Policy of appeasement goes back 10 years now, through two Democrat administrations and the first Trump administration. The policy has been a resounding failure from every aspect. Given that a certain media oligarch will play a key role in the 2nd Trump administration, and is already a known ally of Putin (as are other recent appointments), we can conclude with absolute certainty that the policy of appeasement will continue in some form.
Trump will employ the Kissinger strategy of negotiation by working with only one party in a dispute. Kyiv may very well be left out in the cold, like what Trump did to the Ukrainians and Syrians once before to work with Russia and avoid the disputes over the Syrian civil war, Crimea and Donbas, like what he did to the Afghan government in Kabul in the Doha Accords, like what he did to the Palestinians in the Abraham Accords, like what he did to the people of Hong Kong in order to get a Chinese soybean deal, and like he tried to do to Canada in the USMC renegotiations for NAFTA. Fact is, leaving key stakeholders out in the cold backfires more often than it doesn’t.
OK, let me educate you on how this will end. Putin is on record stating that there is no legitimate authority in Kyiv to hold negotiations with (given that the terms of Zelenskyy and members of the Verkhovna Rada have expired). So Ukraine needs to hold elections before Russia can even consider negotiations with Kyiv. But Zelenskyy claims there can be no elections under martial law and martial law can't be lifted as long as there is war going on. Trump will successfully negotiate a temporary ceasefire with Russia to enable Kyiv to lift martial law and hold elections. If Zelenskyy rejects that, it won't just be Trump who will dump Ukraine, but every Western country will be forced to. After all, all elections Ukraine held since 2014 were while parts of the country were _not_ under the control of Kyiv, so why not now? Zelenskyy can contest the elections seeking a mandate for his victory plan (which the West has shown no interest in backing) and someone else, say Valerie Zaluzhny, will seek mandate for peace with Russia on the lines of the Istanbul agreement, but taking the ground realities of the day into account (the only peace plan on offer from Russia). Depending on who wins the election, Ukraine will either resume hostilities or surrender. Everyone in the West is saved from having to take any responsibility for the outcome, because it will be the will of the Ukrainian people. Trump, I think, is betting on Ukrainians voting overwhelmingly for a President who will bring peace, whatever the terms, especially when it becomes absolutely clear that there is no NATO membership on offer and the West wants Ukrainians to die just to weaken Russia. If that is the case, The conflict would have paused shortly after Trump has taken office and Trump can justifiably claim to have ended it on that day since it would have never resumed. If Zelenskyy or someone else promising to keep sending Ukrainians to their deaths until Russia collapses, wins, Trump will wish Ukraine good luck and end the US support. The European countries will be free to support Ukraine, if they so wish.
@monklast9752 That's a secret. :) But seriously, I _deduced_ it from the statements of those who matter: Russian President and the incoming US President and the situation on the ground.
Anyone who knows what Russia is doing will have "an implacable russophobia". The closer a country is to Russia the more aware it is how that mafia state is operating.
The more you know Russia, the more implacable your "Russophobia" will be. Have you reflected on that Kremlin simps live at a safe distance from Russia, while the closer you get to Russia, the more "Russophobic" everyone gets?
The discussion is focused on important but micro-level issues. The big thing that just happened is the revolution in the US and what seems to be an unstoppable transformation of the global empire we knew back into a nation -state. This implies very different presence of the US in Europe which is both good and bad news for Russia. US may withdraw from strategic stability discussions with Russia as irrelevant and Russia will need to figure out tactical stuff in Europe with unpredictable Europeans rather than global stuff with very predictable US that was always fixated on preventing MAD. Russia’s relationship with Europe is very unpredictable, Europeans tend to be irrational, as we have seen in two world wars, so this new world may be very dangerous with two parallel confrontations, a lower level one between super nuclear but economically weak Russia and semi-nuclear but conventionally strong Europe and a higher level and more strategic confrontation between China and US given that they will have to share the pacific and are direct neighbors. If this happens US will be better off (Russia’s strategic danger gone and china not there yet at least for 20 years) but Europe will become a super dangerous place to be.
Entertaining. The host is disappointed with Zelensky's crying uncle instead of asking for weapons (really?), you have not run out of your people yet. The guest: Baltics will not let US disengage, honey moon, trade war with Germany, where do you get your smoke. To one person with brain on this call: "incongruent", keep at it, one day you'll get it.
Kind of hard to tell.
Pathological liars are not easy to predict, save for the fact that they will almost always lie
Policy of appeasement goes back 10 years now, through two Democrat administrations and the first Trump administration. The policy has been a resounding failure from every aspect. Given that a certain media oligarch will play a key role in the 2nd Trump administration, and is already a known ally of Putin (as are other recent appointments), we can conclude with absolute certainty that the policy of appeasement will continue in some form.
The Elmo Doctrine!
We're negotiating from a place of profound weakness. We won't be invited to the table at all
Trump will employ the Kissinger strategy of negotiation by working with only one party in a dispute. Kyiv may very well be left out in the cold, like what Trump did to the Ukrainians and Syrians once before to work with Russia and avoid the disputes over the Syrian civil war, Crimea and Donbas, like what he did to the Afghan government in Kabul in the Doha Accords, like what he did to the Palestinians in the Abraham Accords, like what he did to the people of Hong Kong in order to get a Chinese soybean deal, and like he tried to do to Canada in the USMC renegotiations for NAFTA. Fact is, leaving key stakeholders out in the cold backfires more often than it doesn’t.
What a world we live in. It is more beneficial to be a North Korean friend than a North American.
Да 😂
You have not convinced me. Unless it's a joke, because I laughed.
@@roderickcampbell2105 I meant it as a joke, but like all good jokes, it leaves you thinking about the reality behind it. Agree?
@@natbirchall1580 Agreed. It was a good joke. So, I laughed and enjoyed your story. Thank you.
Agreed. It was a very good joke. Better than any of mine. So that me angry. But also laugh. Bravo.
Love the title
I would advise Zelensky to immediately go to the border with Russia and ask to see the commander for the opportunity to sue for peace
Nah. He needs to flee the country and take up residence in Miami or Belgrave
🎖️🇺🇸🕺
It means the party's over a-holes.
I would be investing in companies that produce and repair paper shredders and BleachBit.
OK, let me educate you on how this will end.
Putin is on record stating that there is no legitimate authority in Kyiv to hold negotiations with (given that the terms of Zelenskyy and members of the Verkhovna Rada have expired).
So Ukraine needs to hold elections before Russia can even consider negotiations with Kyiv.
But Zelenskyy claims there can be no elections under martial law and martial law can't be lifted as long as there is war going on.
Trump will successfully negotiate a temporary ceasefire with Russia to enable Kyiv to lift martial law and hold elections.
If Zelenskyy rejects that, it won't just be Trump who will dump Ukraine, but every Western country will be forced to. After all, all elections Ukraine held since 2014 were while parts of the country were _not_ under the control of Kyiv, so why not now? Zelenskyy can contest the elections seeking a mandate for his victory plan (which the West has shown no interest in backing) and someone else, say Valerie Zaluzhny, will seek mandate for peace with Russia on the lines of the Istanbul agreement, but taking the ground realities of the day into account (the only peace plan on offer from Russia).
Depending on who wins the election, Ukraine will either resume hostilities or surrender.
Everyone in the West is saved from having to take any responsibility for the outcome, because it will be the will of the Ukrainian people.
Trump, I think, is betting on Ukrainians voting overwhelmingly for a President who will bring peace, whatever the terms, especially when it becomes absolutely clear that there is no NATO membership on offer and the West wants Ukrainians to die just to weaken Russia. If that is the case, The conflict would have paused shortly after Trump has taken office and Trump can justifiably claim to have ended it on that day since it would have never resumed.
If Zelenskyy or someone else promising to keep sending Ukrainians to their deaths until Russia collapses, wins, Trump will wish Ukraine good luck and end the US support. The European countries will be free to support Ukraine, if they so wish.
How did you find this info.
@monklast9752 That's a secret. :) But seriously, I _deduced_ it from the statements of those who matter: Russian President and the incoming US President and the situation on the ground.
Are you nuts, was Putin legitimately elected?
By "Russia hand" he means people with an implacable Russophobia
Anyone who knows what Russia is doing will have "an implacable russophobia". The closer a country is to Russia the more aware it is how that mafia state is operating.
The more you know Russia, the more implacable your "Russophobia" will be. Have you reflected on that Kremlin simps live at a safe distance from Russia, while the closer you get to Russia, the more "Russophobic" everyone gets?
The discussion is focused on important but micro-level issues. The big thing that just happened is the revolution in the US and what seems to be an unstoppable transformation of the global empire we knew back into a nation -state. This implies very different presence of the US in Europe which is both good and bad news for Russia. US may withdraw from strategic stability discussions with Russia as irrelevant and Russia will need to figure out tactical stuff in Europe with unpredictable Europeans rather than global stuff with very predictable US that was always fixated on preventing MAD. Russia’s relationship with Europe is very unpredictable, Europeans tend to be irrational, as we have seen in two world wars, so this new world may be very dangerous with two parallel confrontations, a lower level one between super nuclear but economically weak Russia and semi-nuclear but conventionally strong Europe and a higher level and more strategic confrontation between China and US given that they will have to share the pacific and are direct neighbors. If this happens US will be better off (Russia’s strategic danger gone and china not there yet at least for 20 years) but Europe will become a super dangerous place to be.
Europeans are unpredictable, really. Tell me something unpredictable they have done in the last 30 years. I will wait.
Pathetic West
Entertaining. The host is disappointed with Zelensky's crying uncle instead of asking for weapons (really?), you have not run out of your people yet.
The guest: Baltics will not let US disengage, honey moon, trade war with Germany, where do you get your smoke. To one person with brain on this call: "incongruent", keep at it, one day you'll get it.