Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Then you have this on his own twitter account:
Over the last 24 hours, MAGA has been ceaselessly spreading the claim that Democrats - from Susan Rice to Tony Blinken to me - pushed Zelensky to reject the minerals deal.
Total lie. Made up out of thin air. Zero sources.
A short lesson how these lies spread in MAGA world.
Don't know. Just got home and this is my latest updateIsnt that already withdrawn?
No worries - we've all been there.
I remember back when I was a kid, I couldn't wait to grow up - I didn't realize that it was a trap!
I never said we didn't take defeats; we did. We got pushed out of both those countries because we supported very unpopular regimes. This, however, is abject fawning over Kremlin objectives to the detriment of the American national interest.
IDK about that. China and Britain came to a peace deal with Britain keeping Hong Kong for 156 years. Mexico and the USA came to a peace deal with the USA keeping, presumably forever what would become California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. Denmark came to a peace deal with Prussia, with Germany to this day keeping Schleswig/Holstein and Lauenburg. History tells us that there's a good chance that Ukraine will accept a peace deal where Russia keeps a chunk of Ukraine. I could see Russia keeping Crimea and the Donbas but exiting all or most of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.The ONLY acceptable peace deal involves Putin and Russia getting out of Ukraine.
I think the only way to deal with a bully is to beat his ass sideways.That's how my father raised me.
And somehow you think that abject surrender over Ukraine will signal to Russia we have the will to defend Europe? I've got a big orange bridge you might be interested in buying.
Probably not. But no sanctions are leak-proof, especially when you have India and China buying Russian oil and keeping its economy afloat. Don't be naive.
Russia has done itself generational harm. Trump's gambit only gives it breathing space. I don't know about you, but when I'm in a race I put the pedal to the metal. We should support Ukraine short of war so long as possible.
And I always had though that NATO purpose was to keep the USA in, the USSR out and Germany down.The US and NATO have leader's whose only objective is to destroy Russia. Our former SecDev Austin stated so publicly. There won't be any peace deal acceptable to that group save capitulation by Putin, so think hard what you wish for, versus what is likely.
Or repeating their propaganda like NATO aims to destroy Russia, which is blatantly false.
Firstly, I've never dismissed any of your sources as right-wing propaganda.
Secondly, that tweet simply states that Zelinsky "confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine." The Ukrainian people don't want a peace deal forced down their throats if it allows Putin to win and doesn't provide security guarantees for any remaining part of Ukraine. Who, in their right mind, would sign up to any such deal? The aggressor gets to win and there are no consequences if he embarks on further aggression? That's not a peace deal...at least not how I understand the meaning of the term.
We all want peace in Ukraine. However, rewarding Russian aggression is NOT the way to achieve that goal.
IDK about that. China and Britain came to a peace deal with Britain keeping Hong Kong for 156 years. Mexico and the USA came to a peace deal with the USA keeping, presumably forever what would become California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. Denmark came to a peace deal with Prussia, with Germany to this day keeping Schleswig/Holstein and Lauenburg. History tells us that there's a good chance that Ukraine will accept a peace deal where Russia keeps a chunk of Ukraine. I could see Russia keeping Crimea and the Donbas but exiting all or most of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
That wasn't a peace deal - there was no war at the time of the treaties (as I understood it?) The negotiation to leave honoured the original agreement under which Hong Kong had been administered since it was leased in 1898 for 99 years...I'm not sure examples of territorial negotiations and horse-trading conducted in peace time are necessarily very analogous or comparable to armed invasion and an active conflict... A very different kettle of fish with higher and more complex stakes. Made even more impossible, thanks to recent showboating and reality show style drama taking the place of statesmanship and diplomacy.China and Britain came to a peace deal with Britain keeping Hong Kong for 156 years