure you can put on them, which means you will have to turn the war around without help from the US, to maybe get a peacedeal. I haven't seen anything that gives me reason to think we can do that. There seems to be no plan at all for how to achieve that.

Russia is winning as it stands. They also produce more military equipement than we do at the moment, and can still rely on the help of China, North-Korea and Iran. To me that sounds like a losing proposition. And if you eventually lose the war anyway, if Ukraine gets overrun, then you really don't have any deterrence left anymore.

If you start with your the attitude: "We have to appease now Russia", then you haven't any credible deterrence whatsoever. Never, in anything. Because Russia isn't even pushing your country much. If you appease them now, you will appease them anytime. — ssu

You keep repeating this, but I don't see how this follows. Why would appeasing them now mean we will never have any credible deterrence? Deterrence is a function of military strenght in the first place. We are weak now without the US, but if we build up military strenght as we plan to do, we could have credible deterrence in a few years. Why not?

At worst, it's like if your country would be attacked, then you "allies" would say to you: "Do not fight! Do not defend yourself, but listen to the attacker what they want and accept that, because that would be better for us."

That's what you are proposing. — ssu

No it's not the same because Urkraine is not an ally, we have no alliance with them.

I think your problem is that for you these conflicts are just forever-wars, something that you can choose to participate and if you participate in something, there's no negative issues. And you can later just withdraw. That might be the problem here. — ssu

I said many times why I think continuing the war would be a bad idea if the US leaves the war, i'm not going to repeat myself again and again.

Putin has no reason to stop because he is winning. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree. I would just say that he's not losing. It's a stalemate, actually. But that's OK for Putin.

A cease-fire is tactically not advantageous for the party that is winning, because it gives the losing party the time to regroup and/or rearm, and thus level the playing field. What could persuade him to consider a deal is pressure from the US and to a lesser extend from Europe. That is why I would push for a peace-deal now while the US is still involved. — ChatteringMonkey

And you said it yourself: "What could persuade him to consider a deal is pressure from the US and to a lesser extend from Europe."

Again this is my point. But the fact is that there's not much pressure if any, and some could make the argument that the US is putting pressure only on Ukraine, which it can pressure. The US doesn't want to pressure Russia, Putin isn't a bad guy (as Witkoff explained to us).

Threat's of new sanctions if the partial cease-fires aren't held. That's the pressure? Where's the part of putting real pressure on Russia?

Russia is winning as it stands. — ChatteringMonkey

Not exactly. It's been a stalemate. But if the US shuts down intel, ceases weapon shipments and at worse, starts to bully European countries that are supporting Ukraine, then Russia will prevail. That's the reality.

Why would appeasing them now mean we will never have any credible deterrence? — ChatteringMonkey

It's the messaging you send. Deterrence is messaging. It's the whole point. When you falter already when there is no actual or only little pressure, who would think you would have this turn around when a push comes a shove, or a blow? Already you are caving in.

You see, something like a treaty alliance or defense of the sovereignty or territory of a nation isn't credible, if you start with "but in this issue we will cave in or that territory we won't defend". That will just break the credibility. That will hurt morale: if you don't stand up for this, what else won't you stand up for? And if you haven't noticed, Europeans are compared already to parasites on this forum by some and the resentment and condescending attitude towards us is already evident in the Trump team.

No it's not the same because Urkraine is not an ally, we have no alliance with them. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, if Ukraine would be in NATO, we would already be in WW3. Yet where do you think the alliance will be once Putin has carved up what he wants from Ukraine and has a puppet regime in Kyiv? Or should we then say Kiev, as in the Soviet times.