Personally I reject both his explanations. The truth is simple: Trump was put into a position where he had to save face for the US, but the situation is so intractable that he hasn't been able to accomplish that yet.
On one side you have a retarded midget who is happy to keep throwing his citizens into the meatgrinder - and has enough brainwashed countrymen on his side to keep that up - and on the other side you have a guy who's definitely winning and is therefore happy to continue the war. Neither side has a sufficient reason to break the "equilibrium" as it stands.
The reason that Trump doesn't just yank all military aid + Starlink and let Ukraine collapse is because that would effectively be the United States rolling over and showing its belly to Russia. Showing weakness like that is unacceptable on the international stage. Therefore, the other option is to make Russia feel enough pain that they'll make a few concessions at the negotiating table to allow peace. However, at this point, I'm not sure if there's any amount of pain that Ukraine can inflict that could make Russia think twice.
Maybe a possible third option is some kind of covert regime change in Ukraine to replace Zelensky with another CIA puppet that will give up ludicrous talking points like retaking Crimea. It is up for debate how strong the hardliners are in Ukraine, however. It's possible that a Zelensky replacement would get assassinated.
Yup. I think it was Germany or the EU as a whole who's trying to remove range restrictions on arms being sold to Ukraine.
Although I'm not sure if there's still any restriction on requiring those weapons to only be used on military targets. One of my biggest concerns has always been what might happen if Zelensky tosses the table and launches long range weapons directly at Russian-civilian targets.
Some countries (e.g. the UK) already lifted those restrictions in the past. Germany is babbling about it now, except they're talking about lifting restrictions on... weapons they haven't even supplied yet - namely Taurus cruise missiles. They've been talking about those for three years now, but it's all just talk; Germany doesn't want to give them away because they can't make any more, and also given the state of German military those missiles might be nonfunctional (they seem to have a habit of buying arms and ammunition and then leaving it in the rain to rot), and Ukraine also doesn't have anything capable of launching them and noone knows how long it would take to update the few F-16s Ukraine has to do that.
Ukraine has been hitting Russian civilian targets before, too, so that wouldn't really be an escalation. They don't have much to attack anything in Russia with, but it's not for a lack of trying.
Ah, that's informative. I'd only heard the headlines recently but admittedly haven't dug into a lot of details. That does sound about right, with how I'd expect each of those nations to try and play things.
And yeah, I do remember that Ukraine's hit civilian targets a little bit. Not with anything particularly big, but with at least enough effort to try and scare up the civilian populace. Mostly a handful of low effort drone strikes and of course their insurgent incursions into Kursk.
I wouldn't say Zelensky has that strong of a position. Didn't they suspend elections? And he's using conscription from the start. That doesn't show strong support. Replacig him would probably go over well with a significant portion of the populace.
The bigger question is whether or not swapping to a(nother) CIA puppet would actually appease Putin. I suppose it could help him save face, at least publicly.
Yeah I read their post earlier and I didn't like the oversimplification of their explanations. Realistically it's impossible to say, but I think your take is much more plausible.
Personally I reject both his explanations. The truth is simple: Trump was put into a position where he had to save face for the US, but the situation is so intractable that he hasn't been able to accomplish that yet.
On one side you have a retarded midget who is happy to keep throwing his citizens into the meatgrinder - and has enough brainwashed countrymen on his side to keep that up - and on the other side you have a guy who's definitely winning and is therefore happy to continue the war. Neither side has a sufficient reason to break the "equilibrium" as it stands.
The reason that Trump doesn't just yank all military aid + Starlink and let Ukraine collapse is because that would effectively be the United States rolling over and showing its belly to Russia. Showing weakness like that is unacceptable on the international stage. Therefore, the other option is to make Russia feel enough pain that they'll make a few concessions at the negotiating table to allow peace. However, at this point, I'm not sure if there's any amount of pain that Ukraine can inflict that could make Russia think twice.
Maybe a possible third option is some kind of covert regime change in Ukraine to replace Zelensky with another CIA puppet that will give up ludicrous talking points like retaking Crimea. It is up for debate how strong the hardliners are in Ukraine, however. It's possible that a Zelensky replacement would get assassinated.
It doesnt help that the rest of europe is basically egging ukraine on in a proxy war
Yup. I think it was Germany or the EU as a whole who's trying to remove range restrictions on arms being sold to Ukraine.
Although I'm not sure if there's still any restriction on requiring those weapons to only be used on military targets. One of my biggest concerns has always been what might happen if Zelensky tosses the table and launches long range weapons directly at Russian-civilian targets.
Some countries (e.g. the UK) already lifted those restrictions in the past. Germany is babbling about it now, except they're talking about lifting restrictions on... weapons they haven't even supplied yet - namely Taurus cruise missiles. They've been talking about those for three years now, but it's all just talk; Germany doesn't want to give them away because they can't make any more, and also given the state of German military those missiles might be nonfunctional (they seem to have a habit of buying arms and ammunition and then leaving it in the rain to rot), and Ukraine also doesn't have anything capable of launching them and noone knows how long it would take to update the few F-16s Ukraine has to do that.
Ukraine has been hitting Russian civilian targets before, too, so that wouldn't really be an escalation. They don't have much to attack anything in Russia with, but it's not for a lack of trying.
Ah, that's informative. I'd only heard the headlines recently but admittedly haven't dug into a lot of details. That does sound about right, with how I'd expect each of those nations to try and play things.
And yeah, I do remember that Ukraine's hit civilian targets a little bit. Not with anything particularly big, but with at least enough effort to try and scare up the civilian populace. Mostly a handful of low effort drone strikes and of course their insurgent incursions into Kursk.
I wouldn't say Zelensky has that strong of a position. Didn't they suspend elections? And he's using conscription from the start. That doesn't show strong support. Replacig him would probably go over well with a significant portion of the populace.
The bigger question is whether or not swapping to a(nother) CIA puppet would actually appease Putin. I suppose it could help him save face, at least publicly.
Zelensky is already a CIA puppet.
New puppet, same strings
Yeah I read their post earlier and I didn't like the oversimplification of their explanations. Realistically it's impossible to say, but I think your take is much more plausible.
Zognald is a globalist scum.
It’s truly a difficult spot to figure out. I don’t know what we need to do to end it.
Ultimately it's up to Ukraine and Russia to cut it out.
Ukraine won't be satisfied unless Russia gets served a humiliating defeat, which is just never going to happen.
Russia won't be satisfied so long as NATO and Globohomo keep pretending that Donbas had no qualms with staying under Ukranian rule.
And besides, if they think Trump could have ended it on inaugeration day Jan 20th 2025, why couldn't Biden have ended it on Jan 19th 2025?