The Trump Putin Summit..

[stryder]

Using Ukraine as a proxy in your own national revenge is immoral.

People make their own decisions, I don't have my hand up anyones asse. Not like some State operators or their Dictators.

You're letting Ukrainians die while you're unwilling to commit Brits to the war effort.

You've really got to let this delusion about everyone being a "lefty" go.

Like it or not, the UK is largely a lame duck. When is the last time a UK move had any significant influence on international events?
Russia also called Obama a lame duck.

Lame ducks can still shit on a parade.

---

Apparently Democrats think you're supposed to make concessions before any talks about possible concessions: https://youtu.be/RbGGwD3HwFk?si=ItHNkxbmxaH9lshZ&t=163

---

Putin admits he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been president.

Of course he wouldn't of invaded if Trump was president at the time, they've likely had a deal on for a while sharing intel which goes against the grain of everything.

Why do you think the Russians got caught with their pants down during that Kursk offensive that Ukraine pulled... Ukraine didn't share any intel outside of Ukraine at the time or ask the US about what they thought, they just did it.

[Yazata]

Putin and Trump just talked about their meeting. Alot of platitudes and ass-kissing without anything of substance being mentioned.

President Trump couldn't very well announce a ceasefire or a peace agreement without talking to Ukrainian President Zelensky first and getting agreement from him.

This meeting with Russian President Putin was intended to hear what Russia's concerns and goals are direct from Putin. Why did he order the 2022 attack? What is he trying to accomplish by continuing the war now? Zelensky wasn't included because the meeting wasn't intended to be confrontational, but more of an information gathering occasion and a chance for Putin and Trump to (just maybe) come to trust each other a little.

Now Trump has to talk to Zelensky in a non-confrontational setting and do the same. The challenge is to find a compromise solution that gives both of them most of what they want. And to convince them that the benefits of ending the fighting outweigh the fact that all of their more maximalist demands won't be met. Ukraine won't ever become a Russian satellite state like eastern Europe during the cold war. But Ukraine won't get back all of the areas that Russia currently occupies or become part of a military alliance (NATO) that threatens Russia.

I think that the biggest remaining problem is figuring out what kind of security guarantees will satisfy Kyiv without threatening Moscow. The US probably can't be involved in that, but the EU and Britain might be.

My suggestion might be no foreign troops in Ukraine unless it is attacked, with a powerful European rapid-deployment force prepared to come to Ukraine's aid if it is. (It could also help defend the Baltics if Russia tries anything there.) Along with some kind of limits on foreign sales of long-range offensive weapons to Ukraine that might threaten Russia. But no limits on defensive weapons like air defense missiles, anti-tank rockets and shorter range drones that would make Ukraine hard to attack.

We hear no end of British, German and French criticism of everything the US does, so maybe it's time to see what London, Berlin and Paris do when they are called upon to do something themselves.

[confused2]

What I see (being British but only speaking for myself) is that Trump is a real estate salesman and Putin is a dictator - Putin will take the waffles and the free publicity but he isn't interested in trading real estate. Can 'Europe' do any better? Can 'Europe' in theory defeat Putin .. probably not. Can Europe in practice defeat Putin .. even less likely. Incidentally America can't win because that would be WW3 and everybody loses. Which leaves one likely winner and that likely winner knows it.

[Syne]

Using Ukraine as a proxy in your own national revenge is immoral.

People make their own decisions, I don't have my hand up anyones asse. Not like some State operators or their Dictators.

You're the one who gave that as a rationale, as if that's how you justify it.

You're letting Ukrainians die while you're unwilling to commit Brits to the war effort.

You've really got to let this delusion about everyone being a "lefty" go.

I don't care what "side" you think you're on. You've repeatedly demanded irrational things from the US that Europe won't do themselves. We should somehow attack or threaten Putin enough to kick off WWIII, but god forbid Europeans send troops to support Ukraine's waning manpower (except maybe after a ceasefire, as a peacekeeping force).

---

Apparently Democrats think you're supposed to make concessions before any talks about possible concessions: https://youtu.be/RbGGwD3HwFk?si=ItHNkxbmxaH9lshZ&t=163

---

Putin admits he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been president.

Of course he wouldn't of invaded if Trump was president at the time, they've likely had a deal on for a while sharing intel which goes against the grain of everything.

Why do you think the Russians got caught with their pants down during that Kursk offensive that Ukraine pulled... Ukraine didn't share any intel outside of Ukraine at the time or ask the US about what they thought, they just did it.

Ah, conspiracy theories. 9_9

---

Now Trump has to talk to Zelensky in a non-confrontational setting and do the same. The challenge is to find a compromise solution that gives both of them most of what they want. And to convince them that the benefits of ending the fighting outweigh the fact that all of their more maximalist demands won't be met. Ukraine won't ever become a Russian satellite state like eastern Europe during the cold war. But Ukraine won't get back all of the areas that Russia currently occupies or become part of a military alliance (NATO) that threatens Russia.

I think that the biggest remaining problem is figuring out what kind of security guarantees will satisfy Kyiv without threatening Moscow. The US probably can't be involved in that, but the EU and Britain might be.

My suggestion might be no foreign troops in Ukraine unless it is attacked, with a powerful European rapid-deployment force prepared to come to Ukraine's aid if it is. (It could also help defend the Baltics if Russia tries anything there.) Along with some kind of limits on foreign sales of long-range offensive weapons to Ukraine that might threaten Russia. But no limits on defensive weapons like air defense missiles, anti-tank rockets and shorter range drones that would make Ukraine hard to attack.

We hear no end of British, German and French criticism of everything the US does, so maybe it's time to see what London, Berlin and Paris do when they are called upon to do something themselves.

Yeah, Putin already had Crimea, so I don't see him settling for anything less than keeping Crimea and gaining Donbas... which has been my prediction all along. He has to have something to show for the loss of troops and weapons. Otherwise, he seems happy to keep waging a war of attrition, in the hopes of eventually taking all of Ukraine. Already suffering from sanctions, I'm not sure if the threat of secondary sanctions would counter-balance Russia's wartime economy... but that might be what has brought Putin to the table.

I agree, Ukraine is never getting NATO membership.

So the best case scenario I see is this. Ukraine gives up Crimea and Donbas in exchange for a security agreement with the EU (hopefully plus the UK). That agreement should commit EU weapons and troops on the ground in any future Russian aggression, EU-provided defensive weapons (like you said) and possibly peacekeeping forces, and an agreement that Ukraine cannot initiate aggression against Russia... which it had done prior to the invasion.

If Europe will actually step up... which might happen, considering Trump got a higher percent of GDP on defense spending from NATO members.

---

Can 'Europe' in theory defeat Putin .. probably not. Can Europe in practice defeat Putin .. even less likely. Incidentally America can't win because that would be WW3 and everybody loses. Which leaves one likely winner and that likely winner knows it.

Yep. Like it or not, Putin has the strongest hand to play right now.
If we're all resigned to more bloodshed, secondary sanctions might eventually sap Russia's wartime economy enough to lead to an economic attrition, but we don't really know how long that could take and if Ukraine can hold out.

[Yazata]

I'm inclined to think that taking a moral view of the Ukraine war, dividing it into good-guys vs. bad-guys, isn't helpful in reaching eventual peace.

There's a widespread view (even at the highest levels) that Putin is evil and that any compromise with evil is itself evil. The problem with that view is that it's a recipe for endless conflict, unless Russia can somehow be decisively defeated. How the moralists propose to accomplish that at acceptable cost without triggering nuclear war is a mystery.

I'm much more inclined to approach the situation in terms of what international relations theory calls 'realism'.

"Realism in politics, particularly in international relations, is a theory that emphasizes the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics, viewing states as self-interested actors seeking power and security in an anarchic system without a central authority. It suggests that moral considerations are often secondary to national interests and power dynamics."

In other words, the way to approach this isn't to conceive of it in quasi-theological fashion as good (us) fighting evil (Russia), but rather of coming to an understanding of both Russia's and Ukraine's national interests and finding some way to satisfy enough of both countries' interests to bring both to a peace agreement.

[Syne]

The problem with that view is that it's a recipe for endless conflict, unless Russia can somehow be decisively defeated. How the moralists propose to accomplish that at acceptable cost without triggering nuclear war is a mystery.

^This.

[stryder]

The problem with that view is that it's a recipe for endless conflict, unless Russia can somehow be decisively defeated. How the moralists propose to accomplish that at acceptable cost without triggering nuclear war is a mystery.

^This.

If any territory is ceded to Russia, it should be under the condition that ALL SANCTIONS are to stay in place for at least 30 years (with further reviews, as even that probably isn't steep enough), or until Russia has returned those territories to the sovereignty of Ukraine. Doing this is to make it as unattractive as possible should they try to keep the territory.

Russia must be made to pay through the nose for their treachery in regards to globalized stabilization, anything less will mean no justice and it will just be a future probably that will erupt in the future. (Perhaps not Ukraine, but somewhere else)

This also makes a statement to all countries that the annexation of territory will come at a cost if done through force, rather than negotiating the rights through peaceful diplomacy.

Anything less than this should not be acceptable within the freeworld.

[Magical Realist]

There's a widespread view (even at the highest levels) that Putin is evil and that any compromise with evil is itself evil. The problem with that view is that it's a recipe for endless conflict, unless Russia can somehow be decisively defeated. How the moralists propose to accomplish that at acceptable cost without triggering nuclear war is a mystery.

There are 165 sovereign democracies in the world. Even Russia depends on many of these other countries for trade. That's why we have sanctions as well as the option of seizing Russian assets--making invading smaller countries willy-nilly a very bad idea for your country. There comes a point when old school land-grabbing, which is the number 1 reason for most wars, becomes very bad for your country. IOW, not only immoral, but also very impractical, especially when that's the only thing a psychopath like Putin will understand..

[C C]

One item to note from the below is that a peace agreement may only hold as long as Trump is in office, though JD Vance somehow winning the next election might extend it. Of course, if Europe actually commits significant troops and equipment to defending Ukraine, then that might deter a future revival of the war.

If a peace deal is rejected, what Zelenskyy will actually need is Europe committing their own personnel to the body count of the actual conflict transpiring now. That's the only hope of Ukraine not losing the war eventually to attrition, and Russia acquiring the whole country. Putin has rejected calls from his own confidants to end the war. He tastes triumph, that military successes are accumulating for the Russians.

India is probably not going to stop purchasing fossil fuel from Russia, even if the US tariffs on their products are boosted to 500%. But the secondary tariffs might work if the US promises to replace whatever these countries are losing via their imports from Russia. However, the smell of victory may be so strong for Putin that he might simply ignore the tariffs, believing all of Ukraine will soon be in his grasp before the full effects are felt (granting that the recipients of the tariffs respond in any way at all that gives teeth to them).

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...st-11-2025

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• US President Donald Trump expressed the United States' willingness to facilitate substantive peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in an effort to achieve a lasting peace in Ukraine.
  
  
• Trump signaled that the United States would aim to return some of Ukraine's economically and strategically significant territories during the peace negotiations process.
  
  
• Trump indicated that Putin's fear of the impact of US sanctions against Russia and Russia's economic partners drove Putin to propose a bilateral summit.
  
  
• Putin's decision to reach out immediately before Trump imposed further economic restrictions against Russia or its trading partners undermines the Kremlin's ongoing narrative that sanctions have not and will not affect the Russian economy.
  
  
• Kremlin officials continue to emphasize that Russia is unwilling to compromise and remains committed to achieving its original war goals in Ukraine.
  
  
• Russian officials and media are also setting informational conditions for Russia to renege on any future peace agreement to end the war.
  
  
• Putin may try to use the prospect of US-Russian arms control talks to gain concessions from Trump about the war in Ukraine in the August 15 meeting in Alaska.
  
  
• Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups are reportedly infiltrating areas near Dobropillya (northwest of Pokrovsk), and Russian forces likely recently advanced southeast of the settlement.
  
  
• Ukraine continued its long-range drone strike campaign against Russian defense industrial infrastructure overnight on August 10 to 11.
  
  
• Russian forces recently advanced in northern Sumy Oblast and near Lyman, Chasiv Yar, Toretsk, and Pokrovsk.

[Syne]

The problem with that view is that it's a recipe for endless conflict, unless Russia can somehow be decisively defeated. How the moralists propose to accomplish that at acceptable cost without triggering nuclear war is a mystery.

^This.

If any territory is ceded to Russia, it should be under the condition that ALL SANCTIONS are to stay in place for at least 30 years (with further reviews, as even that probably isn't steep enough), or until Russia has returned those territories to the sovereignty of Ukraine. Doing this is to make it as unattractive as possible should they try to keep the territory.

Russia must be made to pay through the nose for their treachery in regards to globalized stabilization, anything less will mean no justice and it will just be a future probably that will erupt in the future. (Perhaps not Ukraine, but somewhere else)

This also makes a statement to all countries that the annexation of territory will come at a cost if done through force, rather than negotiating the rights through peaceful diplomacy.

Anything less than this should not be acceptable within the freeworld.

At this point, I doubt Russia cares about the sanctions, as they're already facing maximum sanctions and it hasn't deterred them.
Offering a concession that really isn't a concession is not how you negotiate. No one is going to fall for hiding the stick inside the carrot.

The ONLY safeguard against future aggression is EUROPE stepping up and committing troops (their own lives) to defending their own neighboring countries. More than pansy "peacekeeping forces."

Most serious people live in the real world, where they know your demands are never going to work.

---

There's a widespread view (even at the highest levels) that Putin is evil and that any compromise with evil is itself evil. The problem with that view is that it's a recipe for endless conflict, unless Russia can somehow be decisively defeated. How the moralists propose to accomplish that at acceptable cost without triggering nuclear war is a mystery.

There are 165 sovereign democracies in the world. Even Russia depends on many of these other countries for trade. That's why we have sanctions as well as the option of seizing Russian assets--making invading smaller countries willy-nilly a very bad idea for your country. There comes a point when old school land-grabbing, which is the number 1 reason for most wars, becomes very bad for your country. IOW, not only immoral, but also very impractical, especially when that's the only thing a psychopath like Putin will understand..

China is a big customer of Russian oil, and has been increasing its purchases since the start of the war. And it sounds like the West would have to subsidize oil prices for India, Russia's biggest oil customer, to stop buying. Out of Russia's biggest trade partners, you might get the Netherlands and Germany to stop, by good luck with Turkey, Belarus, and China.

IOW, Russia might not rely on the West enough to make a dent, especially during wartime, where internal production of weapons is a large driver of the economy.

I'd assume Russia has on-shored much of its assets that could be seized. We've already seized 300 billion in Russian assets that were held offshore, in Europe.
So aside from secondary sanctions (which might not work) or WWIII, we're already applying maximum pressure.

---

One item to note from the below is that a peace agreement may only hold as long as Trump is in office, ...

That's why a security agreement with the EU is needed.