if the us didn't have an impact on the resolution then it's meddling would be irrelevant.

as a ukrainemo, do you think it's best for ukraine for the us to wash our hands of it completely?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717197)

As a ukrainemo, I think it's best for the US to provide continuing military support to allow Ukraine to either 1) win the war and expel Russia from it's territory or 2) negotiate a favorable resolution that provides strong security guarantees.

If we've withdrawn as an indirect participant, then we should just stay on the sidelines unless our goal is just to assist Russia against Ukraine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717266)

these are all sovereign countries. what any "should" do is subjective. you might not like the us still being involved in negotiations, you might think this strategy is foolish, but that doesn't change the fact that it is happening.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717283)

if i started using all my money to play the lottery because i wanted to get rich you might question the wisdom of that, but that doesn't change the fact that that's my reasoning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717324)

do you really think the us has done a complete 180 and is now assisting russia in annexing all of ukraine?

c'mon man, you're the one being obtuse. even in your response you said "i'd like the us to resume aid!" you just don't like that the us is taking this course. but if you were hired by the admin to assist in negotiations there is no way you'd advise them to pack up and leave. that would guarantee a worse result for ukraine and you know it. so you're feigning "why is the us doing this?!" when you know exactly why, you'd just prefer that they didn't. but being that this is the course the admin is going with, you know for damn sure that if it was your call you wouldn't advise for the us to exit negotiations completely and commit to neutrality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717416)

i think far more likely that you just don't like what's happening and you're reacting the way zelensky did. the only difference is that zelensky had to eat crow because he has to work for ukraine's interest while you can just say whatever on xo. but in his shoes, or if you were in the state department, a very much doubt you'd be saying "well we should just cut ties completely!" *that* would be delivering ukraine completely into the hands of russia.

idgaf what the eu thinks perhaps they should have funded their neighbor ukraine at the levels were have been despite us being an ocean away and not immediately threatened by russian expansion. when they aid ukraine at the per capita rate we did then they can complain about the us not doing enough. until then it's just more sour grapes imo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717532)

But sure, it's far more likely that you have your finger on the pulse of what's going on behind the scenes more than the heads of state of every EU country plus Canada.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717598)

none of us know what's going on inside trump's head. time will tell if this was all window dressing for him supporting russia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717698)

but then you can't pretend like you're confused about the strategy either. what you're actually saying is that you don't believe the trump admin. so you're not confused and asking someone to explain what their ostensible strategy is, you're just registering your opinion that trump has an ulterior unstated motive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717726)

How exactly is that protecting Ukraine from getting bulldozed by Russia in negotiations?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717786)

everything else you said is what is being negotiated. it is not conceivable that the us will insist on a peace that returns to 2014 or even 2022 borders.

ukraine getting bulldozed = the us bowing out completely and ukraine having no leverage and russia annexing it completely. is that what you want? the reality is that russia is going to get something between "something" and "everything", and the biggest thing stopping them from getting "everything" is the potential for the us to resume support if that's what russia insists on.

saying the us should have no role in the negotiations is tantamount to saying russia should annex ukraine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717833)

Zelenski really really fucked up with his antics in the WH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717612)

Zelenski was supposed to come across as the one who also wanted peace and let russia expose itself as the aggressive assholes, but after the Oval Office fiasco now Trump feels he has to turn the screws on Ukraine to get them to the table at all. this is probably the worst diplomatic blunder of the last 100 years. completely unforced

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717634)

Sure, everyone wants an end to the bloodshed. The world isn't filled with bloodthirsty psychopaths. The issue is on what terms? I asked this once and you didn't respond. If an end to bloodshed means Ukraine cedes territory, demilitarizes, and in return receives no security guarantees, should Zelensky agree to that?

Just to dissect your analysis, it was Trump's plan to put on a united front with Zelensky to show reasonableness and diplomacy so that when they get to the negotiating table, Putin could be exposed as unreasonable? To whom is he being exposed and to what end? This honestly makes zero sense. All of our allies hate Putin even more than we do. Who are we trying to convince? Second, if this was the plan, obviously Zelensky would have been let in on it so that he knew what to expect during the press conference and played along.

Your rationale makes no sense and is influenced by your being a trumpmo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717696)

I’m by far the most rational Ukrainemo that I know. all Zelenski had to do was go along to get a long and sign that mostly symbolic deal and let things play out. the deal has been approved by the MFA before he even got there. but he blew up everything out pf lack of self control or some kind of domestic political consideration, and now Ukraine is suffering as a result

TL;DR Ukrainian hothead president has no sense for the long game

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717734)

lmfao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717763)

for russia his strategy, for now, is to use a bunch of potential carrots to get them to the table.

we are very early in the negotiations game, many people are expecting too much and jumping way ahead. there’s plenty of time to let russia come across as the intransigent ones and then Trump will have to make some hard decisions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717748)

Blank stare

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717710)

because the plan currently is to send a handful of Eurofag 'troops' into Ukraine, get shot at, trigger Article 5, and drag the US into WW3.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717756)

multiple missiles and drones have landed in Poland and Romania. eurocucks just sent it cuz they don’t want to have to react to it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717800)

no matter how much you say the us *shouldn't* have a role doesn't change the reality that the us *does* wield influence over the outcome.

and as i said above, if you were in the room i doubt you wouldn't be advocating from the us the bow out and let russia and ukraine deal with it. that would not be in ukraine's favor. if the us chooses not to use it's influence that is the highest conceivable level of "support" we could give russia, unless you think it's possible we'll start providing russia with military aid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717802)

the west, including the us, obviously has a stake in this. which is why we've given them billions. but there is a limit, and we've seemed to have reached it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717849)

being against endlessly funding a war that seems to many like a lost cause and costing unnecessary lives is not "anti-ukraine" anymore than any country that makes peace after losing a war is "anti" them.

there is a lot of room between "no concern" and "unlimited aid." being that we just forked over hundreds of billions of dollars that gives us a stake in the outcome regardless, even if isolationists would have preferred when never meddled in the first place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717953)

obviously we have some stake in the outcome being that we've given them billions and the resolution of the war is a hot issue here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717973)

Now, your argument is "we have to lead the negotiations because we have a stake in the outcome"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717982)

also it goes without saying that "it doesn't concern us" isn't absolutely literal anymore than you should expect someone to qualify "i'm so hungry i could eat a horse."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48718000)

But when our government takes action that you approve of (i.e. supporting Russia), it's justifiable because, as a country located on the earth, we have a stake in the outcome of a war that takes place between 2 countries who are also located on the earth.

You would do well in politics, friend.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48718016)

You absolutely are not moderate on this issue nor am I being glib. Frankly, I don't know what your position is to be honest. In some vague sense, you've suggested that Trump sees his role as the paternalistic protector of Ukraine because, despite all of his actions to the contrary, he's said that he wants to get ukraine a good deal.

So if I tell you i'm not gay while my dick is literally in your ass, I suppose you should take me at my word?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48718085)

when it comes to ukraine, the us should have either not inferred or intervened substantially to reach the outcome we wanted. the fence-sitting approach they we have gone with is the worst possible one. it has only served to prolong the war, resulting in unnecessary loss of life and wealth.

also, regardless of how i feel about what the US *should* do, as a practical matter i recognize that the US *does not* have the will to support ukraine in a way that will drive back russia. even if i felt as you did about what we *should* do, it's glaringly obvious that we're *not* going to do it. therefore our options are to continue dragging the war out or reaching a resolution. i support the latter on the best terms for ukraine as we can.

also, regardless of how i think we *should* have handled ukraine from the beginning, this is the situation we're in. we've been involved and it would be wrong and bad for ukraine to pack up and leave without assisting it reach a peace that's favorable to it. ultimately, however, it is ukraine's choice. we cannot force ukraine to do anything. if ukraine wants us to butt out they don't have to give us a seat at the table.

i feel badly that ukraine relies on the milquetoast commitments from the west, truly. this has been a common theme for the past several decades and part of *why* i don't think intervening in every conflict is a good idea. it doesn't work out for the people we "help" because we leave as soon as it becomes inconvenient. but rather than denying that reality and continuing the war, i think it's better for everyone to acknowledge it and mitigate continued death and destruction.

"So if I tell you i'm not gay while my dick is literally in your ass, I suppose you should take me at my word?"

yes and i hoped that was in the cards this week

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48718136)

Date: September 21st, 2024 4:54 AM

Author: Tantric crimson queen of the night school [bloodacre]

They are all FOB Ukrainians from Lviv and Ternopil.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5599093&forum_id=2#48116170)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717863)

They were "immigrant [men] with thick accents" who just arrived from Ukraine during the war with Russia, around your age, but they definitely were *not* refugees? Is that right?

Also, despite that they were 'fresh off the boat' from Ukraine (your words), they were also US Citizens? Is that right?

And they had no obligation to go fight in Ukraine, despite coming here during the war, being of fighting age, and having thick accents because their native tongue is Ukrainian? Correct?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717965)

I never said they came during the war.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48717977)

dont they know theres a war going on? maybe they should go fight it? theyre ukrainians right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5689369&forum_id=2...id.#48718005)