Zelenski and Trump debate :0 (2 Viewers)

[Makayla09]

Guys just watched the Zelenski and Trump debate and dang it was INTENSE.
Let me know what ya'll think

 

[Socialism]

OMG THIS IMAGE i dont rlly care about any of the debate but this was so funny look at their goofy hands
trump thinks hes slick and vance is parroting trump as usual LOL

 

[Socialism]

like it actually goes hard pfp or wallpaper type shit

 

[Shavi Masee]

OMG THIS IMAGE i dont rlly care about any of the debate but this was so funny look at their goofy hands
trump thinks hes slick and vance is parroting trump as usual LOL



View attachment 46747

it's giving "check your nails" to find out if you're gay

 

[enoilgam]

Guys just watched the Zelenski and Trump debate and dang it was INTENSE.
Let me know what ya'll think

It was a disaster for both the US and Ukraine. Trump will no doubt have his supporters claim that he "talked tough" and wasn't disrespected and really, this wont blow back on Trump himself too much. For the US, long term it is so damaging because their reputation for reliability and leadership in the global space will never recover.

As I find with so many things Trump related, he does make a good point but then his lack of tact, diplomacy and long term thinking just causes one disaster after another. Ultimately, the war cannot go on forever and peace needs to be made. Zelensky has backed himself into a corner by making his definition of winning unachievable (i.e. return of all land occupied by Russia). Ultimately, Trump is right in that we need to focus on bringing about an agreeable end to the war. However, he hasnt offered anything remotely agreeable. It will now need to turn to Europe and perhaps an intermediary (i.e. Turkey or an Arab state) to facilitate peace.

 

[Socialism]

Ultimately, Trump is right in that we need to focus on bringing about an agreeable end to the war. However, he hasnt offered anything remotely agreeable. It will now need to turn to Europe and perhaps an intermediary (i.e. Turkey or an Arab state) to facilitate peace.

the difficulty in this is that ukraine is unlikely to agree to anything because the only options involve serious losses in terms of territory etc.
to be fair to them, it seems to me (obviously my opinion isn't important haha) that the war is going slow enough that ukraine isn't in a postition where they NEED an end to the war?
although, without us weaponry, it's highly unlikely they'll be able to sustain their efforts.

 

[Socialism]

It was a disaster for both the US and Ukraine. Trump will no doubt have his supporters claim that he "talked tough" and wasn't disrespected and really, this wont blow back on Trump himself too much. For the US, long term it is so damaging because their reputation for reliability and leadership in the global space will never recover.

As I find with so many things Trump related, he does make a good point but then his lack of tact, diplomacy and long term thinking just causes one disaster after another. Ultimately, the war cannot go on forever and peace needs to be made. Zelensky has backed himself into a corner by making his definition of winning unachievable (i.e. return of all land occupied by Russia). Ultimately, Trump is right in that we need to focus on bringing about an agreeable end to the war. However, he hasnt offered anything remotely agreeable. It will now need to turn to Europe and perhaps an intermediary (i.e. Turkey or an Arab state) to facilitate peace.

and also, this is a HUGE deterioration in US-Ukraine relations to the point where i'd expect that Trump might be pushed closer to a Munich agreement scenario

 

[enoilgam]

It sucks for Ukraine, but the fighting cant go on forever and with Ukraine dependent on foreign help, it makes their situation difficult. They will not get that territory back they lost...for now. By signing a peace deal with proper security guarantees, they get safety for the near future. Looking at Russia, this war has hurt them badly, their international standing is gone and their economy will struggle to recover. As John McCain said, Russia is a gas station with a big army. The world is moving away from Oil and Gas and without that, I think long term Russia will need to come back into the international fold to rebuild. At some point in the future post-Putin, a more pro-Western government may be in the mood to give that territory back. Short term though, Ukraine isnt reconquering territory.

 

[SylviaB]

to be fair to them, it seems to me (obviously my opinion isn't important haha) that the war is going slow enough that ukraine isn't in a postition where they NEED an end to the war?

Agreed - having a few hundred thousand more young conscripted men (in a country with likely the lowest fertility rate in the world) be killed or maimed in war is nothing. And sure, ukraine won't regain any territory in the process or put themselves in a better bargaining position, but, who cares?

 

[SylviaB]

weird that everyone is criticizing Trump's behavior and not zelenskyy's

the details of the agreement had already been settled, all zelenskyy had to do was shut his fat mouth and get the thing signed

but nope, 40 minutes into the meeting he had to go on a tirade that led to trump and vance saying what they did

you can't say that the US in key to ukraine 'surviving as an independent nation' but then think you get to tell them what to do while asking for billions more dollars from them

 

[enoilgam]

weird that everyone is criticizing Trump's behavior and not zelenskyy's

the details of the agreement had already been settled, all zelenskyy had to do was shut his fat mouth and get the thing signed

I mean look, Zelensky is very much a pain in the ass with his hand out but he is doing what he has to for his country to survive. I think Zelensky and his handlers botched it and he should never have gone to that meeting. He had made it clear that he wanted security guarantees and Trump demonstrated he had no intention to do so. That said, diplomatically Vance and Trump should not have done that publically. Zelensky played his usual game of cajoling and they escalated it way more than it needed. A simple "We all want to see Ukraine survive, but there are further discussions we need to have with President Zelensky to iron things out". Then take it behind the scenes and if he is still being a pain in the ass, privately tell him to get lost.

The result of this is Trump and Vance looking tough for their supporters short term, but long term they damaged US credibility hard. I don't think Donald Trump fully appreciates the importance of US foreign policy as a tool to improve domestic policy. One example of many is the US reserve currency status. China is pushing hard to remove that via BRICS and they have been sort of getting traction. Stunts like this by the US make them look that little bit more unreliable and push more countries towards dumping the USD. That would be a disaster for the US domestically.

Government is a long term, detail oriented game. What Trump and Vance did (whether justified or not), was a short term move with potentially significant long term consequences.

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

It was a disaster for both the US and Ukraine. Trump will no doubt have his supporters claim that he "talked tough" and wasn't disrespected and really, this wont blow back on Trump himself too much. For the US, long term it is so damaging because their reputation for reliability and leadership in the global space will never recover.

As I find with so many things Trump related, he does make a good point but then his lack of tact, diplomacy and long term thinking just causes one disaster after another. Ultimately, the war cannot go on forever and peace needs to be made. Zelensky has backed himself into a corner by making his definition of winning unachievable (i.e. return of all land occupied by Russia). Ultimately, Trump is right in that we need to focus on bringing about an agreeable end to the war. However, he hasnt offered anything remotely agreeable. It will now need to turn to Europe and perhaps an intermediary (i.e. Turkey or an Arab state) to facilitate peace.

i mean, is it not just crazy that the definition of 'winning' is viewed to be unachievable when it is, in effect, nothing but default restitution to the position but for uncontroversially illegal use of force and exercise of aggression? the 'winners' of most wars, have historically gained something from the 'losers' whether it be reparations, territory or resources, yet ukraine is in essence asking for restoration to the closest possible state to where they would be if not for russia's aggression.

no efficacious domestic or legal measure provides remedies in ignorance of the possibility of re-offending; the concept of incarceration as a whole reflects a recognition that simply asking, ordering, or procuring agreement to stop a course of conduct is fruitless past a certain threshold of illegality or violence. i don't think there is such thing as an 'end to the war' that doesn't involve some form of security guarantee, it wouldn't be the case that it simply isn't agreeable, it just isn't a remedy in any sense. i recognise that you mentioned the necessity of a guarantee, but it is quite ludicrous to expect a state to cede territory to appease an act of aggression near universally condemned and blatantly unhinged in an international context, facilitated by the threat of mutually assured destruction.

the concept of 'peace needs to be made' rests upon the assumption of two reasonable minded parties who can eventually come to an agreement. 'peace' in and of itself is nothing but a tokenistic stopgap at this stage, where you have a state acting in callous disregard of established principles of international law with no manifest means to stop them considering the idiocy of giving permanent members of the UN security council veto power. it really doesn't seem all that different in principle from the failed attempt at appeasement in WWII, and many global powers parading themselves as at the forefront of maintaining international order for decades aren't interested in any substantive course of action until a threat is at their own doorstep warranting facing the risk that their 'ally' has felt manifest.

 

[enoilgam]

the concept of 'peace needs to be made' rests upon the assumption of two reasonable minded parties who can eventually come to an agreement. 'peace' in and of itself is nothing but a tokenistic stopgap at this stage, where you have a state acting in callous disregard of established principles of international law with no manifest means to stop them considering the idiocy of giving permanent members of the UN security council veto power. it really doesn't seem all that different in principle from the failed attempt at appeasement in WWII, and many global powers parading themselves as at the forefront of maintaining international order for decades aren't interested in any substantive course of action until a threat is at their own doorstep warranting facing the risk that their 'ally' has felt manifest.

All good points, it will be interesting to see what Russia comes back with in response to the calls for peace. I dont think the US or Trump will play a major role - Ive noticed with Trump he goes for easy wins or shock and awe but anything requiring deep, long term or complex thinking generally exposes him (e.g. COVID). By the time the Russian's come back with a lacklustre response to the US, Trump will be onto his next thing.

An interesting thing to come out of this will be Europe's resolve. I actually think this will strengthen Europe, because they have relied on the US for far too long for their security. If they can present a united front to Russia, it might be able to extract a reasonable settlement and an end to the war.

 

[Makayla09]

It's sad tho bc a good amount of Ukrainian men are dying and for what? Now Zelenski isn't in the best terms with America so it's hard for Ukraine to even get back on track with barely any help, so (of course, my opinion doesn't matter also) it would honestly be best for him try and find a way to get OUT of the war instead of trying to get deeper INTO it, because I don't think it's good for the people of Ukraine and for Zelenski to keep losing more soldiers and artillery.
Again just my opinion (please nobody take this wrong)

 

[SylviaB]

The result of this is Trump and Vance looking tough for their supporters short term, but long term they damaged US credibility hard. I don't think Donald Trump fully appreciates the importance of US foreign policy as a tool to improve domestic policy. One example of many is the US reserve currency status.

I'm glad you mentioned that - of all the idiots having a meltdown over this and how it's destroying US power, I've seen none of them mention the US dollar despite the fact it's basically the only thing I could think of that actually matters in this context. Not that I think this is going to blow up the US dollar, but simply that most people aren't even talking about this.

China is pushing hard to remove that via BRICS and they have been sort of getting traction. Stunts like this by the US make them look that little bit more unreliable and push more countries towards dumping the USD. That would be a disaster for the US domestically.

Consider the absurdity of this all - abandoning the US dollar because they're not anti-Russia enough, and doing so by supporting.....brazil-RUSSIA-india-china-south africa bucks.

Government is a long term, detail oriented game. What Trump and Vance did (whether justified or not), was a short term move with potentially significant long term consequences.

People are keen to portray things this way because of their intense, burning hatred for Donald Trump and any US leader who doesn't put US interests last....but what are Europe or anyone else going to do?

Side with China (implicitly or explicitly), China who is openly pro-Russia and are helping to keep them afloat in the face of western sanctions? Absolute SCHIZO politics.

Fight Russia themselves, with no real militaries, limited weapons and technology manufacturing base, entire populations of young men who have no interest dying in some foreign war they have no connection to under the flag of their country whose government hates them for being european men?

 

[Socialism]

stuff

i hope this isn't ragebait cuz its so boring if it is

 

[SylviaB]

i hope this isn't ragebait cuz its so boring if it is

Hello bambi, it's time for you to sleep

 

[loveliw]

OMG THIS IMAGE i dont rlly care about any of the debate but this was so funny look at their goofy hands
trump thinks hes slick and vance is parroting trump as usual LOL



View attachment 46747

saw that and reminded me of this

i dont know if this debate was serious HELP so i apologise in advance if it was

 

[SylviaB]

the concept of 'peace needs to be made' rests upon the assumption of two reasonable minded parties who can eventually come to an agreement. 'peace' in and of itself is nothing but a tokenistic stopgap at this stage, where you have a state acting in callous disregard of established principles of international law with no manifest means to stop them considering the idiocy of giving permanent members of the UN security council veto power. it really doesn't seem all that different in principle from the failed attempt at appeasement in WWII,

Okay, so you're saying the only alternative is world war three? Why haven't you signed up to die on a battlefield already then? Or are you happy to be safe and comfortable in Australia viciously demanding that Ukraine feeds more military slaves into the meat grinder on your behalf? If the fate of the world hangs in the balance, why aren't you standing up?

and many global powers parading themselves as at the forefront of maintaining international order for decades aren't interested in any substantive course of action until a threat is at their own doorstep warranting facing the risk that their 'ally' has felt manifest.

Ukraine is not an "ally" of the US. They had no real connection other than corrupt financial interests (by no less than the former president himself). The US did not and does not owe Ukraine anything, and the support to date has not been for the sake of helping the people of Ukraine. And you know it! The US political and military establishment do not care about the people of Ukraine, they care about Russia. They would happily trade the lives of every last Ukrainian if it meant weakening Russia to the point of regime change. You think European leaders are freaking out right now because they're worried about the people of Ukraine? NO! Ukraine's value is entirely instrumental - they're not cherished "allies", Ukraine is nothing more than a bulwark for their own countries

And let's be clear - "maintaining the international order" over the past 25 years has included invading sovereign states and causing, directly and indirectly, over half a million primarily civilian deaths in wars that caused millions of people in the middle east and north africa. And let's not even start on the hypocrisy of most of these states supporting or never really standing up to Israel.

But notice how none of this "maintaining the international order" in recent history has ever involved direct or indirect conflict with major powers? This isn't analogous to anything in recent history, and truthfully isn't not even vaguely analogous to nazi germany in the lead up to the war.

You're really just reciting tired old boomer talking points.

 

[SylviaB]

Notice how nobody freaking out over Trump not being a complete doormat...never actually provide a coherent explanation on how Ukraine can possibly win?

Some of them are literally delusional enough to believe Ukraine is going to militarily defeat Russia.

Others have some vague, wishful belief that Russia is going to internally "collapse", that Putin is going to be overthrown, or otherwise it will give up and go home. Of course, the people saying this stuff have a perfect 0% prediction record on the Ukraine war and Russia to date and were all predicting that Putin would have been gone years ago. But somehow, we're meant to treat their current predictions as valid?