Let's Drop the Partisan Knee-Jerk Reactions and Look at the Ukraine Negotiations Realistically and Fairly

[JoeB131]

No it didn't.

Um, yes it did.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1378 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Um, yes it did.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1378 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1441 was not an authorization for war. in fact, it was against the war.. by March 2003 Saddam Hussein was cooperating proactively according to Dr. Hans Blix. The US in security council never never never voted to authorize the war. They wanted Blix to finish the job which he said would take about three more months. That was the position of 60% of the American people in March 2003. Bush lied. A lot of people died and Iran was empowered because Bush lied. Even Donald Trump says bush lied. The same people who supported the invasion of Iraq now support Trump in a complete 180 reversal because they have no principles and they have no character and they do not love western liberal democracy. Ukraine is about defending western liberal democracy, and Ukraine has the best army in Europe right now. Yes, it is way better than Russias .

Russia needs Donald Trump‘s butt buddy in North Korea to send fighters into Ukraine because the Russians ain’t shit other than having more bodies to throw into the meat grinder.

 

[Delldude]

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq both happened with UN sanction.

Um, yes it did.

No it didn't.

Outside of self-defense, states can use military force pursuant to a UN Security Council Resolution. However, there is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan.

Dangerous Precedent: America’s Illegal War in Afghanistan

Osama bin Laden’s death has lead many to question the efficacy of America’s continued fighting in Afghanistan. Too often dismissed is any meaningful discussion

papers.ssrn.com

According to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva, the invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression.

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Couchpotato]

No, it was okay for the reasons I pointed out, which you clearly didn't have the intellect to understand.

Go find someone to explain the big words to you.

No, it was okay for the reasons I pointed out, which you clearly didn't have the intellect to understand.

Go find someone to explain the big words to you.

So the US and its allies were justified in invading 2 sovereign nations which posed no threat to the US its allies or anyone else for that matter because the US and its allies said it was ok. Also because an organization almost entirely funded by the US and its allies also said so. Oh did I mention the justication the US gave was a lie? That’s your argument?

 

[JoeB131]

1441 was not an authorization for war. in fact, it was against the war.. by March 2003 Saddam Hussein was cooperating proactively according to Dr. Hans Blix. The US in security council never never never voted to authorize the war. They wanted Blix to finish the job which he said would take about three more months. That was the position of 60% of the American people in March 2003. Bush lied. A lot of people died and Iran was empowered because Bush lied. Even Donald Trump says bush lied. The same people who supported the invasion of Iraq now support Trump in a complete 180 reversal because they have no principles and they have no character and they do not love western liberal democracy. Ukraine is about defending western liberal democracy, and Ukraine has the best army in Europe right now. Yes, it is way better than Russias .

Russia needs Donald Trump‘s butt buddy in North Korea to send fighters into Ukraine because the Russians ain’t shit other than having more bodies to throw into the meat grinder.

Okay, guy, the point of the matter is 1441 allowed the US and allies to use force if Saddam did not comply.

Now, we can argue about Bush's judgement (I don't think it was particularly good), but the fact is, he was on solid legal ground, given Saddam had nearly a decade to disarm and failed to prove he had.

 

[JoeB131]

So the US and its allies were justified in invading 2 sovereign nations which posed no threat to the US its allies or anyone else for that matter because the US and its allies said it was ok. Also because an organization almost entirely funded by the US and its allies also said so. Oh did I mention the justication the US gave was a lie? That’s your argument?

Well, first, it's doubtful you could argue the Taliban in 2001 was sovereign. Oh, yeah, and they sheltered the people who had just attacked us and killed 3000 Americans. You forgot about that, somehow.

Iraq, we were on more dubious legal ground, but we had spent nearly a decade trying to get Saddam to comply with agreements he made to end the first Gulf War.


Why do you hate America?

 

[Couchpotato]

Um, yes it did.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1378 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, first, it's doubtful you could argue the Taliban in 2001 was sovereign. Oh, yeah, and they sheltered the people who had just attacked us and killed 3000 Americans. You forgot about that, somehow.

Iraq, we were on more dubious legal ground, but we had spent nearly a decade trying to get Saddam to comply with agreements he made to end the first Gulf War.


Why do you hate America?

So the Taliban was at the same time not in charge in Afghanistan and at the same time responsible for something someone not under their control planned from Afghanistan?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

s, he was on solid legal ground, given Saddam had nearly a decade to disarm and failed to prove he had.

His father was on solid legal ground in 1991 with regard to UN sanctioned coalition.

His son kicked the UN inspectors out, which had he left them in, there would’ve been no invasion of Iraq because Dr. Blix would’ve removed the sanctions on Iraq.

Bush lied to the world when he said on March 17, 2003 I remember it well because he’s a Republican and he is a liar

Bysh said Iraq is concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors.

It’s impossible that Bush had intelligence that could’ve told him that because they didn’t know where to look when they went in.

Starting a war, based on a lie can never be labeled as on solid legal ground.

The correct thing to say is that bush did not invade a rack to commit ethnic cleansing genocide against the people and to seize their land and control their government forever.

That’s Putin and Ukraine. I think Bush should be a war criminal for lying but not for the same reason that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal..

The Republican Senators watching Trump do what he’s doing no better and for that they are deplorable human beings.

We should stay focused on them, spineless gutless morons and get a 60 seat majority in the Senate while we still have a liberal western democracy protecting individuals through the constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

So the Taliban was at the same time not in charge in Afghanistan and at the same time responsible for something someone not under their control planned from Afghanistan?

Except he was under their control.

What they didn't have was international recognition. before 9/11, only 3 countries recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, and all three withdrew it after 9/11.

Come on, guy, are you really comparing the democratically elected government of Ukraine to a terrorist band of thugs who took over PARTS of Afghanistan?

Stop drinking the bleach, man.

 

[Mashmont]

As of today, Russia is celebrating and Ukraine is in a panic.

Trump is clearly in Putin’s corner

What has been given to Putin?

 

[Man With A Plan]

On one side, we have many conservatives accusing Zelensky of rejecting peace and being unreasonable because he wants a permanent peace deal that includes a security guarantee and because he does not want to cede any territory. On another side, we have many liberals accusing Trump of siding with Putin and selling out Ukraine because he is not agreeing to all of Zelensky's terms. Could a realistic, fair assessment be somewhere between these two extremes?

A unilateral U.S. guarantee of Ukraine's security would be virtually de facto NATO membership. It would obligate us to go to war with Russia if Russia invaded Ukraine again. Any future U.S. military intervention in Ukraine would require us to use some NATO nations as staging areas, just as we're doing now only more so. A NATO guarantee of Ukraine's security would be de facto NATO membership. Putin fiercely rejects either option, especially the latter option, as do most average Russians.

Yet, one certainly cannot blame Zelensky for wanting some kind of credible security guarantee, given Putin's track record of violating agreements.

I am not comfortable with Trump's posturing on Ukraine, especially his idiotic statement that Ukraine started the war. However, I recognize this may be a negotiating tactic to allow Putin to save some face while denying him control of most/all of Ukraine. I certainly hope that's what it is. If Trump truly believes that Ukraine started the war, he is horribly misinformed and is peddling Russian propaganda.

I also recognize that there is strong pro-Russian sentiment in three of Ukraine's eastern provinces (Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk), and that a peace deal may need to include ceding some territory in those provinces.

A few days ago, Trump told England's prime minister that Putin was willing to agree to a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine as part of a peace deal. If that's true, that could be significant, depending on the size and duration of the peacekeeping force.

I want a peace deal that gives Ukraine long-term independence and that permanently halts Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. I would strongly prefer that Ukraine not be required to cede any territory. However, I could accept ceding some territory in the three eastern provinces if doing so permanently ended Russian efforts to topple Ukraine and gave Ukraine long-term independence.

I think it is too early to be forming firm, final opinions about the Ukraine negotiations. We need details about the various peace-deal proposals. Let's see where the negotiations go and what the final terms end up being.

If Trump does end up selling out Ukraine, I will never cease to criticize him for doing so. I have dear friends in Ukraine. But, if Trump ends up preserving Ukraine's long-term independence and puts an end to Russian interference in Ukraine, I will gladly congratulate him for doing so.

Let's be honest here...Putin's little "adventure" into Ukraine has exposed his military as not being the power it was thought to be! He'll never admit it but he needs this war to end and end soon. Ukraine doesn't have the men or weapons to push Russia out of it's territory. So we've reached a stalemate that could go on and on...killing hundreds of thousands more people. Trump may very well be the one man on the planet that can broker a deal between Putin and Ukraine.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Show us how China loans the US money.

Um, they buy our debt. Are you really that stupid? Oh wait, look who I'm talking to, yea you are. Nevermind.

Why China Buys U.S. Debt With Treasury Bonds

China and many other countries buy U.S. debt through the purchase of Treasury bonds. Here are the factors behind those purchases.

www.investopedia.com

 

[toobfreak]

I am not comfortable with

I love you Mike, you go from stating the obvious to expecting the impossible.

Ukraine makes its own destiny, not me, not you, not Trump or even Putin.

 

[Couchpotato]

Except he was under their control.

No he wasn't. Where are you getting that nonsense? The Taliban had no part in the planning or execution of 911.

What they didn't have was international recognition. before 9/11, only 3 countries recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, and all three withdrew it after 9/11.

But they were the government. Just because we don't like that they were the Government doesn't change that they were. Why do you think we get to decide who's running shit in other countries?

Come on, guy, are you really comparing the democratically elected government of Ukraine to a terrorist band of thugs who took over PARTS of Afghanistan?

The Taliban was the Government of Afghanistan which we invaded. Facts don't give a shit about your feelings. Our dislike of how they govern is irrelevant. The biggest difference between the 2 conflicts is Russia can make a credible claim that Ukraine joining NATO was a threat to their sovereignty and so they needed to invade, we couldn't make any rational argument that Afghanistan or Iraq were a threat to the US or our allies. Certainly not one that required the take over and occupation of the country for 20+ years. That doesn't make what Russia did right or ok but they can at least make an argument.

Stop drinking the bleach, man.

It is comical to see you twist yourself into a pretzel justifying the Iraq war.

 

[Foxfyre]

Holy cow. Ever heard of the Iron Curtain? The Warsaw Pact? Russia invaded and subjugated Eastern Europe during and after WW II, placing some 190 million people under Soviet tyranny. Those nations remained under Soviet domination and exploitation until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

Name one nation we "invaded" and then dominated and refused to leave for decades.

Perhaps you should be deported to Russia and get a taste of what tyranny is.

On one side, we have many conservatives accusing Zelensky of rejecting peace and being unreasonable because he wants a permanent peace deal that includes a security guarantee and because he does not want to cede any territory. On another side, we have many liberals accusing Trump of siding with Putin and selling out Ukraine because he is not agreeing to all of Zelensky's terms. Could a realistic, fair assessment be somewhere between these two extremes?

A unilateral U.S. guarantee of Ukraine's security would be virtually de facto NATO membership. It would obligate us to go to war with Russia if Russia invaded Ukraine again. Any future U.S. military intervention in Ukraine would require us to use some NATO nations as staging areas, just as we're doing now only more so. A NATO guarantee of Ukraine's security would be de facto NATO membership. Putin fiercely rejects either option, especially the latter option, as do most average Russians.

Yet, one certainly cannot blame Zelensky for wanting some kind of credible security guarantee, given Putin's track record of violating agreements.

I am not comfortable with Trump's posturing on Ukraine, especially his idiotic statement that Ukraine started the war. However, I recognize this may be a negotiating tactic to allow Putin to save some face while denying him control of most/all of Ukraine. I certainly hope that's what it is. If Trump truly believes that Ukraine started the war, he is horribly misinformed and is peddling Russian propaganda.

I also recognize that there is strong pro-Russian sentiment in three of Ukraine's eastern provinces (Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk), and that a peace deal may need to include ceding some territory in those provinces.

A few days ago, Trump told England's prime minister that Putin was willing to agree to a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine as part of a peace deal. If that's true, that could be significant, depending on the size and duration of the peacekeeping force.

I want a peace deal that gives Ukraine long-term independence and that permanently halts Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. I would strongly prefer that Ukraine not be required to cede any territory. However, I could accept ceding some territory in the three eastern provinces if doing so permanently ended Russian efforts to topple Ukraine and gave Ukraine long-term independence.

I think it is too early to be forming firm, final opinions about the Ukraine negotiations. We need details about the various peace-deal proposals. Let's see where the negotiations go and what the final terms end up being.

If Trump does end up selling out Ukraine, I will never cease to criticize him for doing so. I have dear friends in Ukraine. But, if Trump ends up preserving Ukraine's long-term independence and puts an end to Russian interference in Ukraine, I will gladly congratulate him for doing so.

The 'guarantee' Trump gave Zelensky was an American presence in the Ukraine--just people working and mining, not necessarily military presence--and that alone would prevent Russia from further aggression. Putin knows if he attacks Americans, retribution would be swift, certain, most likely deadly.

America would benefit from extracting
rare minerals and that would satisfy Ukraine's financial debt to us without draining any resources whatsoever from its economy. Further Ukraine would benefit from becoming a friendly trading partner with the USA again.

Admittedly the USA has done some dumb things in the past. Our efforts at nation building under GWB followed somewhat by Obama were nothing short of futile if not sometimes disastrous.

But Trump works to achieve win-win deals in which everybody benefits. And so far his track record on that is pretty darn good.

Zelensky's major error was in demanding that the Ukraine's 'needs' 'wants' be met and be most important. You don't negotiate that way with an America first President.

 

[Zavulon]

Are you seriously, actually saying that America is as bad and predatory as Russia? Really? Seriously?

Actually, America is much worse. Russia never (at least in the recent thousand of years) fought an aggressive war. Only self-defense (individual or collective).

 

[JGalt]

On one side, we have many conservatives accusing Zelensky of rejecting peace and being unreasonable because he wants a permanent peace deal that includes a security guarantee and because he does not want to cede any territory. On another side, we have many liberals accusing Trump of siding with Putin and selling out Ukraine because he is not agreeing to all of Zelensky's terms. Could a realistic, fair assessment be somewhere between these two extremes?

A unilateral U.S. guarantee of Ukraine's security would be virtually de facto NATO membership. It would obligate us to go to war with Russia if Russia invaded Ukraine again. Any future U.S. military intervention in Ukraine would require us to use some NATO nations as staging areas, just as we're doing now only more so. A NATO guarantee of Ukraine's security would be de facto NATO membership. Putin fiercely rejects either option, especially the latter option, as do most average Russians.

Yet, one certainly cannot blame Zelensky for wanting some kind of credible security guarantee, given Putin's track record of violating agreements.

I am not comfortable with Trump's posturing on Ukraine, especially his idiotic statement that Ukraine started the war. However, I recognize this may be a negotiating tactic to allow Putin to save some face while denying him control of most/all of Ukraine. I certainly hope that's what it is. If Trump truly believes that Ukraine started the war, he is horribly misinformed and is peddling Russian propaganda.

I also recognize that there is strong pro-Russian sentiment in three of Ukraine's eastern provinces (Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk), and that a peace deal may need to include ceding some territory in those provinces.

A few days ago, Trump told England's prime minister that Putin was willing to agree to a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine as part of a peace deal. If that's true, that could be significant, depending on the size and duration of the peacekeeping force.

I want a peace deal that gives Ukraine long-term independence and that permanently halts Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs. I would strongly prefer that Ukraine not be required to cede any territory. However, I could accept ceding some territory in the three eastern provinces if doing so permanently ended Russian efforts to topple Ukraine and gave Ukraine long-term independence.

I think it is too early to be forming firm, final opinions about the Ukraine negotiations. We need details about the various peace-deal proposals. Let's see where the negotiations go and what the final terms end up being.

If Trump does end up selling out Ukraine, I will never cease to criticize him for doing so. I have dear friends in Ukraine. But, if Trump ends up preserving Ukraine's long-term independence and puts an end to Russian interference in Ukraine, I will gladly congratulate him for doing so.

The fact is, the US cannot give Ukraine any kind of a "security guarantee." That's what the Biden/Harris administration tried to do for the last three years, and look at the results: Over 15 thousand people dead on both sides and billions of dollars wasted. Russia also controls more of Ukraine than it did before the war started.

So what would this "security guarantee" Zelensky wants with the US involve, other than sending American troops to die in Ukraine?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Same here.

Ukrainians are suffering under Russian aggression. They do not have your stupid TDS.

You seem to suffer from TDS and/or RDS.

But you are in denial that the Republican Party has sided with the invader which is way more partisan involving the lives of human beings who merely want to live in liberty and freedom and control their own destiny in the model of the United States used to stand for.

Now that is just ridiculous. Some of the most ardent backers of military support for Ukraine have been Republican members of Congress.

It is too early, and we have too little information, to reach the extreme conclusion that Trump is "siding with the invader." You do know that it was Trump who sold Ukraine Javelin missiles in 2019, right? And those missiles saved the day in the early weeks of the fighting, when Joe Biden's disgraceful response was to offer Zelensky a safe flight out of Kyiv. Perhaps you should keep that in mind.

It is not partisan bickering to accept reality that Russia invaded Ukraine and has mercilessly killed and kidnapped tens of thousands of innocent people.

Did you even read my OP??? I make it clear that, yes, Russia invaded Ukraine, and that Ukraine did not start the war. I also agree that Russia's invasion has been brutal and barbaric.

Your terms to settle this mean means nothing unless your terms come straight and direct and honestly from the Ukrainian people. We should defend them with everything they want and we got until they get their terms.

Umm, again, did you even bother to read my OP? You're acting like I support the Russian side of this issue, when I emphatically reject it. As I've mentioned before, we had a Ukrainian exchange student in our home for a school year in 2017-2018. She's like a daughter to us. We visited her and her family in Ukraine in 2019.

Go back and read what I said in the OP about the terms I support for a peace deal. Your TDS/RDS appears to have hampered your ability to read plain English. I can't fathom how anyone could read my OP and conclude that I side with Russia in any way, shape, or form regarding Ukraine.

 

[rightwinger]

What has been given to Putin?

A fractured Western alliance

 

[JoeB131]

Let's be honest here...Putin's little "adventure" into Ukraine has exposed his military as not being the power it was thought to be! He'll never admit it but he needs this war to end and end soon. Ukraine doesn't have the men or weapons to push Russia out of it's territory. So we've reached a stalemate that could go on and on...killing hundreds of thousands more people. Trump may very well be the one man on the planet that can broker a deal between Putin and Ukraine.

If his "deal" involves, "Putin gets everything he wants and I get half your mineral wealth", I'm not sure why Zelenskyy would go for that deal.

You see, here's the problem. Back in the 1950s, Repukes were able to beat Democrats over the head over "Who Lost China". (China was never really "ours" to lose.

Trump beat Biden up over the withdrawal from Afghanistan, even though it was his stupid deal with the Taliban.

But if Trump sells out Ukraine, he will deserve all the scorn he gets. He won't be able to shovel that off on anyone else.