| Non-motoring > Putin & Trump | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: bathtub tom | Replies: 39 |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 09:28
Putin & Trump - bathtub tom
|
|
I thought Putin had been convicted of being a war criminal. Doesn't that mean he should be arrested as soon as he steps foot in Alaska? It seems Putin and Trump could be intent on carving up Ukraine for their own mutual advantage. I wonder if the rest of the world will ever wake up? |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 09:56
Putin & Trump - CGNorwich
|
|
The problem is not about waking up. The problem is that militarily and economically the USA is the most powerful country in the world. It gets what it wants whatever other countries might wish. However unpleasant that may be that’s how it is. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 10:16
Putin & Trump - Zero
|
| The arrest warrant was issued by the International Criminal Court. The USA is not a party to the ICC and does not recognise its jurisdiction |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 11:51
Putin & Trump - Terry
|
|
Putin and Trump will stitch up an agreement which will probably involve Ukraine sacrificing some or most of the territory already taken. What Europe wants carries little weight - the EU is a collection of relatively small states lacking coherent military leadership or capability. Zelensky will probably want to reject any agreement - it is most unlikely to lead to full Russian withdrawal. He will be between a rock and a hard place. Trump may withdraw support from Ukraine claiming his negotiated peace was achievable but rejected. Trump can claim he has not failed, even if the end result is continued conflict. Without US support in arms supply, even if funded by Europe, there is little prospect of Ukranian success. Question - will Zelensky have no choice but to accept the proposals anyway - accepting territorial losses rather than possible annihilation. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 12:01
Putin & Trump - zippy
|
|
>>What Europe wants carries little weight - the EU is a collection of relatively small states lacking >>coherent military leadership or capability. Hmmm. Perhaps the idea of a joint European armed forces wasn't such a bad idea after all? |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 13:49
Putin & Trump - Manatee
|
|
Europe certainly needs its own foreign policy. It needs to engage independently with Russia. To have its own foreign policy it must have its own defence arrangements. The US has and will sell anybody down the river when it serves its own interest. And when Europe builds up its defence it should buy European. Trump wants Europe to spend 5% on defence because he wants us to spend it with the US. Didn't Kissinger say it's dangerous to be an enemy of the US, but fatal to be its friend? My guess is that Trump and Putin will agree to end the war. Europe might bluster but it will make no difference. Trump knows it's not winnable so he'll end it. If I can work this out, so can Putin, who will probably get Russia a good deal. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 20:13
Putin & Trump - Kevin
|
|
>Europe certainly needs its own foreign policy. It needs to engage independently with Russia. It was European foreign policy that got us into this mess. Schroeder and then Merkel engaging independently with the Kremlin and ignoring the warnings that Russia was deliberately creating a situation where European countries would soon be heavily reliant on Russian gas. Dangerously so. >To have its own foreign policy it must have its own defence arrangements. For decades European politicians have abused their membership of NATO to reduce defence spending, fully expecting the US cavalry to ride over the hill and rescue them if the brown stuff hit the fan. You can't blame Trump for disabusing them of that notion. >The US has and will sell anybody down the river when it serves its own interest. Like every other country would when push comes to shove. >And when Europe builds up its defence it should buy European. >Trump wants Europe to spend 5% on defence because he wants us to spend it >with the US. Where do you get that ridiculous idea from? Trump simply told them that the free ride is over and they need to pay their fair share of membership costs. He hasn't told them what or where it should be spent. >My guess is that Trump and Putin will agree to end the war. Europe might bluster but it will make no difference. Trump said at a Whitehouse press conference that he won't be making a deal on Friday. I guess we'll have to wait and see. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 15:27
Putin & Trump - James Loveless
|
|
I am outraged at the prospect of Russia, the aggressor, led by a de facto dictator accused of war crimes and bent on turning the clock back to the days of the USSR, benefiting from naked act of aggression against a sovereign state whose existence and borders were recognised years ago by other countries, including Russia. And all because Trump either lacks the balls to deal with Putin, or has been taken in by his rhetoric, or Putin has some hold over him. It stinks to high heaven. Those of us who saw how electing Trump would be a destabilising threat to the rest of the world have unfortunately been proved correct. Morals, a sense of justice and the rule of law are of no interest to him. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 15:57
Putin & Trump - smokie
|
|
Yet as I understand it he is going from strength to strength among many of his supports. I bet Rachel must be eyeing the windfall revenue he is raising through tariffs, though we know this is flawed in so many ways. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 17:17
Putin & Trump - CGNorwich
|
|
bet Rachel must be eyeing the windfall revenue he is raising through tariffs Effectively Trump has imposed a Value Added Tax albeit called a Tarrif. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 17:20
Putin & Trump - Zero
|
|
>> bet Rachel must be eyeing the windfall revenue he is raising through tariffs >> >> Effectively Trump has imposed a Value Added Tax albeit called a Tarrif. The american public has yet to realise it is indeed a form of VAT, and they will be paying it. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 16:03
Putin & Trump - Manatee
|
|
There was apparently a mediated agreement ready to go that would have ended the invasion within little more than a month. Allegedly, what Russia wanted was a neutral Ukraine i.e. that it should not join NATO, autonomy for the disputed Eastern territories, and a lease on Crimea. Ukraine turned it down, again allegedly, because the US told them to. Boris Johnson probably didn't help with his reassurances of support to Zelensky. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 16:29
Putin & Trump - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> There was apparently a mediated agreement ready to go that would have ended the invasion >> within little more than a month. I'd not heard of the mediated agreement or it's possible terms or US advice to not agree. There is however little doubt that what you say about Ukraine/Nato etc is right. I think the intention of Putin's 'Special Military Operation' was to either force Zelensky to agree or to eject him and out a Russian puppet in his place. To be honest if you look through the Russian prism, you can understand why the prospect of Ukraine in NATO might have discombobulated them. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 17:16
Putin & Trump - Manatee
|
|
It's mostly on Wikipedia, apart from the bit about the USA telling Ukraine to reject it. >>if you look through the Russian prism, you can understand why the prospect of Ukraine in NATO might have discombobulated them. No doubt they would say that the USA wouldn't be very happy if Russia put some nuclear missiles on Cuba. Or Mexico joined the Russian Federation. I am most certainly not in favour of appeasement but the first resort should always be diplomacy; war obviously the last. In between comes walking softly but owning a big stick. The problem with that is that your neighbour might one day have a bigger stick and then if you aren't on good terms you could be in trouble. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 21:42
Putin & Trump - sooty123
|
|
>> To be honest if you look through the Russian prism, you can understand why the >> prospect of Ukraine in NATO might have discombobulated them. >> Ukraine only really wanted to join nato after they were invaded. If they weren't so paranoid they wouldn't have so many of their neighbours rushing to join national, see Sweden and Finland. Their actions bring on what they claim to try and avoid. Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 12 Aug 25 at 21:45
|
|
Sat 16 Aug 25 11:56
Putin & Trump - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Ukraine only really wanted to join nato after they were invaded. If they weren't so >> paranoid they wouldn't have so many of their neighbours rushing to join national, see Sweden >> and Finland. I thought I read somewhere that their Constitution, perhaps by an amendment, provided for NATO membership as an objective. There also seemed to be a lot of will they/won't stuff both ways in the months leading up to the invasion. |
|
Sat 16 Aug 25 12:19
Putin & Trump - sooty123
|
|
. There also seemed to be a lot of will they/won't stuff >> both ways in the months leading up to the invasion. >> What does this mean? More broadly putin's action push more countries to nato, he's too stupid to see it though. |
|
Sat 16 Aug 25 18:55
Putin & Trump - Zero
|
|
>> I thought I read somewhere that their Constitution, perhaps by an amendment, provided for NATO >> membership as an objective. There also seemed to be a lot of will they/won't stuff >> both ways in the months leading up to the invasion. Quote "the assertion that the West has sought to ‘drag’ Ukraine into NATO needs to be examined. This argument was made by President Putin, who justified Russia’s aggression against Ukraine by maintaining that if Russia did not act, Ukraine would have been “drawn into NATO”. This view is shared by Realist scholar John J. Mearsheimer, who writes in his Foreign Affairs article entitled ‘Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault’ that NATO expansion is “the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West”. NATO membership was a central strategic goal of Ukraine during the Kuchma and Yushchenko administrations. Euro-Atlantic integration first became a formal goal of Ukraine in May 2002 when the then President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma publicly stated that Ukraine aimed to pursue NATO membership. Viktor Yushchenko who succeeded Kuchma as president in 2005 also made clear his aspiration to NATO membership for Ukraine by signing an application for NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at NATO’s Bucharest Summit in April 2008. In an interview with Times of London in November 2008, Mr. Yushchenko stressed his commitment to strengthening cooperation between NATO and Ukraine by saying that “I am sure that the ball is not on the Ukrainian side of the field, Ukraine has done everything it had to do. We are devoted to this pace. Everything else is an issue of political will of those allies who represent NATO.” NATO, however, chose not to offer Ukraine a MAP at the Bucharest Summit on the basis of “questions still outstanding pertaining to [Ukraine’s] MAP application”. This demonstrates that NATO did not seek to ‘drag’ Ukraine into the Alliance. On the contrary, Ukraine approached NATO. The administration of President Viktor Yanukovych that came to power in 2010 overturned the pro-Western policies pursued by the preceding Yushchenko government. In June 2010 the government of Viktor Yanukovych adopted a bill excluding the goal of joining NATO from the country’s national security strategy and committing Ukraine to a non-aligned policy. NATO respected Ukraine’s decision and carried on working with it on reforms in the existing framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, in accordance with the wish of the Ukrainian government. On his visit to Ukraine in February 2011 the then NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stressed that NATO does not press Ukraine to join any military-political block and respects the country’s non-allied status." End quote. The real fear of Putin was that Zalenski was elected (Putin maintains the previous government that had started to lean towards Russia was "overthrown") on the manifesto to apply for EU membership. The real fear that a prosperous country outside his sphere of influence would cause discontent within his own autocratic, essentially dictatorship, country. Ukraine could be considered more Russian in history and ethnicity than most of the current version of Russia. Last edited by: Zero on Sat 16 Aug 25 at 18:56
|
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 17:13
Putin & Trump - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> I am outraged at the prospect of Russia, the aggressor, led by a de facto >> dictator accused of war crimes and bent on turning the clock back to the days >> of the USSR, benefiting from naked act of aggression against a sovereign state whose existence >> and borders were recognised years ago by other countries, including Russia. >> >> And all because Trump either lacks the balls to deal with Putin, or has been >> taken in by his rhetoric, or Putin has some hold over him. >> >> >> So how should he deal with Putin? Put boots on the ground in Ukraine? That might not end too well. The only outcome now is going to be an unsatisfactory one, and it is a matter of ending it on the best terms Ukraine can get. And a lesson to people like Corbyn, this is what happens when you give up your nuclear weapons. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 17:17
Putin & Trump - Zero
|
| Putin is going to smooth talk trump, tell him what he wants to hear, then carry on doing exactly what he was doing before. Trump is too stupid and egotistical to realise he is being taken for a chump. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 17:34
Putin & Trump - Manatee
|
|
>> So how should he deal with Putin? Put boots on the ground in Ukraine? That >> might not end too well. Dead American soldiers would not be a winning position for Trump. >> The only outcome now is going to be an unsatisfactory one, and it is a >> matter of ending it on the best terms Ukraine can get. Yes. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 17:40
Putin & Trump - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The only outcome now is going to be an unsatisfactory one, and it is a >> And a lesson to people like Corbyn, this is what happens when you give up your nuclear weapons. Open question but would a nuclear armed Ukraine have nuked Moscow with all the consequences? I'm not seeing Spain, Germany or Italy quaking in their boots for lack of nuclear arms. Ukraine's issue is proximity to Russia and insistence it must join NATO. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 18:18
Putin & Trump - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> >> Open question but would a nuclear armed Ukraine have nuked Moscow with all the consequences? >> >> I'm not seeing Spain, Germany or Italy quaking in their boots for lack of nuclear >> arms. >> >> >> I doubt if Putin would be reckless enough to take on a nuclear power, once a nations sovereignty is threatened who knows what they might resort to. And Spain, Germany and Italy are under the NATO umbrella. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 18:23
Putin & Trump - Zero
|
|
>> I doubt if Putin would be reckless enough to take on a nuclear power, once >> a nations sovereignty is threatened who knows what they might resort to. And Spain, Germany >> and Italy are under the NATO umbrella. The nuclear armed powers are, perversley, the ones furthest and therefore safest from russian territorial expansion. Would one of the two (discount the states currently) use nukes* to aid a nato country? *strategic |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 18:43
Putin & Trump - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> >> The nuclear armed powers are, perversley, the ones furthest and therefore safest from russian territorial >> expansion. Would one of the two (discount the states currently) use nukes* to aid a >> nato country? >> *strategic >> I don't know any more than the Russians do. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 18:55
Putin & Trump - zippy
|
|
>>Re NATO and the nuclear umbrella.... I think General De Gaulle had a point when he said that he said something like he didn't think the USA would risk New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington DC for Paris, London, Bonn, etc. After Ukraine gave up their weapons - a huge mistake in hindsight, I am surprised that even more countries haven't gone done the nuclear weapons route - though no doubt Germany, Japan and South Korea amongst others could probably put a program together quite quickly. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 18:47
Putin & Trump - Terry
|
|
Ukraine is of crucial interest to Europe, particularly those states vulnerable in Eastern Europe. It is of little conseqence to the US - geographically, militarily, economically or politically. Their engagement may reinforce their status as the global super-power, and to a lesser extent in support of their European NATO allies (who have consistently underfunded defence). The EU is an economic bloc with some power and influence. Leadership is tortuous and relies upon consensus. Politically and militarily it is fragmented with national self-interest at its core. Brexit now means the UK alone has very little clout - it has an economy about 10% of the size of the US. Europe +/- UK has zero influence on Putin, and limited influence on Trump. That Trump actions are motivated by self interest and those of the US should be no surprise, whether we like it or not. Realistically Ukraine will lose territory in any ceasefire/settlement. The only residual issue is the security that a reduced Ukraine can rely upon in the future. It will need a lot more resolve than that attaching to the Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994 by US, UK, and Russia, which provided assurances to Ukraine in exchange for its denuclearization. All rather depressing. Reflects the sad reality of a European and US failure to support Ukraine on the annexation of Crimea in 2014, reinforced by an absence political or economic support in the years following to discourage further inroads by Russia. |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 19:01
Putin & Trump - Manatee
|
|
>> Europe +/- UK has zero influence on Putin That is clearly not true unless Europe wants it to be. Apart from the nukes, Russia is a s---hole country, to use Trump's nomenclature. Economically, EU + UK economies are 10 x the size of Russia's and the Russian armed forces now barely exist (so are no better than the UK's) |
|
Tue 12 Aug 25 22:27
Putin & Trump - Terry
|
|
>> >> Europe +/- UK has zero influence on Putin >> >> That is clearly not true unless Europe wants it to be. Apart from the nukes, >> Russia is a s---hole country, to use Trump's nomenclature. >> >> Economically, EU + UK economies are 10 x the size of Russia's and the Russian >> armed forces now barely exist (so are no better than the UK's) Guessing at Putins working assumptions: Neither US or Europe will put troops on the ground whilst conflict is confined to Ukraine. Losses sustained mean that Putin is unlikely to expand territorial ambitions as his military machine must by now be seriously compromised - manpower and equipment. US and Europe have provided just enough support to prevent Russia overwhelming Ukraine. To avoid an escalation risk it is unlikely they would now provide a material attack capability. The UK and France nuclear capability makes a medium/long term assault on western Europe unlikely. The old soviet states could come under threat as a provocation to test NATO resolve - whether there would be a meaningful or shambolic response is an open question. So Putin can completely ignore a European response to whatever happens between he and Trump. Unless directly threatened Europe will not do other than it is currently doing - making lots of worthy noise, being the conduit for equipment and funds. |
|
Sat 16 Aug 25 11:20
Putin & Trump - sooty123
|
| Unsurprisingly looks like trump just kicked the can down the road. |
|
Sat 16 Aug 25 12:22
Putin & Trump - Manatee
|
|
>> Losses sustained mean that Putin is unlikely to expand territorial ambitions as his military machine >> must by now be seriously compromised - manpower and equipment. >> I'm not sure but I suspect Putin's ambition remains to annex the whole of Ukraine. If he was prepared to drop hands and keep what he has gained there is nothing to stop him making that offer, with strings attached to negotiate with - dropping if sanctions, trade deals, sharing Greenland, whatever. But he hasn't. |
|
Sat 16 Aug 25 12:14
Putin & Trump - Manatee
|
|
Simple. The US needs to be prepared to give Ukraine the tools if Trump wants to get Putin to withdraw, and Putin needs to know they'll do it. But Trump has a very odd view of the world. He can put the boot on Putin's throat if he wants and the more effectively he does that the greater the likelihood of peace breaking out. Instead he says to Putin "We are the number 1 country in the world and you are the number 2". Laughable. It's a country with an economy smaller than ours whose armed forces now hardly exist. Trump could not only assert control but could humiliate Putin which would soon see him deposed but might make him dangerous. Unlike Trump, Putin is not mentally deficient. He isn't going to start a nuclear war over this if Trump gives him an off ramp. But stopping the war and leaving Ukraine as a viable sovereign country is a minimum requirement. Trump always says he has all the cards. Here, he does. But for some reason he won't or can't play them. Putin has him utterly bamboozled, just maybe pinned by blackmail. Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 16 Aug 25 at 12:15
|
|
Sat 16 Aug 25 19:05
Putin & Trump - Zero
|
|
>> Simple. The US needs to be prepared to give Ukraine the tools if Trump wants >> to get Putin to withdraw, and Putin needs to know they'll do it. There will be no ceasefire or peace of any kind on the assumption Putin will withdraw. Wont happen, too much face to lose, too many bodies, a broken army, and ridicule at home and the world stage. Ceasefire/peace will only happen if lines are drawn where they stand now. The west could, if they so desired to put boots on the ground and reinforce, stop the Russian advance as it stands and draw up the ceasefire. Last edited by: Zero on Sat 16 Aug 25 at 19:05
|
|
Sun 17 Aug 25 23:45
Putin & Trump - Fullchat
|
| If they give up territory to Putin as part of the ceasefire then they should insist that joining NATO is part of the deal. |
|
Mon 18 Aug 25 09:27
Putin & Trump - Bromptonaut
|
|
That would be a red line for Russia I think. Some sort of guarantees from Europe and hopefully US will be the best they can get. EU membership however shouldn't be off the cards. |
|
Mon 18 Aug 25 11:25
Putin & Trump - James Loveless
|
|
I see Trump is now saying it's up to Zelensky to end the war. Seems to me Trump is setting him for failure, so he can avoid blaming Putin (who he said, before the Alaska debacle, would suffer severe sanctions if he didn't agree to a cease-fire), make some sort of financial deal with Russia and walk away from the Ukraine war, saying he did his best. He is implying Zelensky needs to agree to most of what Putin is demanding, which will never happen. Trump knows he's not going to come out of his failed attempt to end the war well and is positioning himself to spin it to limit the fall-out. Last edited by: James Loveless on Mon 18 Aug 25 at 11:26
|
|
Mon 18 Aug 25 13:58
Putin & Trump - CGNorwich
|
|
Trump could indeed end the war tomorrow if he imposed sanctions on Russia and promised Ukraine unlimited military support. He would probably get the Nobel Peace Price he craves. Why he won’t do this is a mystery but I think it’s pretty obvious Putin has him under his thumb. There is almost certainly some pretty damming stuff in the hands of Putin |
|
Mon 18 Aug 25 20:16
Putin & Trump - Terry
|
|
What direct sanctions of any real consequence could the US could deploy - empty rhetoric!. Indirect sanctions are possible - penalise those who do trade with Russia. No more thoughtful a strategy than Trumps tariffs debacle - economically illiterate with unknown outcomes. Highly unlikely US or Europe will consider direct involvement in the conflict. It is a vote loser - sending our lads to die in someone elses war. We are all very aware of what happens by getting involved in conflicts with no exit strategy. None want the risk of real escalation. Whether Putin has anything on Trump is unsubstantiated speculation. Harsh reality - without a ceasefire/peace agreement, the most Trump will do is continue to provide weapons to keep Ukraine in the game. The death toll continues to rise. Ukraine and Russia should make concessions to end the conflict. Second harsh reality - the West (US, Europe and Ukraine) are concerned for loss of life, moral issues etc. Putin seems to have no such concerns - the end justifies the means. Ukraine will have to sacrifice land already lost +/- a few bits at the edge. Putin will do little. A lasting peace relies upon Europe and US guarantees - perhaps promise with an intent to unilaterally change later - eg: send European troops in for joint "exercises" All very unpleasant - but the probability of a full withdrawal to previously agreed borders etc etc is completely naive no matter how much resolve is shown by Trump and Europe. |
|
Mon 18 Aug 25 20:31
Putin & Trump - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> All very unpleasant - but the probability of a full withdrawal to previously agreed borders >> etc etc is completely naive no matter how much resolve is shown by Trump and >> Europe. >> Couldn't agree more. Once Russian troops crossed the border they were there to stay unless Ukraine could force them out, and that was never likely. |
|
Mon 18 Aug 25 23:46
Putin & Trump - smokie
|
|
While I agree that's the likely outcome it really isn't at all fair on Ukraine and more so the Ukranian population. Poor old Zelensky is in a no-win situation. I do hope it resolved quickly though, and I suppose like it or not Trump could reasonably claim some credit in enabling it. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
