That's approximately the value of the remaining PDA military aid that Trump controls.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48705867)

your whole shtick is just calling people names or posting disinformation

You've yet to say anything intelligent ever

does it hurt to be that painfully stupid?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48705927)

keep derp derping, nigger

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48705922)

it's plausible to me that a European FM would say something that stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48705931)

they literally don’t care how many Ukrainians die as long as it doesn’t directly affect them. throwing a few billion a year at the problem is nothing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48705954)

so if it’s 2-3 years they’re okay with that too, as long as they don’t have to fight themselves

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48705956)

https://x.com/DavidSacks/status/1895971755648233940

WHY ZELENSKY CANNOT MAKE PEACE

Zelensky’s meltdown in the Oval Office began over his refusal to accept a negotiated settlement to the war. Even the Vice President’s use of the word “diplomacy” provoked a heated response.

So why can’t Zelensky make a peace deal?

1) He will lose power.

Zelensky cancelled elections in Ukraine and remains in power through martial law. Despite what USAID propaganda polls may claim, Zelensky is unpopular in Ukraine and would likely lose a fair election. That could leave him vulnerable to retaliation from political opponents he has imprisoned or seized assets from. In short, Zelensky needs the war to justify his continued rule.

2) The gravy train will end.

Ukraine was widely acknowledged as the most corrupt country in Europe before the war, and there is abundant evidence that Ukrainian elites have been hugely profiting from the billions in Western aid. If the war ends, so does the gravy train. A post-war audit of where the money went would also be disastrous for Zelensky’s supporters.

3) He fears the ultra-nationalists.

Most Ukrainians say they want the war to end, but the ultra-nationalist faction (a relative minority but well-armed and willing to use violence to achieve their ends) refuses to accept any territorial concessions to Russia. If Zelensky signs such a deal, he has reason to fear for his safety.

4) He’s psychologically committed.

Zelensky’s belief in ultimate victory over Russia has “hardened into a form that worries some of his advisors,” according to a report by TIME Magazine, which described Zelensky’s faith as “immovable, verging on the messianic.” According to one of Zelensky’s aides, “He is delusional. We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.” Zelensky may be in too deep to see the situation objectively.

5) History will judge him harshly.

Zelensky could have accepted a draft peace deal signed in the first month of the war, the Istanbul Accords, under which Ukraine would have kept all of its territory in exchange for neutrality. A deal now will likely be modeled on Istanbul but require Ukraine to recognize realities on the ground (ie loss of territory). Acknowledging that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died only to get a worse deal may be too bitter a pill for Zelensky to swallow, now or ever.

In summary, Zelensky has powerful motivations to reject a deal, no matter how bad the battlefield realities get. His incentive is to continue a doomed war even if it leads to the complete destruction of Ukraine.

Instead of offering unconditional support, Zelensky’s supporters in the West should be urging him to seek a diplomatic off-ramp. Certainly they should stop catering to his unrealistic and maximalist demands.

As Solzhenitsyn said, the yes-man is your enemy, but a friend will argue with you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48706178)

i poasted that David Sacks explanation because it has some of the reasons that i've been positing. i'm still not sure. my overall explanation is that Z is caught in a sunk-cost fallacy related to his nation and his personal reputation.

do you think Z is playing a shrewd hand here? if you think he's not, why do you think he's mis-reading the situation?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48706213)

for his points above I would say a couple of points have some validity, as they would for any human and any leader in war. but he always acts like Ukraine is an equal aggressor and that any end to the war has to come out of their ass and that there have been many off-ramps that they somehow missed cuz they just want more and more war

he is the same polisci shithead he always was, like when he was a neocon advocating for the Iraq war. he was wrong then and he’s wrong now

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5687628&forum_id=2#48706243)