[827a]

Yeah, at the end of the day its hard to agree with the language and demeanor of the administration, but I struggle to disagree with the outcome. What are Zelensky's aims? To secure additional funding for their war machine? If so: I don't see how that benefits anyone; certainly not the Ukrainian people. If the goal is to secure more favorable peace terms, which I do believe is a laudable goal, then I fail to understand why he approached this conversation the way he did. Insinuating that the Trump administration had aligned with Russia, regardless of its validity, is not the way to accomplish this.

[nikaspran]

A ceasefire without security guarantees is just a temporary pause for russia to rearm and continue on. None of the justifications for russia's invasion have changed, and this would mean the US will roll over for anything.

[827a]

Sure; so maybe his focus should be on attaining those security guarantees. If not from the United States, then from other countries; is the United States the only World Police on the globe? Why is the Moral Onus on the United States to be the only ones willing to say "Yeah if you invade Ukraine again we'll put boots on the ground"; why isn't anyone asking Germany, or the UK, or Poland, to make those some guarantees to Ukraine? I mean, sure, there's genuine concerns about Article 5 if anyone in NATO makes those guarantees, I don't know what the impact of that would be, but looking past that for a second: Its utterly insane to me how much of this conversation involves placing some kind of Moral Responsibility on a country half the world away from the conflict.

[bitshiftfaced]

> and this would mean the US will roll over for anything.

This is a war between Ukraine and Russia, not the US. Nobody should want western powers to enter this war because of the potential consequences. But if western powers make security guarantees, isn't that what you risk?

[avianlyric]

What exactly do you think the outcome is? Just because Trump is selling out Ukraine to Putin, doesn’t mean the Ukraines are just going to lie down and take it.

What are Zelensky’s aims, they’re pretty damn obvious, do everything in his power to remove a foreign aggressor from Ukrainian land. Why would expect people who have been invaded to not defend their country and their land?

[827a]

I generally expect that a country's leader should do everything in their power to defend their country, land, and people, as you say. Of course, what we're talking about here is: Zelenskyy's power is not infinite, no one's is, and today he spoke with an administration that is far more realistic and desirable of peace than the previous one. My question was: What was Zelenskyy's aim in speaking to the administration today; not what were his general aims.

Look: I do not believe the world will be a more peaceful and prosperous place if America continues the path of providing billions of dollars in weapons and military aid to the Ukraine war effort. My question to others is: Do you believe I'm wrong in this assessment, and that the world will be more peaceful and more prosperous if we continue funding this war? Or, is it that: Do you believe that Peace and Prosperity are not Generally Good things we should strive to achieve?

Is the aim to negotiate for peace, and in that negotiation ensure Russia gets nothing? If so, do you believe that to be a realistic thing Ukraine can ask for right now? Even if the United States is brokering the negotiation, and wants this for Ukraine, what can the United States bring to the table to help make it happen? Is your suggestion that the United States go so-far as to guarantee Ukraine's security through direct military intervention?

That's where my brain is at on this; its a horrible situation, but if the goal we're optimizing toward is Peace and Prosperity, and I believe those goals to be laudable, and if we admit that the United States is not All Powerful (as proven by our billions in military aid up to this point not as of yet Increasing Peace and Prosperity in the region): What options does the United States have left to help Ukraine? Do you want to lace up your boots and go to war for them? Or, is it just, do you want to send them another hundred billion in military aid, so the war can continue in a stalemate for another three years?

[avianlyric]

You seem to be under the impression that a long lasting negotiated peace is possible with Russia. Remember, Russia started this war, and did so by breaking its previous negotiated peace with Ukraine.

If you take the view that “Peace and Prosperity” can only be achieved by surrender, the. Putin will simply do what he’s always done. Invade neighbouring countries then sue of “peace”, and will keep doing that until he’s claimed the entire of Europe. And all of Europe will live under whatever “Peace and Prosperity” Putin deems we’re allowed.

And yes, funding this war will ultimately result in a longer, better peace, and greater prosperity, by making it clear to Putin that he can’t just take what he wants. Otherwise we might as capitulate now and give Putin his every demand, regardless of how absurd it is, because apparently “Peace and Prosperity” means handing everything over to the most violent individual in the room.

[oezi]

You assume that Putin wants a cease fire or peace. But he doesn't.

Zelenskies aim is for his country not to be conquered. There are no open demands from Russia to satisfy.

[827a]

Trump just stated to the media before departing JBA that Putin has communicated a desire for peace to him. Granted: its possible we did not know that before literally just twenty minutes ago, and we obviously don't know the framework that peace will happen under, and that absolutely does matter.