President Trump

[Scott]

I feel that this paragraph in this article says it all, about Crazy Trump.

A reliance on bullying, intimidation and underhanded dealing — the hallmark of his entire career; its apparent successes rooted in corruption, cronyism, and criminality — facilitated by the deference of other parties who lacked his ruthless cold-bloodedness. In his record of failures, as testified by six bankruptcies, he contrived to stiff his partners and creditors in each instance.

Michael Brenner: Core Trump

“For the U.S. president, the truth has no claim” — Michael Brenner scrutinizes the effects of Trump’s behavior on foreign policy over the past 100-plus days.

scheerpost.com

Well, I don't know about it saying it all, but it certainly says a lot about him. As I've said in the past, I've never been a fan and I wouldn't have voted for him if I were American. That being said, I had hoped that he would at least be better than Kamala when it came to avoiding escalations with Russia. On that front, at least, I think he's held true. That doesn't mean that his peace attempts were well though out, just that he has at least refrained from making things worse with Russia.

 

[Scott]

I thought it might be a good idea to make a thread on President Trump, seeing as how I definitely think he's a subject that's worth talking about, being the President of the United States. People here certainly found a previous thread I made on something Trump had done here to be interesting, so I know that there is potential in a thread that covers Trump in general.

As some here know, I'm not a fan. That being said, I had had hopes that he could help facilitate a peace deal in Ukraine. At this point, I just hope he continues to not escalate that war and I think that hope is justified. I just read an article about him from Michael Brenner, which I thought was quite good. It can be seen here:

Michael Brenner: Core Trump

“For the U.S. president, the truth has no claim” — Michael Brenner scrutinizes the effects of Trump’s behavior on foreign policy over the past 100-plus days.

scheerpost.com

From the article, this is the desription given of Michael Brenner:
**
Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins. He was the Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works are: Democracy Promotion and Islam; Fear and Dread In The Middle East; Toward A More Independent Europe ; Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times. His writings include books with Cambridge University Press (Nuclear Power and Non-Proliferation), the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (The Politics of International Monetary Reform), and the Brookings Institution (Reconcilable Differences, US-French Relations In The New Era).
**

I don't agree with everything Mr. Brenner has to say in his article, specifically his views on Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, a man who some here know I admire for the most part. He only dedicates a single sentence to the Kennedy, however, without even mentioning his name, whereas I think that much of the rest of what he says may well be true. With that said, quoting from the introduction and conclusion of his article below:
**
So, President Donald Trump’s heralded intervention to bring resolution to the Ukraine conflict has fallen flat. Rejected by Russia, by the EU states, by Kiev. An unprecedented trifecta of failed foreign policy.

His contrived scheme designed to skirt the core issues and interests at stake was a non-starter from Day One. That should have been obvious. There was no serious thinking in the White House that might produce a coherent diplomatic strategy.

There manifestly was no understanding of Moscow’s position rooted in post-Cold history and events since the U.S.-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 — nor of the intransigence among the ultra-nationalists who pull Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s strings.

Instead, what we got was vintage Trump. An impulsive reaching for a quick triumph to punctuate his brilliance as a statesman. The fixing of an objective without a thought-out plan how to achieve it.

A reliance on bullying, intimidation and underhanded dealing — the hallmark of his entire career; its apparent successes rooted in corruption, cronyism, and criminality — facilitated by the deference of other parties who lacked his ruthless cold-bloodedness. In his record of failures, as testified by six bankruptcies, he contrived to stiff his partners and creditors in each instance.

Against this background, his ability to cast himself as a winner owes more to the perversity of contemporary American society that invites chicanery than to any genius on his part.

On Ukraine/Russia Trump was grandstanding. There is an element of self-promotion in everything that he does publicly. The idea of being celebrated as a great peacemaker captured his imagination — not because he had any concern about the destruction and human cost or Europe’s long-term stability.

Admittedly, he also seemed to have been sold on the fashionable notion that the U.S. should mute its confrontation with Russia so as to be in a position to concentrate all our resources for the titanic struggle with China. The role of warrior-in-chief potentially could be just as appealing as that of peacemaker.

In fact, he had it both ways for a while: a Nobel Prize candidate for mediating in Ukraine; laurels from Israel’s American legions for reinforcing Washington’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide. What counts for Trump is the limelight and the exaltation.

So, he fixates on the one step that could stop the Ukraine fighting quickly — a ceasefire. None of the necessary and suitable preconditions exist; it amounts to calling a timeout of indeterminate length in a war that the other side is winning.

Yet, for three months that is the centerpiece around which everything pivots — futile proposals hatched by Trump’s virally anti-Russian advisers that only a fantasist images could lead to a settlement of the conflict.

The package presented to the Kremlin on a take-it-or-leave-it basis included such zany ideas as the U.S. taking over the critical Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station now under Russian control. This from a government that relentlessly for the past decade has pulled out all stops in its campaign to isolate and undermine the Russian state.

[snip]

So, Donald Trump is repositioning his foreign-policy people. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is exiled to the United Nations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio becomes interim national security adviser – warming the seat until Steven Witkoff has completed his failed special-envoy missions in Moscow and the Middle East and available to take over.

In a normal government, led by a normal person, such a move so early in an administration would be seen as having considerable practical significance. It might reflect the outcome of a dispute fueled by serious policy differences. It might impend important changes in the structure and process of decision-making. Neither is likely in this instance.

There is no organized process for setting foreign-policy objectives, for choosing among strategies, for formulating the appropriate diplomacy. Structured, orderly deliberation is absent and alien. Decisions are made by Trump on an ad hoc basis. He listens at random to advice from the principal officeholders, from his White House entourage, from golf pals, from FOX TV personalities. From whomever.

The appointment of the hapless numbskull Pete Hegseth to head the Pentagon happened because Trump relished the crude inanities that he uttered at FOX. (During Trump’s first term, he habitually chatted late in the night with Sean Hannity about what the latter had broadcast in that evening’s segment).

Whatever impresses him he adopts — even if the ideas are contradictory or ephemeral. Hence, the changeability of what he tweets or says from day-to-day — re. Zelensky, Putin, Ukraine in or out of NATO, grabbing Greenland/Panama/Canada, trade negotiations with China versus new sanctions, negotiations with Iran vs Trump fatwa forbidding anyone in the world from buying its oil. All of this is transparent and repetitious. Yet, elided by the media and most commentators.

Frankly, there is a case to be made that the psychology of Trump’s unhinged behavior is less of an analytical challenge than is the behavior of all those analysts who insist on normalizing it by ascribing to Trump’s words and actions design and coherent strategy that simply do not exist.
**

Why do you think capitulating to Putin is an acceptable strategy?
How does history treat Neville Chamberlain for capitulating to Hitler?
How much humiliation and dishonor is peace worth to you?

I can imagine some Russian saying the same thing when Russia decided to remove its nukes from Cuba. There are some red lines it's just best not to cross. The United States' government, in its arrogance, crossed those lines in Ukraine long ago, starting with its support of Euromaidan back in 2014. There's no going back in time to correct that terrible mistake, but the U.S. can at least refrain from escalating things any further.

As I've mention in the past, from what I've read of Chamberlain, I think some of his ideas were good ones. That being said, it seems clear in hindsight that Hitler never intended to hold up his end of the bargain. I think we can agree that Hitler paid a steep price for his betrayal though.

Finally, I think that the U.S. withdrawing from this fight is probably the most honorable thing it's liable to do at this point. It was the United States government that got Ukraine into this mess, the least it can do is try to ensure that it doesn't become a radioactive wasteland.

 

[Trumpet]

Well, I don't know about it saying it all, but it certainly says a lot about him. As I've said in the past, I've never been a fan and I wouldn't have voted for him if I were American. That being said, I had hoped that he would at least be better than Kamala when it came to avoiding escalations with Russia. On that front, at least, I think he's held true. That doesn't mean that his peace attempts were well though out, just that he has at least refrained from making things worse with Russia.

Putin ass kissers, not welcome here.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

There are maybe 4 or 5 of us worth spending time with.

Steve you are a self confessed alky and druggie

 

[Hawkeye10]

Steve you are a self confessed alky and druggie

A reasonable rational response to being forced to live in a dark age this nasty.

 

[Tobytone]

Oh, to be counted among Hawkeye's chosen four or five, those rare minds graced with the acumen to fathom such lofty insights. Scott’s noble struggle to enlighten us lesser souls is truly inspiring, with Hawkeye as his trusty scout, perhaps pointing out four or five other prodigies fit to digest such finely crafted wisdom. I’m just a humble straggler, yearning for a simplified morsel of genius, something basic enough to give us “less capable” types, as Hawkeye so generously labels us, a slim shot at grasping this weighty topic. A tall order, I know, to dim such brilliance without snuffing it out.

For now, I’ll risk exposing my obvious shortcomings with some earnest questions, hoping one of you luminaries might spare a moment to correct my feeble reasoning.

1 - How did we end up here, with both sides locked in talks? What course were we on before Trump?
2 - Has Trump’s first 100 days brought us nearer to peace or pushed it further away?
3 - Was Biden’s strategy effective, and if left unchanged, would it have led to Ukraine’s victory or a peace deal?
4 - Which peace plan might have succeeded, and who proposed it?
5 - Is the rare earth minerals deal a boon or a bust?

One last thing, unrelated but curious, did Trump just stumble into freeing 26 Americans in under three months, while Biden’s team left them to languish, paying hefty ransoms with money and sanction relief for the 25 they did free in four years, unlike Trump who paid nothing?

I know these queries scream my ignorance, but they’re surely child’s play for your towering intellects. I await your gracious guidance with bated breath, grateful for any crumbs you deign to toss my way.

 

[Scott]

Oh, to be counted among Hawkeye's chosen four or five, those rare minds graced with the acumen to fathom such lofty insights. Scott’s noble struggle to enlighten us lesser souls is truly inspiring, with Hawkeye as his trusty scout, perhaps pointing out four or five other prodigies fit to digest such finely crafted wisdom. I’m just a humble straggler, yearning for a simplified morsel of genius, something basic enough to give us “less capable” types, as Hawkeye so generously labels us, a slim shot at grasping this weighty topic. A tall order, I know, to dim such brilliance without snuffing it out.

For now, I’ll risk exposing my obvious shortcomings with some earnest questions, hoping one of you luminaries might spare a moment to correct my feeble reasoning.

1 - How did we end up here, with both sides locked in talks? What course were we on before Trump?
2 - Has Trump’s first 100 days brought us nearer to peace or pushed it further away?
3 - Was Biden’s strategy effective, and if left unchanged, would it have led to Ukraine’s victory or a peace deal?
4 - Which peace plan might have succeeded, and who proposed it?
5 - Is the rare earth minerals deal a boon or a bust?

One last thing, unrelated but curious, did Trump just stumble into freeing 26 Americans in under three months, while Biden’s team left them to languish, paying hefty ransoms with money and sanction relief for the 25 they did free in four years, unlike Trump who paid nothing?

I know these queries scream my ignorance, but they’re surely child’s play for your towering intellects. I await your gracious guidance with bated breath, grateful for any crumbs you deign to toss my way.

I must say, that post was pretty funny .

Anyway, to your questions:
1- I think Trump's done a better job than Biden when it comes to Ukraine. That doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.

2- I suspect a bit nearer and I certainly don't think he's pushed it further away. There seems to have been bit of cooling down between the U.S. and Russia since he took over, which stands to reason given that he's been talking about wanting to make a peace deal since before he ever became President. That being said, it's one thing to want peace- it's another thing entirely to know how to achieve it, and yet another to be willing to take the necessary steps.

3- I don't believe that Ukraine can achieve victory under any circumstance. I think its best course of action is to accept Russia's peace terms. As I alluded to earlier, I think that Biden's Administration was veering dangerously close to a hot war with Russia.

4- I believe that Russia's peace plan will be the one to succeed if any plan is to succeed. The only alternative that has any serious probability of occurring is that Ukraine becomes a wasteland, possibly of the radioactive variety.

5- Largely irrelevant, but if it keeps Trump happy, I imagine that Putin will allow U.S. companies to extract some minerals out of whatever's left of Ukraine when this is all over. Putin's even said that Russia is willing to work out a fair mineral deal with U.S. corporations as well.

 

[Tobytone]

I must say, that post was pretty funny .

Anyway, to your questions:
1- I think Trump's done a better job than Biden when it comes to Ukraine. That doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.

2- I suspect a bit nearer and I certainly don't think he's pushed it further away. There seems to have been bit of cooling down between the U.S. and Russia since he took over, which stands to reason given that he's been talking about wanting to make a peace deal since before he ever became President. That being said, it's one thing to want peace- it's another thing entirely to know how to achieve it, and yet another to be willing to take the necessary steps.

3- I don't believe that Ukraine can achieve victory under any circumstance. I think its best course of action is to accept Russia's peace terms. As I alluded to earlier, I think that Biden's Administration was veering dangerously close to a hot war with Russia.

4- I believe that Russia's peace plan will be the one to succeed if any plan is to succeed. The only alternative that has any serious probability of occurring is that Ukraine becomes a wasteland, possibly of the radioactive variety.

5- Largely irrelevant, but if it keeps Trump happy, I imagine that Putin will allow U.S. companies to extract some minerals out of whatever's left of Ukraine when this is all over. Putin's even said that Russia is willing to work out a fair mineral deal with U.S. corporations as well.

In all seriousness, you've shared your opinion, so let me give you mine. Trump’s knack for getting Ukraine and Russia to the table, a feat unseen since Biden’s tepid trickle of weapons kept the war simmering without a hint of victory, deserves a nod. Biden’s fear of escalation, as if that’s not the very spark needed to win, left us mired in stalemate. Yet, in a mere three months of Trump’s presidency, we’ve seen multiple rounds of talks, edging us closer to peace than at any point in this senseless conflict, only to be serenaded by a chorus of armchair critics and TDS-afflicted pundits, serving up their belated, self-important takes on Trump’s supposed missteps. It’s almost comical.

Then there’s the rare earth minerals deal, dismissed by these same talking heads as a trivial sideshow, blind to its strategic heft. Critics laud Putin for outfoxing Trump, conveniently ignoring how the deal reshapes the board. Beyond recouping some of the billions we’ve sunk into this quagmire, it boxes in Putin’s options. Do they really think he’ll roll tanks past American mines, staffed by American workers, without sparking a war with the U.S.? The deal’s a security anchor, scoffed at by the press and self-styled “military experts” who, despite their endless blunders, keep peddling worthless insights.

From my vantage, we’re in the strongest position in years, talks are rolling, the minerals deal is locked, and peace feels tantalizingly close, despite our own media’s relentless efforts to downplay progress now that Trump’s at the helm. Where were these skeptics during Biden’s foreign policy fiasco, when they cheered his every stumble? Let’s ease up, back our efforts, and give Trump a fair shake, he’s brought us closer to peace than we’ve been in ages.

I only mentioned the 26 Americans released without paying for them serves as a testament to this administrations negotiating skills compared to the previous group of clueless wonders who couldn't get anyone released without direct payments and or sanction relief.

 

[Hawkeye10]

In all seriousness, you've shared your opinion, so let me give you mine. Trump’s knack for getting Ukraine and Russia to the table, a feat unseen since Biden’s tepid trickle of weapons kept the war simmering without a hint of victory, deserves a nod. Biden’s fear of escalation, as if that’s not the very spark needed to win, left us mired in stalemate. Yet, in a mere three months of Trump’s presidency, we’ve seen multiple rounds of talks, edging us closer to peace than at any point in this senseless conflict, only to be serenaded by a chorus of armchair critics and TDS-afflicted pundits, serving up their belated, self-important takes on Trump’s supposed missteps. It’s almost comical.

Then there’s the rare earth minerals deal, dismissed by these same talking heads as a trivial sideshow, blind to its strategic heft. Critics laud Putin for outfoxing Trump, conveniently ignoring how the deal reshapes the board. Beyond recouping some of the billions we’ve sunk into this quagmire, it boxes in Putin’s options. Do they really think he’ll roll tanks past American mines, staffed by American workers, without sparking a war with the U.S.? The deal’s a security anchor, scoffed at by the press and self-styled “military experts” who, despite their endless blunders, keep peddling worthless insights.

From my vantage, we’re in the strongest position in years, talks are rolling, the minerals deal is locked, and peace feels tantalizingly close, despite our own media’s relentless efforts to downplay progress now that Trump’s at the helm. Where were these skeptics during Biden’s foreign policy fiasco, when they cheered his every stumble? Let’s ease up, back our efforts, and give Trump a fair shake, he’s brought us closer to peace than we’ve been in ages.

I only mentioned the 26 Americans released without paying for them serves as a testament to this administrations negotiating skills compared to the previous group of clueless wonders who couldn't get anyone released without direct payments and or sanction relief.

A more reality based opinion:

 

[Tobytone]

A more reality based opinion:

I'm sure it is, if it wasn't taken down. Let me guess, one of your conspiracy sites with 'the real' facts or another talking head with a stellar track record. I'll pass.

 

[Scott]

I must say, that post was pretty funny.

Anyway, to your questions:
1- I think Trump's done a better job than Biden when it comes to Ukraine. That doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.

2- I suspect a bit nearer and I certainly don't think he's pushed it further away. There seems to have been bit of cooling down between the U.S. and Russia since he took over, which stands to reason given that he's been talking about wanting to make a peace deal since before he ever became President. That being said, it's one thing to want peace- it's another thing entirely to know how to achieve it, and yet another to be willing to take the necessary steps.

3- I don't believe that Ukraine can achieve victory under any circumstance. I think its best course of action is to accept Russia's peace terms. As I alluded to earlier, I think that Biden's Administration was veering dangerously close to a hot war with Russia.

4- I believe that Russia's peace plan will be the one to succeed if any plan is to succeed. The only alternative that has any serious probability of occurring is that Ukraine becomes a wasteland, possibly of the radioactive variety.

5- Largely irrelevant, but if it keeps Trump happy, I imagine that Putin will allow U.S. companies to extract some minerals out of whatever's left of Ukraine when this is all over. Putin's even said that Russia is willing to work out a fair mineral deal with U.S. corporations as well.

In all seriousness, you've shared your opinion, so let me give you mine. Trump’s knack for getting Ukraine and Russia to the table, a feat unseen since Biden’s tepid trickle of weapons kept the war simmering without a hint of victory, deserves a nod. Biden’s fear of escalation, as if that’s not the very spark needed to win, left us mired in stalemate.

We clearly disagree on Biden's course. It's true that he had -some- fear of a nuclear escalation, but not nearly enough in my view. Former Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter wrote an article suggesting that a nuclear escalation had been close to happening back in September 2024:

SCOTT RITTER: 72 Minutes

Last weekend, the world came very close to nuclear war. By Scott Ritter Special to Consortium News Most Americans approached last weekend thinking about how they would spend the much-anticipated end of the work week with their friends and family. Few realize how close they came to actualiz

consortiumnews.com

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and that didn't happen.

Yet, in a mere three months of Trump’s presidency, we’ve seen multiple rounds of talks, edging us closer to peace than at any point in this senseless conflict, only to be serenaded by a chorus of armchair critics and TDS-afflicted pundits, serving up their belated, self-important takes on Trump’s supposed missteps. It’s almost comical.

I agree that peace talks were a good move on Trump's part. The problem is Trump's unwillingness to actually come up with one that has any chance of success with Russia. As to the interests of certain European nations in NATO, their interests are secondary because when push comes to shove, they've been rather uninterested in actually sending in their troops to help Ukraine out. The actual soldiers are predominantly Russian and Ukrainian. Most people at this point are aware that without western help, Ukraine's army would collapse. Trump had the wisdom to say that even -with- western aid, it will probably collapse as well. So, given these realities, what's the best option for Ukraine? Make a peace deal with Russia now, while it still has a fair amount of territory left.

Then there’s the rare earth minerals deal, dismissed by these same talking heads as a trivial sideshow, blind to its strategic heft. Critics laud Putin for outfoxing Trump, conveniently ignoring how the deal reshapes the board. Beyond recouping some of the billions we’ve sunk into this quagmire, it boxes in Putin’s options. Do they really think he’ll roll tanks past American mines, staffed by American workers, without sparking a war with the U.S.? The deal’s a security anchor, scoffed at by the press and self-styled “military experts” who, despite their endless blunders, keep peddling worthless insights.

Why do you think Trump has been so adamant about not making any security guarantees to Ukraine? I suspect that Trump knows full well that getting Ukraine's approval for the mining deal is only one part of this equation. The other part is getting Russia's approval. If allowing American companies to mine what's left of Ukraine when this war ends helps cement a peace deal with Ukraine, why would Russia mind? The important thing is to get a deal that works for them. If that's not offered, Russia will just keep on taking Ukrainian turf until any mining "deal" will be comical.

From my vantage, we’re in the strongest position in years, talks are rolling, the minerals deal is locked, and peace feels tantalizingly close, despite our own media’s relentless efforts to downplay progress now that Trump’s at the helm. Where were these skeptics during Biden’s foreign policy fiasco, when they cheered his every stumble? Let’s ease up, back our efforts, and give Trump a fair shake, he’s brought us closer to peace than we’ve been in ages.

I only mentioned the 26 Americans released without paying for them serves as a testament to this administrations negotiating skills compared to the previous group of clueless wonders who couldn't get anyone released without direct payments and or sanction relief.

Russia is unlike any other nation the United States has gone to war with. Just like the U.S., they can obliterate most life on earth. Trump, to his credit, seems more aware of this than Biden, even having to remind reporters and Zelensky of what should be patently obvious to everyone. So as I said before, yes, it's good that Trump has put some efforts into a peace deal, and Russia has been quite civilized in its response to his paltry offers. But at some point, he's going to agree to the peace terms that Russia has been demanding since June 2024 or the war won't end until Russia has achieved most if not all of its objectives through military means.

 

[Scott]

A more reality based opinion:

I'm sure it is, if it wasn't taken down. Let me guess, one of your conspiracy sites with 'the real' facts or another talking head with a stellar track record. I'll pass.

I think that Colonel Dougle Macgregor is pretty knowledgeable on the war in Ukraine, but as I've told Hawkeye myself, I rarely watch podcasts. I prefer articles, as they're already in text, and thus quite easy to quote, and the author just makes his or her points without the back and forth of a podcast.

 

[Scott]

A new article dropped 2 days ago from Moon of Alabama dealing with the Ukraine minerals deal that Trump just made with Ukraine. It can be seen here:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/05/war-in-ukraine-the-mineral-deal-pulls-trump-back-in.html

I just skimmed through it, looks quite good. Near the end, it references the article I linked to in the opening post of this thread, Michael Brenner's "Core Trump".

Quoting from Moon of Alabama's latter half of their article:
**
The agreement will without doubt be used by the U.S. to rob Ukraine of whatever valuables it has left.

At the same time it does not commit the U.S. to do anything.

With this capitulation Zelenski has fulfilled everything the Trump administration had demanded from him for a ceasefire. The U.S. has, however, no means to press Russia into a ceasefire. President Putin and other Russian officials have made it clear that they have no interest in just stopping the fighting but want a long lasting peace agreement.

The Trump administration has neither the will nor the capabilities to negotiate and enter into long term peace agreement with Russia.

That is why it is now, on one side, washing its hands over the whole issue:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated Thursday that a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine is still on the horizon but noted the eastern European nations are still very much at odds with “no military solution.”

“I think we know where Ukraine is, and we know where Russia is right now and where [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is. They’re still far apart,” he told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. “They’re closer, but they’re still far apart.”

Rubio essentially says: ‘We got what we wanted. Now lets get out of here’:

“There does come a point where the president has to decide how much more time at the highest levels of our government do you dedicate it, when maybe one of the two sides or both aren’t really close enough, when we have got so many, I would argue, even more important issues going on around the world, not that a war in Ukraine is not important,” the secretary of State said Thursday.

Vice President Vance confirmed that take:

U.S. Vice President JD Vance said Thursday evening that the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine is far from over and that it’s now up to Russia and Ukraine to end the fighting with Washington mulling a step back from peace talks.

“It’s going to be up to them [Russia and Ukraine] to come to an agreement and stop this brutal, brutal conflict,” Vance said during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier.

“It’s not going anywhere, Bret. It’s not going to end anytime soon,” he added.

Now, as the mineral deal is signed, the U.S. says it has no more responsibility for what happens in Ukraine.

But the mineral deal is also, on the other side, a trap to keep the U.S. committed to the war. As Yves Smith explains:

[O]ur prediction that this deal would be a spoiler as far as normalization of US-Russia relations look every bit as operative as we predicted from the get-go.

We had warned from the outset that the so-called Ukraine “raw earths” deal conflicted with the US agreeing to a settlement of the Ukraine conflict by creating an economic incentive for the US to support Ukraine in retaining as much territory as possible.
… To put it another way, the minerals pact was certain to be a source of conflict with Russia were it ever to get done. The fact that the Administration pursued the deal so aggressively said it valued a splashy but low to no value win over normalizing relations with Russia.

The U.S. may already be back to be fully committed to the war. As soon as the mineral deal was signed the State Department gave notice to Congress about a $50+ million weapon sale to Ukraine.

During the night from Thursday to Friday a large scale drone attack from Ukraine took place in Crimea. Last night another, ever larger attack took place. During the attack Ukraine used Storm Shadow cruise missiles which need U.S. intelligence based coordinates to reach their targets (machine translation):

For the first time since January, Russia announced a strike by British Storm Shadow missiles.

This is reported by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

The last time the Russian Federation officially reported on the Storm Shadow strike was almost three months ago-on January 15.

Also in Russia, a mass drone raid was reported on the Crimea (96 were shot down) and the Krasnodar Territory (47 UAVs were shot down). In addition, it is stated that 14 Ukrainian unmanned boats were destroyed in the Black Sea.

Recall that on the night of May 2 , the Crimea was also under a massive drone attack . Explosions were, in particular, in the areas of military airfields.

Without U.S. (and British) intelligence support the recent attacks by Ukraine would not have been possible.

This points to not yet public Trump decision to continue the war even though the U.S. has no chance to win.

Michael Brenner explains how Trump’s ‘malignant narcissism’ has led to this outcome.

When Russia will launch its big Summer offensive after Victory Day on May 9, it will become very obvious that making peace with Russia would have been the more difficult but also more promising way to proceed.
**

 

[Tobytone]

We clearly disagree on Biden's course. It's true that he had -some- fear of a nuclear escalation, but not nearly enough in my view. Former Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter wrote an article suggesting that a nuclear escalation had been close to happening back in September 2024:

SCOTT RITTER: 72 Minutes

Last weekend, the world came very close to nuclear war. By Scott Ritter Special to Consortium News Most Americans approached last weekend thinking about how they would spend the much-anticipated end of the work week with their friends and family. Few realize how close they came to actualiz

consortiumnews.com

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and that didn't happen.

Let’s keep this grounded in our own views, no need to fling articles back and forth from pundits who’ve never nailed a prediction. If you genuinely think Putin was itching to go nuclear, I’m struggling to take you seriously. Sure, plenty of “experts” sounded the alarm, but that’s exactly my point, there’s always a parade of talking heads ready to peddle whatever panic suits the moment. A nuclear strike would’ve been Putin’s one-way ticket to oblivion, and say what you will, he’s no reckless zealot itching for martyrdom. If we were talking Iran, maybe I’d buy it, but the whole nuclear hysteria from the press and their pet prognosticators was just orchestrated fearmongering with a shady agenda.

I agree that peace talks were a good move on Trump's part. The problem is Trump's unwillingness to actually come up with one that has any chance of success with Russia. As to the interests of certain European nations in NATO, their interests are secondary because when push comes to shove, they've been rather uninterested in actually sending in their troops to help Ukraine out. The actual soldiers are predominantly Russian and Ukrainian. Most people at this point are aware that without western help, Ukraine's army would collapse. Trump had the wisdom to say that even -with- western aid, it will probably collapse as well. So, given these realities, what's the best option for Ukraine? Make a peace deal with Russia now, while it still has a fair amount of territory left.

You're talking as if Trump’s the grand puppeteer of peace, able to strong-arm Zelenskyy into surrendering swaths of land or persuade Putin to play nice on a whim. Newsflash, this war’s between Russia and Ukraine, not Uncle Sam’s backyard brawl. In case it slipped your mind, Zelenskyy’s as flexible as a steel rod, and Putin’s no cuddly negotiator either, making peace talks a diplomatic tightrope. So, what’s this gibberish about Trump’s “unwillingness” to whip up a plan? Was there a golden deal both sides cheered for, only for Trump to slam the brakes? Were they twiddling their thumbs, waiting for Trump to unveil a masterpiece he stubbornly withheld? Pray tell, how exactly did Trump drop the ball? The deal’s in the hands of those two pint-sized autocrats, not Trump’s to dictate.

Why do you think Trump has been so adamant about not making any security guarantees to Ukraine? I suspect that Trump knows full well that getting Ukraine's approval for the mining deal is only one part of this equation. The other part is getting Russia's approval. If allowing American companies to mine what's left of Ukraine when this war ends helps cement a peace deal with Ukraine, why would Russia mind? The important thing is to get a deal that works for them. If that's not offered, Russia will just keep on taking Ukrainian turf until any mining "deal" will be comical.

Trump’s stance is rock-solid, and I’d wager most Americans would nod along, for the same reasons I do. No way should the U.S. play global bodyguard, especially not for a country with a rap sheet as the world’s corruption poster child, led by a guy strutting around like a tinpot dictator. We don’t guarantee anyone’s security but our own, that’s not our circus, not our monkeys. If anyone’s on the hook, it’s their neighbors, not us. We’ve been plenty generous, but Biden’s half-hearted dribble of aid kept Ukraine from ever having a shot at victory, a masterclass in timidity. If we could rewind with a bolder president, we should’ve armed them to flatten Russia early, end of story. But that ship sailed, and now, with bodies piling up on both sides, throwing more cash won’t fix it, they need troops, and no one with a functioning brain is sending our kids to die in their senseless brawl.

Russia is unlike any other nation the United States has gone to war with. Just like the U.S., they can obliterate most life on earth. Trump, to his credit, seems more aware of this than Biden, even having to remind reporters and Zelensky of what should be patently obvious to everyone. So as I said before, yes, it's good that Trump has put some efforts into a peace deal, and Russia has been quite civilized in its response to his paltry offers. But at some point, he's going to agree to the peace terms that Russia has been demanding since June 2024 or the war won't end until Russia has achieved most if not all of its objectives through military means.

The idea that nuclear is or has been on the table is ridiculous, Russia isn’t itching to spark Armageddon over Ukraine, it’s not Iran. Your notion that Trump’s the one dictating terms, stiff-arming a deal the two underdogs crave, is frankly bewildering. How do you figure Trump’s the puppet master here? If Zelenskyy had bent a bit more, we’d likely have had peace months ago, the deal’s not Trump’s to craft. Where’s this idea coming from? Name one deal Trump torpedoed that Ukraine and Russia both greenlit. The U.S. is just a facilitator, nudging Zelenskyy with cash and weapons, but the real dance is between the two smaller players, not Washington’s call.

Believe what you will, but Trump has a very competent team doing everything they can to stop the killing. It would be nice if more of the press would acknowledge this fact and be just a tiny bit positive in at least one of 10 stories. We are closer than ever, and we were not even on a road let alone nearing the end of the road of peace negotiations and hopefully for the sake of thousands of lives we'll be successful.

 

[Scott]

We clearly disagree on Biden's course. It's true that he had -some- fear of a nuclear escalation, but not nearly enough in my view. Former Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter wrote an article suggesting that a nuclear escalation had been close to happening back in September 2024:

SCOTT RITTER: 72 Minutes

Last weekend, the world came very close to nuclear war. By Scott Ritter Special to Consortium News Most Americans approached last weekend thinking about how they would spend the much-anticipated end of the work week with their friends and family. Few realize how close they came to actualiz

consortiumnews.com

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and that didn't happen.

Let’s keep this grounded in our own views, no need to fling articles back and forth from pundits who’ve never nailed a prediction.

I believe that journalists like Scott Ritter have gotten a lot of their predictions right. For starters, he's always been steadfast that Russia was not going to fold in its peace terms back when people were saying that Russia would turn tail at the first sign of serious resistance. And we're not even getting into the likes of American Professor John Mearsheimer who predicted that Ukraine would wind up getting wrecked 10 years ago if it continued to go down the primrose path that the U.S. was leading it on. A good article on that was published back in March on Business Today:

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral - 'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral BusinessToday

In this video, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

www.businesstoday.in

If you genuinely think Putin was itching to go nuclear, I’m struggling to take you seriously.

I never suggested that Russia was "itching to go nuclear". I -was- implying that is was and still is prepared to do so if things go south in its war in Ukraine. Put simply, under no circumstances do I see Russia backing down from its demands barring a nuclear holocaust, at which point the world would be a very different place, for everyone. This is why I've maintained for some time that there is no way in which Ukraine 'wins' here and why, like Mearsheimer, I believe that Ukraine's best course of action is to get back to the negotiating table with Russia as soon as possible.

Sure, plenty of “experts” sounded the alarm, but that’s exactly my point, there’s always a parade of talking heads ready to peddle whatever panic suits the moment. A nuclear strike would’ve been Putin’s one-way ticket to oblivion, and say what you will, he’s no reckless zealot itching for martyrdom. If we were talking Iran, maybe I’d buy it, but the whole nuclear hysteria from the press and their pet prognosticators was just orchestrated fearmongering with a shady agenda.

If anything, I think that the press has -underplayed- this threat for the most part, which is why I pointed out that Trump literally had to remind the press at times that Russia has nukes, which is pretty understated, considering that the only country that has around the same amount is the United States itself. It's also why I pointed out that Trump had to remind Zelensky of the seriousness of what he was essentially asking of the U.S. during the argument he had with Trump and Vance in the oval office- to whit, "You're gambling with World War III". I think it's fortunate that Trump is at least cognizant of how bad things could -really- get and has made some efforts to steer clear of that possibility. However, with this new minerals deal, it looks like Trump has decided to once again ratchet things up a bit again. It is my hope that he quickly learns what a bad idea that is without things getting to Biden levels of escalation.

 

[Tobytone]

I believe that journalists like Scott Ritter have gotten a lot of their predictions right. For starters, he's always been steadfast that Russia was not going to fold in its peace terms back when people were saying that Russia would turn tail at the first sign of serious resistance. And we're not even getting into the likes of American Professor John Mearsheimer who predicted that Ukraine would wind up getting wrecked 10 years ago if it continued to go down the primrose path that the U.S. was leading it on. A good article on that was published back in March on Business Today:

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral - 'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral BusinessToday

In this video, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

www.businesstoday.in

I never suggested that Russia was "itching to go nuclear". I -was- implying that is was and still is prepared to do so if things go south in its war in Ukraine. Put simply, under no circumstances do I see Russia backing down from its demands barring a nuclear holocaust, at which point the world would be a very different place, for everyone. This is why I've maintained for some time that there is no way in which Ukraine 'wins' here and why, like Mearsheimer, I believe that Ukraine's best course of action is to get back to the negotiating table with Russia as soon as possible.



If anything, I think that the press has -underplayed- this threat for the most part, which is why I pointed out that Trump literally had to remind the press at times that Russia has nukes, which is pretty understated, considering that the only country that has around the same amount is the United States itself. It's also why I pointed out that Trump had to remind Zelensky of the seriousness of what he was essentially asking of the U.S. during the argument he had with Trump and Vance in the oval office- to whit, "You're gambling with World War III". I think it's fortunate that Trump is at least cognizant of how bad things could -really- get and has made some efforts to steer clear of that possibility. However, with this new minerals deal, it looks like Trump has decided to once again ratchet things up a bit again. It is my hope that he quickly learns what a bad idea that is without things getting to Biden levels of escalation.

I’m still scratching my head over your claim that Trump’s somehow spiking peace deals or shirking his chance to set terms, as if he’s the one holding the pen. Maybe I misread you, but where’s the evidence? Zelenskyy and the press threw shade at Trump’s team just for hinting at pre-war borders, so how’s he the deal-killer? As I’ve said, Trump’s role is to nudge Russia and Ukraine to the table, leveraging U.S. aid and arms, not to dictate the fine print, that’s on the warring duo.

You're article's prediction wasn't exactly a long shot, Putin's Ukraine grab was seen my many people and anyone with a brain knew that he was waiting for weakness and then he pounced at the perfect moment, a no-brainer for anyone with a pulse, a thousand pundits saw it coming. Putin, like any predator, smells weakness, and Biden served it up on a silver platter with the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle and every timid step thereafter. No shock that Putin seized the day, with Iran and China tagging along for the chaos. It was as predictable as sunrise. No talking heads necessary.

In fact, I would say that the talking heads fostered your nuclear concern, even though, it doesn’t hold water. The idea that Putin’s itching to go nuclear is pure fiction, he’s no suicide bomber, and Russia isn’t Iran. The size of their arsenal? Irrelevant. Modern nukes aren’t the firecrackers we dropped on Japan, a handful from either side would crown cockroach's king. World War III might loom, but it won’t be nuclear, it’ll be a grim slog of drones and bots out-killing each other, a nightmare neither Russia nor China is fully geared for yet.

Give Trump his due, he’s got both sides talking, inked a rare earth mineral deal that’s a bigger deal than the chattering class admits, and with Ukraine and Russia bled dry of troops and cash, a deal feels inevitable, driven by necessity, not grand ideals. Every American mine in Ukraine chips away at Putin’s fantasies, he’ll likely settle for what he’s grabbed, maybe snag a minerals cut too. That’s my bet.

 

[Scott]

I believe that journalists like Scott Ritter have gotten a lot of their predictions right. For starters, he's always been steadfast that Russia was not going to fold in its peace terms back when people were saying that Russia would turn tail at the first sign of serious resistance. And we're not even getting into the likes of American Professor John Mearsheimer who predicted that Ukraine would wind up getting wrecked 10 years ago if it continued to go down the primrose path that the U.S. was leading it on. A good article on that was published back in March on Business Today:

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral - 'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral BusinessToday

In this video, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

www.businesstoday.in

I never suggested that Russia was "itching to go nuclear". I -was- implying that is was and still is prepared to do so if things go south in its war in Ukraine. Put simply, under no circumstances do I see Russia backing down from its demands barring a nuclear holocaust, at which point the world would be a very different place, for everyone. This is why I've maintained for some time that there is no way in which Ukraine 'wins' here and why, like Mearsheimer, I believe that Ukraine's best course of action is to get back to the negotiating table with Russia as soon as possible.

If anything, I think that the press has -underplayed- this threat for the most part, which is why I pointed out that Trump literally had to remind the press at times that Russia has nukes, which is pretty understated, considering that the only country that has around the same amount is the United States itself. It's also why I pointed out that Trump had to remind Zelensky of the seriousness of what he was essentially asking of the U.S. during the argument he had with Trump and Vance in the oval office- to whit, "You're gambling with World War III". I think it's fortunate that Trump is at least cognizant of how bad things could -really- get and has made some efforts to steer clear of that possibility. However, with this new minerals deal, it looks like Trump has decided to once again ratchet things up a bit again. It is my hope that he quickly learns what a bad idea that is without things getting to Biden levels of escalation.

I’m still scratching my head over your claim that Trump’s somehow spiking peace deals or shirking his chance to set terms, as if he’s the one holding the pen. Maybe I misread you, but where’s the evidence? Zelenskyy and the press threw shade at Trump’s team just for hinting at pre-war borders, so how’s he the deal-killer? As I’ve said, Trump’s role is to nudge Russia and Ukraine to the table, leveraging U.S. aid and arms, not to dictate the fine print, that’s on the warring duo.

I never said Trump was spiking deals, but it seems that with Trump's mineral deal with Ukraine, the U.S. is once again providing certain military support that it had stopped doing when Trump started his second Presidential term. The Moon of Alabama article I quoted in post #33 gets into this. Quoting the relevant section:
**
Now, as the mineral deal is signed, the U.S. says it has no more responsibility for what happens in Ukraine.

But the mineral deal is also, on the other side, a trap to keep the U.S. committed to the war. As Yves Smith explains:

[O]ur prediction that this deal would be a spoiler as far as normalization of US-Russia relations look every bit as operative as we predicted from the get-go.

We had warned from the outset that the so-called Ukraine “raw earths” deal conflicted with the US agreeing to a settlement of the Ukraine conflict by creating an economic incentive for the US to support Ukraine in retaining as much territory as possible.
… To put it another way, the minerals pact was certain to be a source of conflict with Russia were it ever to get done. The fact that the Administration pursued the deal so aggressively said it valued a splashy but low to no value win over normalizing relations with Russia.

The U.S. may already be back to be fully committed to the war. As soon as the mineral deal was signed the State Department gave notice to Congress about a $50+ million weapon sale to Ukraine.

During the night from Thursday to Friday a large scale drone attack from Ukraine took place in Crimea. Last night another, ever larger attack took place. During the attack Ukraine used Storm Shadow cruise missiles which need U.S. intelligence based coordinates to reach their targets (machine translation):

For the first time since January, Russia announced a strike by British Storm Shadow missiles.

This is reported by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

The last time the Russian Federation officially reported on the Storm Shadow strike was almost three months ago-on January 15.

Also in Russia, a mass drone raid was reported on the Crimea (96 were shot down) and the Krasnodar Territory (47 UAVs were shot down). In addition, it is stated that 14 Ukrainian unmanned boats were destroyed in the Black Sea.

Recall that on the night of May 2 , the Crimea was also under a massive drone attack . Explosions were, in particular, in the areas of military airfields.

Without U.S. (and British) intelligence support the recent attacks by Ukraine would not have been possible.

This points to not yet public Trump decision to continue the war even though the U.S. has no chance to win.

Michael Brenner explains how Trump’s ‘malignant narcissism’ has led to this outcome.

When Russia will launch its big Summer offensive after Victory Day on May 9, it will become very obvious that making peace with Russia would have been the more difficult but also more promising way to proceed.
**
Source:

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/05/war-in-ukraine-the-mineral-deal-pulls-trump-back-in.html

 

[Scott]

I believe that journalists like Scott Ritter have gotten a lot of their predictions right. For starters, he's always been steadfast that Russia was not going to fold in its peace terms back when people were saying that Russia would turn tail at the first sign of serious resistance. And we're not even getting into the likes of American Professor John Mearsheimer who predicted that Ukraine would wind up getting wrecked 10 years ago if it continued to go down the primrose path that the U.S. was leading it on. A good article on that was published back in March on Business Today:

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral - 'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral BusinessToday

In this video, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

www.businesstoday.in

I never suggested that Russia was "itching to go nuclear". I -was- implying that is was and still is prepared to do so if things go south in its war in Ukraine. Put simply, under no circumstances do I see Russia backing down from its demands barring a nuclear holocaust, at which point the world would be a very different place, for everyone. This is why I've maintained for some time that there is no way in which Ukraine 'wins' here and why, like Mearsheimer, I believe that Ukraine's best course of action is to get back to the negotiating table with Russia as soon as possible.

If anything, I think that the press has -underplayed- this threat for the most part, which is why I pointed out that Trump literally had to remind the press at times that Russia has nukes, which is pretty understated, considering that the only country that has around the same amount is the United States itself. It's also why I pointed out that Trump had to remind Zelensky of the seriousness of what he was essentially asking of the U.S. during the argument he had with Trump and Vance in the oval office- to whit, "You're gambling with World War III". I think it's fortunate that Trump is at least cognizant of how bad things could -really- get and has made some efforts to steer clear of that possibility. However, with this new minerals deal, it looks like Trump has decided to once again ratchet things up a bit again. It is my hope that he quickly learns what a bad idea that is without things getting to Biden levels of escalation.

You're article's prediction wasn't exactly a long shot, Putin's Ukraine grab was seen my many people and anyone with a brain knew that he was waiting for weakness and then he pounced at the perfect moment, a no-brainer for anyone with a pulse, a thousand pundits saw it coming.

The article I linked to makes no meniton of weakness. I question whether you actually read the article or just assumed what it was talking about based on its title alone. I think quoting part of it may be the best way to deal with this uncertainty:
**

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral​

After US President Donald Trump's recent meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, an old video of American international relations expert John Mearsheimer has gone viral.

In this video dated September 25, 2015, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

He also talks about the country going on a full-fledged war with Russia in a lecture at the University of Chicago.

"What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked and I believe that the policy that I'm advocating which is neutralising Ukraine and then building it up economically and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side and NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians," he can be heard saying in the video.

He said that what the West is doing is diametrically opposite since it is encouraging Kyiv to "play tough" with Moscow. Mearsheimer mentioned Ukrainians are being told that they will become a part of the West.

[Video of Mearsheimer in 2015 in original]

"We're encouraging the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West because we will ultimately defeat Putin and we will ultimately get our way, time is on our side."

The American scholar stated the Ukrainians are playing along and are "almost completely unwilling" to give up and instead want to pursue a hardline policy against the Russians. "The end result is that their country is going to be wrecked. And what we're doing is in effect encouraging that outcome."

Furthermore, he suggested that it would be sensible for the West to work to create a neutral Ukraine and in America's interest to bury this crisis as soon as possible.

"It certainly would be in Russia's interest to do so and most importantly it would be in Ukraine's interest to put an end to the crisis." On Friday, Trump and Zelenskyy's meeting started with handshakes and smiles but turned into a verbal argument within minutes.

During this meeting, US Vice President JD Vance emphasised the need for diplomacy to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war.

"We tried the pathway of (former US President) Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States' words mattered more than the president of the United States' actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That's what President Trump is doing."
**

Full article:

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral - 'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral BusinessToday

In this video, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

www.businesstoday.in

 

[Tobytone]

The article I linked to makes no meniton of weakness. I question whether you actually read the article or just assumed what it was talking about based on its title alone. I think quoting part of it may be the best way to deal with this uncertainty:
**

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral​

After US President Donald Trump's recent meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, an old video of American international relations expert John Mearsheimer has gone viral.

In this video dated September 25, 2015, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

He also talks about the country going on a full-fledged war with Russia in a lecture at the University of Chicago.

"What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked and I believe that the policy that I'm advocating which is neutralising Ukraine and then building it up economically and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side and NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians," he can be heard saying in the video.

He said that what the West is doing is diametrically opposite since it is encouraging Kyiv to "play tough" with Moscow. Mearsheimer mentioned Ukrainians are being told that they will become a part of the West.

[Video of Mearsheimer in 2015 in original]

"We're encouraging the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West because we will ultimately defeat Putin and we will ultimately get our way, time is on our side."

The American scholar stated the Ukrainians are playing along and are "almost completely unwilling" to give up and instead want to pursue a hardline policy against the Russians. "The end result is that their country is going to be wrecked. And what we're doing is in effect encouraging that outcome."

Furthermore, he suggested that it would be sensible for the West to work to create a neutral Ukraine and in America's interest to bury this crisis as soon as possible.

"It certainly would be in Russia's interest to do so and most importantly it would be in Ukraine's interest to put an end to the crisis." On Friday, Trump and Zelenskyy's meeting started with handshakes and smiles but turned into a verbal argument within minutes.

During this meeting, US Vice President JD Vance emphasised the need for diplomacy to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war.

"We tried the pathway of (former US President) Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States' words mattered more than the president of the United States' actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That's what President Trump is doing."
**

Full article:

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral - 'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral BusinessToday

In this video, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

www.businesstoday.in

I haven’t read the articles you shared, no offense, but I’ve been responding to what you've said, not the articles. Early on, I noted my dislike of these so-called experts, who rarely get things right, perpetually peddling the day’s narrative. I’ve wasted too much time in the past valuing their opinions, only to find their judgment often worse than a taxi driver’s, some just clinging to past glories from one lucky call, unable to adapt to shifting realities or grasp timeless truths. In the future, I’d rather debate you directly, not some talking head's opinion. Obviously, I read articles, but sifting through the blatant bias and misinformation in today’s journalism to find anything genuinely useful is increasingly challenging.

In closing, I’ll say Trump deserves real credit for bringing both parties to the table, securing the rare earth mineral deal, shifting the conversation from endless pleas for support amid battlefield stalemates and mounting casualties, and focusing on halting the bloodshed. His team should get more backing from our media, which, believe it or not, once occasionally supported American interests.

I believe Trump will end the war, though he’ll likely face criticism regardless of how it’s achieved. I don’t expect you to agree, and that’s fine, it’s been a good chat nonetheless.

 

[Scott]

You're article's prediction wasn't exactly a long shot, Putin's Ukraine grab was seen my many people and anyone with a brain knew that he was waiting for weakness and then he pounced at the perfect moment, a no-brainer for anyone with a pulse, a thousand pundits saw it coming.

The article I linked to makes no meniton of weakness. I question whether you actually read the article or just assumed what it was talking about based on its title alone. I think quoting part of it may be the best way to deal with this uncertainty:
**

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral​

After US President Donald Trump's recent meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, an old video of American international relations expert John Mearsheimer has gone viral.

In this video dated September 25, 2015, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

He also talks about the country going on a full-fledged war with Russia in a lecture at the University of Chicago.

"What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked and I believe that the policy that I'm advocating which is neutralising Ukraine and then building it up economically and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side and NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians," he can be heard saying in the video.

He said that what the West is doing is diametrically opposite since it is encouraging Kyiv to "play tough" with Moscow. Mearsheimer mentioned Ukrainians are being told that they will become a part of the West.

[Video of Mearsheimer in 2015 in original]

"We're encouraging the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West because we will ultimately defeat Putin and we will ultimately get our way, time is on our side."

The American scholar stated the Ukrainians are playing along and are "almost completely unwilling" to give up and instead want to pursue a hardline policy against the Russians. "The end result is that their country is going to be wrecked. And what we're doing is in effect encouraging that outcome."

Furthermore, he suggested that it would be sensible for the West to work to create a neutral Ukraine and in America's interest to bury this crisis as soon as possible.

"It certainly would be in Russia's interest to do so and most importantly it would be in Ukraine's interest to put an end to the crisis." On Friday, Trump and Zelenskyy's meeting started with handshakes and smiles but turned into a verbal argument within minutes.

During this meeting, US Vice President JD Vance emphasised the need for diplomacy to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war.

"We tried the pathway of (former US President) Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States' words mattered more than the president of the United States' actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That's what President Trump is doing."
**

Full article:

'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy-Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral - 'Ukraine going to be wrecked': After Zelenskyy Trump spat, John Mearsheimer's 2015 prediction goes viral BusinessToday

In this video, Mearsheimer can be heard making some startling predictions about Ukraine riding high on the backing of the US and other Western powers.

www.businesstoday.in

I haven’t read the articles you shared, no offense, but I’ve been responding to what you've said, not the articles.

I never said that Putin was "waiting for weakness", that was you. All the evidence I've seen was that Putin had tried to find a diplomatic solution to western Ukraine's killing of ethnic or at least Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine for 8 years and finally came to the conclusion that they were only using agreements to buy time and then just attack them again. Putin said as much during the speech he gave the day he started his military operation in Ukraine. To whit:
**
This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.
**
Source:

Address by the President of the Russian Federation

en.kremlin.ru

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud also provides solid evidence that it was the Ukrainian military's renewed assault on the Donbass Republics that triggered Putin's decision to start his military operation. The article where he does so can be seen here:

Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative

Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion.

scheerpost.com

Perhaps you are unaware of the 8 year civil war that ravaged eastern Ukraine between 2014 and 2022. If so, you may find the following documentary done by a team of German journalists to be educational:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFVNRZv2eM&ab_channel=NuoViso

Early on, I noted my dislike of these so-called experts, who rarely get things right, perpetually peddling the day’s narrative.

Jacques Baud, who I linked to above stayed in Ukraine for months prior to Russia's military operation. The journalists did as well, making the documentary that I linked to. It's one thing to have a point of view, but a point of view that is uninformed by the facts on the ground isn't a very good one.