War, what is it good for?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

What the hell is going on with the US and Ukraine?
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/trump-vance-zelenskyy-oval-office-exchange-00206727

In Trump's telling, Zelensky is a dictator while Putin is not.

In Trump's telling, Ukraine, not Russia, started the war.

And now, Trump and Vance held the most embarrassing-possible meeting with Zelensky in Washington to demand that he beg Trump for support and to pressure him into signing an agreement that would impoverish his country for a century in exchange for *no actual security guarantees*.

Biden's approach to Ukraine was unsustainable. A negotiated settlement was an inevitability. But the US should be using its power to secure a better deal for Ukraine, not to maximize Russia's gains and humiliate the Ukrainians.

[Octavious]

The US is using its power to get a better deal for the US.

The question is whether this public spat was planned or whether Zelensky genuinely screwed up his diplomacy that badly.

[Jamiet99uk]

Trump is so full of shit, he just looks like a petulant child in the footage I've seen. What an ass. And then you have 50-IQ Vance coming out with rehearsed lines about how Zelensky needs to say "thank you" more often.

What a clown show.

[Jamiet99uk]

Trump is using his fat mouth to get a better deal for Putin.

The question is whether this public spat was planned or whether Zelensky genuinely screwed up his diplomacy that badly.

There I fixed it for you.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Maybe you (Oct) could explain how this is a better deal for the US? Or how Vance demanding a "thank you" furthers that deal?

In the current negotiations the US is staking some fuzzy claim over a handful of minerals in war-devastated parts of Ukraine. In exchange, it is negotiating in such a manner so as to maximize Russian gains at minimal cost while simultaneously alienating all of its allies. Alienating allies might be the point if the goal is to reduce US military expenditure (is that it?), but shedding allies won't make the US safer and opens a whole can of worms the US will also have to deal with.

It seems to me the US should be trying to minimize Ukrainian losses and enforce a hard stop on Russian expansion, because Russia is a nuclear armed adversary whose existence is like 30% of the rationale for the US having a military in the first place. Go ahead and play hard ball with the EU to get them to pay more. Make sure the Ukrainian so in fact sign some deal. But what the hell does siding with Russia at the UN and calling Zelenski a dictator do for the US?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm looking at this and thinking Canada should get its own nukes and forge a closer alliance with China. Not even kidding. If being a US ally means being insulted and robbed while you're maximally vulnerable then we can no longer discount basically any opportunity to counterbalance our reliance on the US no matter how dangerous or morally repugnant. I'm sure Japan, Australia, etc., are thinking the same thing.

[Jamiet99uk]

Today's performance from Trump and Vance was a massive slap in the face for the whole of Europe.

European leaders should immediately plan for what will happen if the USA leaves Nato, because that is a logical next step.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Today's performance from Trump and Vance was a massive slap in the face for the whole of Europe.

European leaders should immediately plan for what will happen if the USA leaves Nato, because that is a logical next step.

I can pre-empt Oct in saying this was part of the point of today's tantrum. Trump is trying to force Europe's hand in actually defending itself and it may in fact be working.

That's only a win for the US in one dimension, and a loss across several others. Unchecked Russian aggression in Europe will hurt US economic interests. European defense autonomy will limit the US' current ability to dictate goings on around the world. Allies everywhere are seeing that an alliance with the US is worthless. All of this is a clear signal to China to do whatever the hell it wants.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The question is whether this public spat was planned or whether Zelensky genuinely screwed up his diplomacy that badly.

We watched different videos lol. What screw up are you accusing Zelenski of here?

He wouldn't immediately capitulate to a deal that offered his country zero security guarantees and was then bullied on live television by an asshole demanding a rimjob. Is that bad diplomacy on Zelenski's part?

[Octavious]

The question is whether this public spat was planned or whether Zelensky genuinely screwed up his diplomacy that badly.

We watched different videos lol. What screw up are you accusing Zelenski of here?

He wouldn't immediately capitulate to a deal that offered his country zero security guarantees and was then bullied on live television by an asshole demanding a rimjob. Is that bad diplomacy on Zelenski's part?

Clearly. I watched the one where he had an argument with Trump and Vance in front of the media and left early without an agreement. If he didn't want an agreement that's fine. If it was planned theatrics that's fine. If he wanted an agreement and failed to get it that's a screw up

[Jamiet99uk]

The question is whether this public spat was planned or whether Zelensky genuinely screwed up his diplomacy that badly.

We watched different videos lol. What screw up are you accusing Zelenski of here?

He wouldn't immediately capitulate to a deal that offered his country zero security guarantees and was then bullied on live television by an asshole demanding a rimjob. Is that bad diplomacy on Zelenski's part?

Clearly. I watched the one where he had an argument with Trump and Vance in front of the media and left early without an agreement. If he didn't want an agreement that's fine. If it was planned theatrics that's fine. If he wanted an agreement and failed to get it that's a screw up

It was clearly planned theatrics by Vance and Trump.

Presented with that barrage of lies and demands from Vance for Zelensky to publically fellate Trump on live television, what is he meant to do?

"I admit it, I'm a dictator who has stolen billions of dollars from American pockets. Thank you Donald, I love you! Have mercy!"

Did he "screw up" by not saying that? What was he supposed to do, there, in that moment, faced with the absolute dog shit garbage coming out of the ignorant mouths of the US President and Vice President. Explain it for us, please, go on.

[Octavious]

You're ruling out theatrics planned by all of them, then? Zelensky is the better actor of the three by a margin.

But no, assuming it was a genuine spat Zelensky should have made more of an effort to head it off at the pass. Trump is not an unknown. His quirks and foibles are well studied and largely understood. If your country is on the line and the one person who can save it likes flattery and seeing humility, you show humility and you flatter the bastard. You don't start contradicting him in his own backyard.

It's not rocket science. Dealing with Trump is not a task of Heracles. Kier Starmer, for all his faults, handled Trump extremely well. It's eminently doable

[Octavious]

Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter. If you look at the traditional European way of doing major negotiations there's always a big argument, discussions going on late through the night, and no agreement actually made until the last minute before the final deadline. This doesn't feel massively different. An agreement will be made eventually. Trying to hammer it out before Sunday's summit was asking for trouble.

[Klaus klauts]

Octavious, please stop trolling.

You are right, in that Zelensky should be careful in what he does, and that, if Trump needs kissing his ass, he should kiss. But there are limits: If Trump is propagating fake new, claiming that Ukraine is the one blocking peace, and that Ukraine should agree to a peace without US guarantees, and if he just stands there and nods, he would be dealing his country much more damage: Because if even the Ukrainian presidents "admits these "facts"", he would not only loose US support, but would also heavily risk EU support, because he would then delegitimize the Defence of Ukraine himself.

This would also heavily damage morale of Ukrainians: Imagine you are an Ukrainian soldier, fighting for 3 straight years under shitty condition, and suddenly the president of your country says: Yes, we the Ukraine started the war, and could stop it at any moment. On the one hand, this would be an obvious lie, so many would lose trust in their president, and those who believe the lie now protest instead of defend, therefore weakening Ukraine's defence.

You see: Ass-kssing has its price, and since the US has already made it clear that it will not help in any way, this price is much too high.

Most of the help received by Ukraine was given by Europe; in fact, Europe can exist perfectly fine without the US - it just needs the will to do so. In another thread, I already stated a few facts why this will did not exist in the past, but this will change in the future. The EU economic power is comparable to the Us', an economic power you will lose as an ally.

Now many in the US are happy about showing the middle finger to those "communist EU-countrys", being positive excited about those "little countries" being crushed, and begging for help. You do not realize, that when the real communists come, and the US-China-war breaks out, you will be the one to beg: Ukraine is one of the biggest weapon producers, that can produce weapons (and with that I predominantly mean rockets) very cost-effective. The others are no laughingstock either, and while there are definitely improvements to be made, you will be the beggar in the long run.

Trump has done a miracle: He has wrecked down a world centred around, and designed for the needs of the US, and makes people from countries that were allies for decades hate his gut. He is accusing Zelensky of risking WWIII, but it is very obvious, that Trump is the one to risk it every day a little more.

To the Americans who voted Trump: FUCK YOU! Your empire of shit is going down soon one way or another, and you deserve it!

[Octavious]

This would also heavily damage morale of Ukrainians: Imagine you are an Ukrainian soldier, fighting for 3 straight years under shitty condition, and suddenly the president of your country says: Yes, we the Ukraine started the war, and could stop it at any moment. On the one hand, this would be an obvious lie, so many would lose trust in their president, and those who believe the lie now protest instead of defend, therefore weakening Ukraine's defence.

They could have done a great deal more to stop the war. They have allowed themselves to believe that Ukraine could defeat Russia, and in fairness to them they had an outside chance. Putin looked genuinely shaky for a while. But China gave them sufficient backing to avoid disaster and now Trump is quite right to say that victory is virtually impossible. Certainly at the cost Ukraine and her backers are willing to pay. But giving up on the dream of victory is difficult, and Ukraine has sacrificed a lot of lives because of their failure to adjust to reality.

Most of the help received by Ukraine was given by Europe; in fact, Europe can exist perfectly fine without the US - it just needs the will to do so. In another thread, I already stated a few facts why this will did not exist in the past, but this will change in the future. The EU economic power is comparable to the Us', an economic power you will lose as an ally.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that if Ukraine had had to rely solely on European backing it would still be fighting. Russia would have taken the East and installed a puppet government in Kiev, and many hundreds of thousands of dead people would still be alive.

Now many in the US are happy about showing the middle finger to those "communist EU-countrys", being positive excited about those "little countries" being crushed, and begging for help

You and reality appear to have had a parting of the ways in this paragraph.

None of this matters, of course. Ukraine and the US will get a deal made. I very much doubt that this public falling out is much more than an effort by both sides to portray themselves as tough fighters before they end up signing up to a deal that their supporters will find disappointing. They narrative being prepared is "it may be shite, but it's the best we're going to get"

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You say Ukraine "could have done more to stop the war"—what specific actions should it have taken that wouldn’t have amounted to surrender? Ukraine's resistance has been extremely costly to Russia, it has changed Europe's entire defense posture, etc. — it would have bought Ukraine a much better bargaining position if Trump hadn't decided at the last minute that actually Russia should be rewarded for its war of aggression with maximal Ukrainian concessions.

You suggest Ukraine has sacrificed lives by failing to "adjust to reality"—should smaller nations always yield to stronger aggressors rather than resist? Aren't you yourself ex-military? What were you fighting for, if your worldview is that the smaller army in any conflict should just capitulate?

I don't think Russia set out with the intention of taking over many more countries beyond Ukraine. Given Trump's posture, I don't know why they wouldn't also nip any non-NATO members they like (Moldova). If Trump scuppers NATO, as his actions seem to be a prelude to, then is your view we should all just watch USSR 2.0 from our living rooms and be fine with it?

If the U.S. is prioritizing its own interests, how does humiliating an ally and strengthening an adversary serve those interests long-term? What is the actual mechanism that makes Trump's particular way of dealing with this so smart and strategic?

If the goal is securing the best deal for the U.S., how does making negotiations about Trump's personal ego—demanding flattery, public humiliation, and revisionist history—help achieve that?

[Octavious]

by Esquire Bertissimmo » Sat Mar 01, 2025 6:14 pm

You say Ukraine "could have done more to stop the war"—what specific actions should it have taken that wouldn’t have amounted to surrender? Ukraine's resistance has been extremely costly to Russia, it has changed Europe's entire defense posture, etc.

They could have been open to negotiation. There was a window near the start, where Ukraine had driven back the more ambitious Russian advances, where a peace could have potentially been a achieved at the cost of the pro Russian territories. Instead they kept on fighting for years, achieving nothing but death and destruction.

It's been advantageous for the rest of Europe in many respects, don't get me wrong. Get to give Russia a bloody nose without losing more than a handful of men. Help boost national workforces by importing thousands of white Europeans to work struggling factories. High percentage of women too. Ideal. If it wasn't for the financial cost the war would be the best thing to happen to Europe for years.

I don't think Russia set out with the intention of taking over many more countries beyond Ukraine. Given Trump's posture, I don't know why they wouldn't also nip any non-NATO members they like (Moldova).

He's been nipping non-NATO members for as long as he's been in power. In all honesty I'm a firm believer in backing our allies to the hilt. For non allied nations such as the Ukraines and Moldovas of the world our obligations are considerably lower. History says, however, that Putin is less inclined to nip anew when Trump is in power.

If the U.S. is prioritizing its own interests, how does humiliating an ally and strengthening an adversary serve those interests long-term? What is the actual mechanism that makes Trump's particular way of dealing with this so smart and strategic?

Zelensky wasn't humiliated. His refusal to back down seemed to play well enough in Ukraine. As for what Trump's doing with Russia, he appears to be creating a narrative to peace that Russia can live with. Putin needs an exit strategy and by treating him with apparent respect and making a show of listening to his point of view Trump is helping create one. A peace plan in which America, Ukraine et al all tell Russia they were wrong from the start and it's all their fault will simply not work. If Putin accepted such a narrative it would be the end of him, so he won't. On the other hand if Putin can point to real achievements and the understanding and respect of international rivals it may just work for him. A workable peace deal has to be something that all sides can sell as a victory

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You claim there was an early window for negotiation—what evidence do you have that Russia was willing to stop at that point? Every time Ukraine pushed back Russian advances, Moscow escalated. Why do you assume they would have stopped if Ukraine just "accepted" losing territory? It certainly didn't work in 2014.

What kind of "peace" would Ukraine have achieved by conceding the occupied territories early? How would rewarding Russia with land for its invasion have deterred future aggression, rather than encouraging it, if their primary war aim was regime change in Kyiv?

You frame Ukraine’s resistance as "achieving nothing but death and destruction"—so what would have been the cost of an early surrender? Do you think Russia would have allowed Ukraine to remain sovereign and independent after such a collapse? Many would rather die than see their country become Belarus. If everyone took your approach here would just see the world divided into two or three autocratic empires - there are good reasons why people choose to fight. Again, weren't you a member of a NATO-aligned military? What did you think you were doing?

You suggest mass Ukrainian migration has been a net gain for Europe. Do you actually think European countries see war refugees as a ‘workforce boost’ rather than a massive social and economic strain? Can you name a single country where the government is celebrating the influx of millions of displaced people? My home province of Alberta has accepted tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees (due to a large historical Ukrainian population here) and it has been a *challenge* - it's been hugely costly to keep them fed, give them dental care, etc., most lack good English skills and would *not* have been eligible for immigration through our point system, they've come to our economy during a period of high unemployment and are not bridging any meaningful gaps in the labour market (as is the case in most EU recipients in 2025 too). I think only you are concerned about getting as many "white" refugees as possible. Their "whiteness" isn't really an asset - an Indian immigrant who comes to Canada by choice and through our point system is more likely to assimilate and be a net contributor than a Ukrainian refugee.

You say keeping security commitments are very important. If the U.S. stops supporting Ukraine and weakens NATO, how exactly does that make Europe safer? Do you think allowing Russia to absorb Ukraine, Moldova, and any non-NATO neighbor without consequence is a good long-term strategy for enhancing the safety of our allies or supporting US security commitments?

How would you feel if Trump actually pulled the U.S. out of NATO? You acknowledge he’s weakening the alliance—do you think Article 5 means anything under a Trump presidency? Isn't that all very damaging to the alliancing you claim to care about?

You say Putin ‘nips less’ under Trump—but why would he need to invade if Trump is handing him everything he wants diplomatically? If Trump is actively dismantling NATO credibility, isn’t that just clearing the way for future Russian aggression? Can Trump really vote with Russia against Ukraine in the UN and then credibly say "stop" to Russia when little green men take over Moldova?

You argue that Trump is giving Putin a face-saving off-ramp—but why does that off-ramp need to include legitimizing Russia’s invasion and shifting blame onto Ukraine? Is there a difference between negotiating for peace and excusing aggression in a way that guarantees more of it? Would you have advised Finland or Poland in 1939 to just "concede some land" to Hitler for the sake of peace? Why should we expect rewarding Russian aggression to end differently?

[Klaus klauts]

Why hasn't the USA/GB/Fr made a peace deal with Nazi-Germany, via diplomatic means?

I know that there were "some minor appeasement attempts" (like just giving numerous countries to nazi-germany), but surely, you could have done better.

The Allies never had a good chance of winning, and even if they had, at what cost? Millions of innocent people dead, just because you were too proud to engage in diplomacy.

And it is so easy to make diplomacy with the Führer: his personal preferences are known, and if he wants his ass kissed, or some Jews "eliminated", it is surely to much of a sacrifice to do so. USA/GB/FR just have to accept that they are just small countries in a big world, who can not always get what they want, especially when dealing with all-mighty nazi-germany ...

There were plenty of good opportunities to broker peace, and the Nazis, who are known to be peace-loving people, would have been glad to make peace. You just should have tried harder, you just should not have let so many opportunities pass ...

(this is obviously satire)

[Klaus klauts]

* not to much to ...