Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.

When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was…

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) February 28, 2025

---

The US should not be making foreign policy based on how Z acted today. We should have never asked a question we didn't know the answer to. We should have never explored new territory in front of the cameras. It shows a huge lack of wisdom and lack of foresight. The US has a huge interest in that region and Z is a small pawn. Putting him the spotlight like, acting like he influenced our policy, was a huge set back for our country. A total disgrace

---

Sorry, but this was Zelenski's fault. He is at the WH trying to get aid. He had it, Trump said that military aid will continue during the negotiations. I am not a fan of Zelenski, Trump or Vance, but Zelenski f-ed up. He is done. The proper response is to do whatever we can to get a fair peace agreement. He didn't have to agree to anything, just not do what he did. The US is the only thing keeping Ukraine alive. Stupid move.

---

Good post Florida.

You and Whiterock have been very pro-Ukraine and right now both of you have your head in your hands like the Ukranian ambassador.... that should be very telling to all the other posters on your side of this

---

I am not pro-Ukraine. I am pro not allowing invasions. Putin is wrong here. Well, that does not relieve Zelinsky of letting that spin out of control. He needed that meeting, it was one of those times you grit your teeth and take it..

---

Being floated around that he was advised to act that way and reject the deal

UKRAINE: Obama’s team including Anthony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and Alexander Vindman advised Zelensky to reject Trump’s deal in violation of the Logan Act.

h/t @MatthewNichol5 pic.twitter.com/7hdL4lYzvh

— @amuse (@amuse) March 1, 2025

---

The traitors are still acting like traitors.

Lincoln was the greatest president in American history. Washington is a close second. Most others aren't even close.

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

He has a history of doing that.

historian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

historian said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Zelensky needs to show some damn respect. We've gifted him billions of dollars.

Trump to Zelensky: "Your country is in big trouble. No, no, you've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble. You're not winning this." pic.twitter.com/R6Ibmxqe2m

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 28, 2025

---

lmao, no we didn't gift him anything according to Trump

---

The last administration did. We gotta get that money back, he's making threats.

American strength on display, especially when Zelensky tries making a veiled threat. Our country is putting up with this anymore!

pic.twitter.com/0sqoPiSWwe

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 28, 2025

I've told yall this several times, but both Russia and Ukraine are corrupt. Ukraine are not Americans, Europeans nor westerners.

---

Just to be clear, you don't think America is corrupt?

---

Biden ("the big guy"), the rest of the Dems, and most of the RINO's proved there is plenty of corruption in America. I'm not saying true republicans are pure as the driven snow. They are as human as everyone else. But mafia levels of corruption like we saw under Clinton, Obama, & especially Biden are the realm of so-called "Democrats". They are fascists.

The list of scandals and cover-ups by the Dems seems to be endless just in the past few years. Yet it has been going on for decades.

---

It's a good thing the founding fathers weren't corrupt. The slave farms had solid core values

---

Nice, trying to attack the Founding Fathers

You are a real Patriot

For the record

[The exact number of signers who owned slaves is disputed, but most estimates but the number at 17 of the 55 delegates]

So about 30%

So 70% of the Founding Father never owned a slave.

And the ones that did inherited a slave economy in existence long before they were born (one that long existed in West Africa)

---

I'm sorry that the literal truth hurts your feelings

---

Not at all

But unlike you I like to be accurate and state the real history

Nor to I attack great men of the past and call them corrupt

---

Are you saying you can't be a great man if you owned slaves?

---

70% of the Founders didn't own a single slave you historical illiterate

And yes….George Washington and Thomas Jefferson remain great men.

---

I'm not sure why you have to point out Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Sounds like an attack on great men

---

No,

But your dumb comments like this are..

[ron.reagan said:
It's a good thing the founding fathers weren't corrupt. The slave farms had solid core values]

You didn't even know that 70% of them never own a slave…lol what an idiot!

---

I'm actually surprised 30% did. I know that it wasn't widely prevalent.

---

People who know American history are not surprised that apx 30% of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. It was a central part of the economy of the economy and culture in the south at the time.

Far more important is the fact that the movement to end slavery was starting and that eventually America would end the evil institution then grant equal rights to the former slaves.

---

It's a little late to act like you know what you are talking about

One of the most striking things about yesterday’s Zelensky press conference was Lindsey Graham’s reaction to it. The two are old friends, but Graham disavowed him within the hour. This was more than just transactional disloyalty. It was scapegoating. Lindsey Graham knows what’s…

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 1, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

He has a history of doing that.

---

Not really.

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Open this Tweet. How Ukraine gets their conscripts

🇺🇸🇺🇦🚨‼️ JD Vance confronted Zelensky on the forceful mobilization, that is what he means!

People are mercilessly grabbed and forced I to the military.

1/ pic.twitter.com/MiJeqQgsY6

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 1, 2025

---

propaganda there.

it's not unusual for young men to try to avoid serving in war, and particularly a grinding war of attrition. and every state, including ours, has coercive tools to use to force those selected for service to show up & join. No way this is representative of how Ukraine primarily replenishes its war losses. But even if we presume for a moment that it is......it's just as bad or worse in Russia. Wars of attrition are truly ugly things. And the closer they get to the end, the uglier they get.

---

It's so bad in Russia that they've been recruiting 25-30K volunteers per month. They don't even have to draft men for the war, much less kidnap them.

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.
That's because you apparently have not noticed the fissure in the west which has been apparent and growing for quite a while. Go watch Vance's speech in Munich. It was a remarkable moment in history - the American populist right rising to the defense of classical liberalism which the Western Left has categorically rejected. Historians will talk about that speech centuries from now.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky.
You are projecting here. Trump did nothing to stop him, and given what we know about Trump he most certainly would not have hesitated to do so had he been so inclined. Clear implication is that both Trump and Vance (and Rubio as well) are exasperated with Zelinsky's intransigence.

He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum.
His comments about conscription were weak. Zelinsky countered well by pointing out Vance had never been to Ukraine (implying Vance was not well informed). Vance recognized that and moved on. Unfortunately, Zelinsky just kept on playing his worse hand. And Vance put the epee squarely in the center of Zelinsky's chest and pushed it in all the way to the hilt by calling out the disrespectfulness of what Zelinsky had done - using a White House presser to reopen concluded negotiations and badger his hosts. It was disrespectful to the Trump Admin. It was disrespectful to America. It was disrespectful to his own team, who clearly had no idea he was going to do that. If you aren't going to sign the deal, don't come.

The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin.
Oh stop it with the neverTrump nonsesnse. Zelinsky showed the world today why Trump is saying what he's saying - it's Zelinsky that is the obstacle to peace at this moment, completely unreasonable, thinking HE is going to drive a wedge in Nato and leverage it to force concessions out of Trump. It's megalomaniacal.

I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all.
LOL he screwed himself. Coming to Washington DC to sign an agreement and then using the press conference to reopen the negotiations is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in foreign policy. Who in their right mind would allow such a process to unfold then act like that? (apparently not realizing the man he's dealing with is not going to be bullied into anything.....)

You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that.
There's only two ways to stop a war if you're unwilling to negotiate - achieve victory or defeat. I am quite confident we could win this one in 12-24 months. The equations are horrible for Russia, considerably worse than for Ukraine (as long as they have outside help). Ukraine is willing to spend the blood to do that. But are the American people willing to spend the money? Nope. Biden should have known that. Free societies don't like wars unless they are won quickly.....tiring quickly of quagmires (which attrition warfare looks like to the casual observer). And while it is frustrating to have watched Biden fritter away goodwill while pursuing an unwise policy (incredibly cautious escalation management), we have to recognize the moment has passed. Political support is eroding away. Trump''s mines for munitions deal was an enormous achievement - Russia SAID it invaded to stop growth of Nato, but now it has Sweden and Finland in the alliance and massive US direct investments right along the Russian border. That's not Nato, but it's the next best thing (for Ukraine).

All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.
You're misreading the situation. Trump knows that. He also knows he is operating on a $2T budget deficit amid macroeconomy flirting with stagflation. It's an existential crisis for his presidency (and not terribly far from that for the country). He MUST slash spending. And $100b/yr in aid to Ukraine is a big enough number to be a priority. So you seek a peace to lock in your gains (Russia stymied), fix the domestic problems, and come back to work on foreign policy later.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.
Trump has said the deal is on the table and Zelinsky is welcome back to sign it. Balls in Zelinsky's court.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Zelinsky did a bait & switch. He let his team negotiate a deal with America. He agreed to come to America to sign the deal. And then he showed up and shat all over the deal. It's almost like he let the whole thing go forward so he could have a chance to poke Trump in the eye in front of the whole world. Childish.

Trump throws haymakers in public, says & does hitherto unpresidential things with out the slightest blush. but he's never done anything like what Zelinsky did.

To the extent these dynamics force Europe to gain more independence from America on defense issues......fantastic. Finally. They are spending money to help defend themselves rather than living off of the American taxpayer.

---

There are reports this morning that Trump changed the deal before Zelensky arrived and removed security guarantees. We'll see if that is proven accurate.

---

I'll be very surprised if it is. Trump has been consistent (at least for Trump) in saying there would be no significant security guarantees from the US.

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

He has a history of doing that.

---

Not really.

---

Then you havent been paying attention. NBC reported that Zelensky got into a shouting match with Sleepy Joe Biden. The guy was out to pasture already in 2022. How can you argue with a senile old manipulated fool?

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky. He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum. The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin. I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all. You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that. All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Trump will only dig in if Zelensky does not do what he should, or if Trump's playing a different angle...Like to unseat Zelensky.

Trump always works with people who disrespected him if they get on his page.

---

Just so we're clear, Ukraine is being asked to give up land, sovereignty, and mineral rights for a ceasefire

---

Let's run though this again for you ATL

1. That land is full of ethnic Russians who don't want to be part of Ukraine. And the government in Kyiv can not retake those areas by force….they have tried and failed for a decade (2014 to now)

2. Ukraine is not being asked to give up its sovereignty. It is and will remain sovereign and on a path to join the EU (sans the ethnic russian areas)

3. You seem to be against the mineral deal. How else are the American people supposed to be repaid for the 200+ billion we have given Ukraine?

You want Ukraine to never pay us back?

---

2. Being withheld from joining defense alliances, dictating your security parameters, and even military size is hardly keeping your sovereignty.

---

That is the fundamental misunderstanding that led to the war and will prevent any peaceful resolution as long as we cling to it. Ukraine accepted neutrality in 1991 with the full support of everyone involved. The trouble started when the West changed its mind and started making dogmatic declarations like the one above.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky. He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum. The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin. I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all. You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that. All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Trump will only dig in if Zelensky does not do what he should, or if Trump's playing a different angle...Like to unseat Zelensky.

Trump always works with people who disrespected him if they get on his page.

---

Just so we're clear, Ukraine is being asked to give up land, sovereignty, and mineral rights for a ceasefire

---

Let's run though this again for you ATL

1. That land is full of ethnic Russians who don't want to be part of Ukraine. And the government in Kyiv can not retake those areas by force….they have tried and failed for a decade (2014 to now)

2. Ukraine is not being asked to give up its sovereignty. It is and will remain sovereign and on a path to join the EU (sans the ethnic russian areas)

3. You seem to be against the mineral deal. How else are the American people supposed to be repaid for the 200+ billion we have given Ukraine?

You want Ukraine to never pay us back?

---

1. You keep piping this in, which is completely irrelevant. At worst, they wanted independence, not to be Russia.

2. Being withheld from joining defense alliances, dictating your security parameters, and even military size is hardly keeping your sovereignty.

3. I'm fine with the mineral deal. I'm against calling it some sort of peace or security deal.

---

Correct.

historian said:

---

Lincoln was the greatest president in American history. Washington is a close second. Most others aren't even close.

---

There is another thread for that

But its should be sufficient to say that when your Presidency ends with 620,000 dead Americans and hundreds of cities and town put to the torch....and about a trillion dollars in modern money lost...plus changes Federal power and the Constitution forever.....that is NOT the greatest presidency in American history

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky. He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum. The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin. I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all. You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that. All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Trump will only dig in if Zelensky does not do what he should, or if Trump's playing a different angle...Like to unseat Zelensky.

Trump always works with people who disrespected him if they get on his page.

---

Just so we're clear, Ukraine is being asked to give up land, sovereignty, and mineral rights for a ceasefire

---

Let's run though this again for you ATL

1. That land is full of ethnic Russians who don't want to be part of Ukraine. And the government in Kyiv can not retake those areas by force….they have tried and failed for a decade (2014 to now)

2. Ukraine is not being asked to give up its sovereignty. It is and will remain sovereign and on a path to join the EU (sans the ethnic russian areas)

3. You seem to be against the mineral deal. How else are the American people supposed to be repaid for the 200+ billion we have given Ukraine?

You want Ukraine to never pay us back?

---

2. Being withheld from joining defense alliances, dictating your security parameters, and even military size is hardly keeping your sovereignty.

---

That is the fundamental misunderstanding that led to the war and will prevent any peaceful resolution as long as we cling to it. Ukraine accepted neutrality in 1991 with the full support of everyone involved. The trouble started when the West changed its mind and started making dogmatic declarations like the one above.

---

A little naive - I suspect for Russia it was always about resources ... but it was a convenient pretext.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky. He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum. The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin. I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all. You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that. All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Trump will only dig in if Zelensky does not do what he should, or if Trump's playing a different angle...Like to unseat Zelensky.

Trump always works with people who disrespected him if they get on his page.

---

Just so we're clear, Ukraine is being asked to give up land, sovereignty, and mineral rights for a ceasefire

---

Let's run though this again for you ATL

1. That land is full of ethnic Russians who don't want to be part of Ukraine. And the government in Kyiv can not retake those areas by force….they have tried and failed for a decade (2014 to now)

2. Ukraine is not being asked to give up its sovereignty. It is and will remain sovereign and on a path to join the EU (sans the ethnic russian areas)

3. You seem to be against the mineral deal. How else are the American people supposed to be repaid for the 200+ billion we have given Ukraine?

You want Ukraine to never pay us back?

---

2. Being withheld from joining defense alliances, dictating your security parameters, and even military size is hardly keeping your sovereignty.

---

That is the fundamental misunderstanding that led to the war and will prevent any peaceful resolution as long as we cling to it. Ukraine accepted neutrality in 1991 with the full support of everyone involved. The trouble started when the West changed its mind and started making dogmatic declarations like the one above.

---

A little naive - I suspect for Russia it was always about resources ... but it was a convenient pretext.

---

True in a way. Russia has the most resources in the world, and it very much wants to protect them.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.
That's because you apparently have not noticed the fissure in the west which has been apparent and growing for quite a while. Go watch Vance's speech in Munich. It was a remarkable moment in history - the American populist right rising to the defense of classical liberalism which the Western Left has categorically rejected. Historians will talk about that speech centuries from now.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky.
You are projecting here. Trump did nothing to stop him, and given what we know about Trump he most certainly would not have hesitated to do so had he been so inclined. Clear implication is that both Trump and Vance (and Rubio as well) are exasperated with Zelinsky's intransigence.

He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum.
His comments about conscription were weak. Zelinsky countered well by pointing out Vance had never been to Ukraine (implying Vance was not well informed). Vance recognized that and moved on. Unfortunately, Zelinsky just kept on playing his worse hand. And Vance put the epee squarely in the center of Zelinsky's chest and pushed it in all the way to the hilt by calling out the disrespectfulness of what Zelinsky had done - using a White House presser to reopen concluded negotiations and badger his hosts. It was disrespectful to the Trump Admin. It was disrespectful to America. It was disrespectful to his own team, who clearly had no idea he was going to do that. If you aren't going to sign the deal, don't come.

The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin.
Oh stop it with the neverTrump nonsesnse. Zelinsky showed the world today why Trump is saying what he's saying - it's Zelinsky that is the obstacle to peace at this moment, completely unreasonable, thinking HE is going to drive a wedge in Nato and leverage it to force concessions out of Trump. It's megalomaniacal.

I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all.
LOL he screwed himself. Coming to Washington DC to sign an agreement and then using the press conference to reopen the negotiations is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in foreign policy. Who in their right mind would allow such a process to unfold then act like that? (apparently not realizing the man he's dealing with is not going to be bullied into anything.....)

You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that.
There's only two ways to stop a war if you're unwilling to negotiate - achieve victory or defeat. I am quite confident we could win this one in 12-24 months. The equations are horrible for Russia, considerably worse than for Ukraine (as long as they have outside help). Ukraine is willing to spend the blood to do that. But are the American people willing to spend the money? Nope. Biden should have known that. Free societies don't like wars unless they are won quickly.....tiring quickly of quagmires (which attrition warfare looks like to the casual observer). And while it is frustrating to have watched Biden fritter away goodwill while pursuing an unwise policy (incredibly cautious escalation management), we have to recognize the moment has passed. Political support is eroding away. Trump''s mines for munitions deal was an enormous achievement - Russia SAID it invaded to stop growth of Nato, but now it has Sweden and Finland in the alliance and massive US direct investments right along the Russian border. That's not Nato, but it's the next best thing (for Ukraine).

All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.
You're misreading the situation. Trump knows that. He also knows he is operating on a $2T budget deficit amid macroeconomy flirting with stagflation. It's an existential crisis for his presidency (and not terribly far from that for the country). He MUST slash spending. And $100b/yr in aid to Ukraine is a big enough number to be a priority. So you seek a peace to lock in your gains (Russia stymied), fix the domestic problems, and come back to work on foreign policy later.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.
Trump has said the deal is on the table and Zelinsky is welcome back to sign it. Balls in Zelinsky's court.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Zelinsky did a bait & switch. He let his team negotiate a deal with America. He agreed to come to America to sign the deal. And then he showed up and shat all over the deal. It's almost like he let the whole thing go forward so he could have a chance to poke Trump in the eye in front of the whole world. Childish.

Trump throws haymakers in public, says & does hitherto unpresidential things with out the slightest blush. but he's never done anything like what Zelinsky did.

To the extent these dynamics force Europe to gain more independence from America on defense issues......fantastic. Finally. They are spending money to help defend themselves rather than living off of the American taxpayer.

---

Some amazing flip flopping in there, and you've certainly adjusted to fall in line with your guy. But let's be honest, what was actually in the deal that wasn't one sided for the U.S.? Was there an agreed upon framework for Russia to stop fighting? No. Were there any agreements from Russia to stop fighting/ceasefire? No. What actual peace was part of this deal? It was a political check box for the Trump admin to get payback for aid provided. And it wasn't even certain because it was just a fund that we split revenue with them. Furthermore, what would Russia be deterred by this when our involvement is a hands off new investment fund, not even participation in existing enterprises which could possibly be threatened by further encroachment.

I have no issue with trying to claw back expenditures through partnerships, but let's not pretend this is any type of peace deal.

---

As I understand it, the agreement wasn't with Russia but with Ukraine. The deal would have given the US an investment interest in Ukraine and therefore a reason to bring Russia to the table so they don't go against the US.

Without US interest in Ukraine, it's a European issue

Slava Cocaina!

Cokehead pic.twitter.com/PTHavFyORd

— M.A.G.A 🇺🇸 (@MAGA_GROYPER) February 28, 2025

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky. He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum. The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin. I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all. You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that. All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Trump will only dig in if Zelensky does not do what he should, or if Trump's playing a different angle...Like to unseat Zelensky.

Trump always works with people who disrespected him if they get on his page.

---

Just so we're clear, Ukraine is being asked to give up land, sovereignty, and mineral rights for a ceasefire

---

Let's run though this again for you ATL

1. That land is full of ethnic Russians who don't want to be part of Ukraine. And the government in Kyiv can not retake those areas by force….they have tried and failed for a decade (2014 to now)

2. Ukraine is not being asked to give up its sovereignty. It is and will remain sovereign and on a path to join the EU (sans the ethnic russian areas)

3. You seem to be against the mineral deal. How else are the American people supposed to be repaid for the 200+ billion we have given Ukraine?

You want Ukraine to never pay us back?

---

1. You keep piping this in, which is completely irrelevant. At worst, they wanted independence, not to be Russia.

2. Being withheld from joining defense alliances, dictating your security parameters, and even military size is hardly keeping your sovereignty.

3. I'm fine with the mineral deal. I'm against calling it some sort of peace or security deal.

---

Re #2, Sovereignty? Ukraine, like most countries in the world, are in a position where choosing to arm themselves with nukes is not a possibility. There are more powerful countries that won't allow it. Are those countries that are being prevented from getting nukes still sovereign? Is it wrong for the powerful countries to not allow them to get nukes? Follow the logical conclusion further down, Degrees of sovereignty can be determined by your place in the world. We don't have to like it, but it's reality.

---

They willingly sign an agreement not to with incentives. Those that choose not to are dealt with separately, see North Korea and Iran. I understand well the power dynamics of the world. This situation has a different strategic problem. The direct aggression toward Ukraine that clearly violated sovereignty, and the over reaching aggression toward the West. Maybe the latter doesn't matter anymore to a certain ilk, but it's a story as old as time as far as global stability.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky. He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum. The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin. I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all. You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that. All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Trump will only dig in if Zelensky does not do what he should, or if Trump's playing a different angle...Like to unseat Zelensky.

Trump always works with people who disrespected him if they get on his page.

---

Just so we're clear, Ukraine is being asked to give up land, sovereignty, and mineral rights for a ceasefire

---

Let's run though this again for you ATL

1. That land is full of ethnic Russians who don't want to be part of Ukraine. And the government in Kyiv can not retake those areas by force….they have tried and failed for a decade (2014 to now)

2. Ukraine is not being asked to give up its sovereignty. It is and will remain sovereign and on a path to join the EU (sans the ethnic russian areas)

3. You seem to be against the mineral deal. How else are the American people supposed to be repaid for the 200+ billion we have given Ukraine?

You want Ukraine to never pay us back?

---

1. You keep piping this in, which is completely irrelevant. At worst, they wanted independence, not to be Russia.

2. Being withheld from joining defense alliances, dictating your security parameters, and even military size is hardly keeping your sovereignty.

---

1. I bring it up because you won't accept clear facts on the ground and the will of the people in those areas.

You also seem to think Kyiv should keep up a futile decades long struggle that has failed to bring those areas back under Ukrainian control….it is not going to work….period

2. Biden your boy already said NATO membership was off the table.

That was literally the position of the Liberals in DC

So now you are mad a Trump for carrying on the exact same US policy?

PS

A few years down the road geo-political circumstance might change and there could be a chance for Ukraine to join (sans the ethnic Russian areas we discussed)

But you have to get peace now to make that a possible reality later

UKRAINE: Even Biden, albeit privately, told Zelensky that Ukraine will never be part of NATO. pic.twitter.com/QRuLsldXwO

— @amuse (@amuse) February 15, 2025

🇺🇸🇺🇦 Blinken admits Ukraine won’t join NATO but suggests sending Europeans to fight and die there is acceptable. pic.twitter.com/Sxuk7mOgZh

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) December 19, 2024

---

It wasn't the "will of the people" until after Russia had invaded. Amazing how that happened. And of course it's futile because we obviously decided it really didn't matter to the West to try and help them take it back. So we focused on the rest of Ukraine. Of course that wasn't enough for Russia, and they invaded the rest of the country. It was too much to try and help them defend themselves, so now we're resetting again, blaming Ukraine, calling their leader a dictator, and pressing them to capitulate to Russia and give us some of their resources. The lesson here is, invade whoever you want to, there's spoils on the other side, and no one's willing to resist. I understand why Zelensky is frustrated, even if he went off the rails at the wrong time.

2. Biden's far from my boy, and couldn't remember if he changed his poopy pants. But it's laughable for you to make this point when you blamed the NATO assurances for the start of the war and cite multiple times Biden and other leadership parroting the same throughout this conflict. At least be intellectually honest. And stop posting rando X accounts that get shot down for misinformation often.

I'm all for a peaceful resolution. So tell me how signing a deal for a Ukrainian investment fund is peace? Tell me what is Russia willing to do? How much should they be rewarded for their invasion? I see what Trump wants to extort out of Ukraine. What's Russia's pound of flesh? We're going to eliminate sanctions? Give them G7? No tariffs? Buy their aluminum? Pull troops out of NATO states like Latvia? All while they support China and their efforts to undermine us. It's the craziest logic ever.

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Vance ****ed that situation up and Trump went Trump as a follow on.

---

Zelensky ****ed up that situation.

The American public is beginning to see what a bunch of ingrates these people are.

There are people in this country that could really use every penny that gets sent to Ukraine as aid.

---

every now & then, you have a moment of clarity (that moment in bold), even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Lots & lots of people in both countries were involved in drafting that agreement. Lots & lots of people were involved in scheduling Zelinsky's trip to USA. Lots & lots of people got the WH ready to host the meeting, organize the press, to ballyhoo the signing of the agreement, etc..... It was all tied up in a package. All the two heads of state had to do was put a couple of bows on it. BOTH sides knew that.

And then Zelinsky came in and started negotiating in front of the press, as if he was going to get the American people to flood the phone lines to demand that Trump accede to Ukrainian demands. It was a stunning, sophomoric misread of the moment. Astounding. Note the Ukraine Ambassador's head in her hands as it was all unfolding. She'd done her job. And then Zelinsky showed up thinking his force of personality could transform the deal into more aid for "as long as it takes." And Trump & Vance handed Zelinsky great bit pieces of his own anatomy. I've been around a bit. Seen a demarche delivered to a head of state which threatened to "destroy your country" and proceeded to go on with a list of examples of how the destruction would be delivered. So this one was not particularly rough & tumble. Diplomacy can be a lot more blunt that Trump was today, trust me. But it was an enormous blunder by Zelinsky, from which he has no real face-saving extrication.

I am convinced that Zelinsky has a bad case of neverTrumper going on. He's got Euro heads of state complaining about Trump muscling them around to do what they've promised to do but never had (Nato constributions), and changing tactics in the Ukraine War, etc...... And he's had 4 years of Democrats filling his head with nonsense about how good he is and how bad Trump is. And the international media filling his head with nonsense. He's clearly isolated and out of touch with reality, at least to the extent that he does not understand how the landscape in America has changed. It might be in America's best interest to up the aid & remove the restrictions on how that aid is used, (and it is) but the policy opponents are winning the argument in the court of public opinion. That constrains options. What you do in situations like that is lock in your position (like by signing the deal your team negotiated for you) and come back later to get more. Instead, he wanted to win an argument on camera with a guy he clearly has misunderestimated.

Trump's de facto lend-lease (mines for munitions) is not a bad deal. It's the next best thing to a formal Nato commitment (which itself is a bad idea). but Zelinsky can't read a room. And now he's had his ass handed to him. On international TV.

If he's smart, he'll come back & sign.
And if I know Trump like I think I do, the price will go up. Zelinsky will either give up more, or get less for what he did. Would be magnanimous for Trump to leave the current deal on the table.

I can't say this is the most spectacular blunder in diplomatic history, because most of them happen behind closed doors......but Zelinsky really, really diminished himself today. If he wasn't gonna sign the agreement, he should not have come. He picked the no-win fight of all no-win fights.

---

Your twists of logic and positions befuddle me. If you haven't, check the Russian and Chinese channels. The fissure building in the West is being simultaneously met with further Russo Sino collaboration. Shoigu was just in Beijing.
That's because you apparently have not noticed the fissure in the west which has been apparent and growing for quite a while. Go watch Vance's speech in Munich. It was a remarkable moment in history - the American populist right rising to the defense of classical liberalism which the Western Left has categorically rejected. Historians will talk about that speech centuries from now.

You know damn well Vance went rogue after Zelensky.
You are projecting here. Trump did nothing to stop him, and given what we know about Trump he most certainly would not have hesitated to do so had he been so inclined. Clear implication is that both Trump and Vance (and Rubio as well) are exasperated with Zelinsky's intransigence.

He (Vance) was touting points you've spent ad nauseum time making arguments against on this very forum.
His comments about conscription were weak. Zelinsky countered well by pointing out Vance had never been to Ukraine (implying Vance was not well informed). Vance recognized that and moved on. Unfortunately, Zelinsky just kept on playing his worse hand. And Vance put the epee squarely in the center of Zelinsky's chest and pushed it in all the way to the hilt by calling out the disrespectfulness of what Zelinsky had done - using a White House presser to reopen concluded negotiations and badger his hosts. It was disrespectful to the Trump Admin. It was disrespectful to America. It was disrespectful to his own team, who clearly had no idea he was going to do that. If you aren't going to sign the deal, don't come.

The administration has gone pro-Putin in a bizarre way. Yes, pro Putin.
Oh stop it with the neverTrump nonsesnse. Zelinsky showed the world today why Trump is saying what he's saying - it's Zelinsky that is the obstacle to peace at this moment, completely unreasonable, thinking HE is going to drive a wedge in Nato and leverage it to force concessions out of Trump. It's megalomaniacal.

I'll admit Zelensky didn't help himself by losing his cool, especially with a volatile Trump, but this was a terrible moment for all.
LOL he screwed himself. Coming to Washington DC to sign an agreement and then using the press conference to reopen the negotiations is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in foreign policy. Who in their right mind would allow such a process to unfold then act like that? (apparently not realizing the man he's dealing with is not going to be bullied into anything.....)

You know Putin can't be trusted, started this war (including back in 2014 which Zelensky was addressing), needs to have any expansionist plans thwarted, yet this administration is doing everything opposite of that.
There's only two ways to stop a war if you're unwilling to negotiate - achieve victory or defeat. I am quite confident we could win this one in 12-24 months. The equations are horrible for Russia, considerably worse than for Ukraine (as long as they have outside help). Ukraine is willing to spend the blood to do that. But are the American people willing to spend the money? Nope. Biden should have known that. Free societies don't like wars unless they are won quickly.....tiring quickly of quagmires (which attrition warfare looks like to the casual observer). And while it is frustrating to have watched Biden fritter away goodwill while pursuing an unwise policy (incredibly cautious escalation management), we have to recognize the moment has passed. Political support is eroding away. Trump''s mines for munitions deal was an enormous achievement - Russia SAID it invaded to stop growth of Nato, but now it has Sweden and Finland in the alliance and massive US direct investments right along the Russian border. That's not Nato, but it's the next best thing (for Ukraine).

All over a deal that at best might have produced fruits well after Trump is out of office.
You're misreading the situation. Trump knows that. He also knows he is operating on a $2T budget deficit amid macroeconomy flirting with stagflation. It's an existential crisis for his presidency (and not terribly far from that for the country). He MUST slash spending. And $100b/yr in aid to Ukraine is a big enough number to be a priority. So you seek a peace to lock in your gains (Russia stymied), fix the domestic problems, and come back to work on foreign policy later.

Perhaps after a cooling off period they can reconcile and move forward, but I fear Trump will dig in for ego reasons as much as anything, and Europe becomes the arbiter and beneficiary of the arrangement, or continues the war. All in time for a trade war with our allies and adversaries.
Trump has said the deal is on the table and Zelinsky is welcome back to sign it. Balls in Zelinsky's court.

As the saying goes, "May you live in interesting times".

---

Zelinsky did a bait & switch. He let his team negotiate a deal with America. He agreed to come to America to sign the deal. And then he showed up and shat all over the deal. It's almost like he let the whole thing go forward so he could have a chance to poke Trump in the eye in front of the whole world. Childish.

Trump throws haymakers in public, says & does hitherto unpresidential things with out the slightest blush. but he's never done anything like what Zelinsky did.

To the extent these dynamics force Europe to gain more independence from America on defense issues......fantastic. Finally. They are spending money to help defend themselves rather than living off of the American taxpayer.

---

Fantastic post whiterock!

If I could give you more than one blue star, I would!

Watching you slap around ATL Bear is my new guilty pleasure!

---

Best to not post and let people think you're a pathetic loser than to do so and remove all doubt.

The Donbas has fought for some form of autonomy or independence from Kiev since 2014. You seem to be under the impression that the territory is ours to give or not give to Russia as a "reward." That's not the reality. You can't give up what you don't have.

You are right about the West deciding it didn't matter. Unless we wanted war with Russia, that was inevitable. I've said from the beginning that Ukraine is more important to them than it is to us.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Donbas has fought for some form of autonomy or independence from Kiev since 2014. You seem to be under the impression that the territory is ours to give or not give to Russia as a "reward." That's not the reality. You can't give up what you don't have.

---

No. Russia and a small number of pro-Russian separatists fought for Donbas.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Donbas has fought for some form of autonomy or independence from Kiev since 2014. You seem to be under the impression that the territory is ours to give or not give to Russia as a "reward." That's not the reality. You can't give up what you don't have.

---

No. Russia and a small number of pro-Russian separatists fought for Donbas.

---

They have maintained somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 volunteer fighters locally from the Donbas

In war going on since 2014.....11 whole years!

At this point kids who were 9 years old when the war broke out are now grown up and fighting Kyiv

A generation of men in the East who hate the central government for waging war on them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Ukraine

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Donbas has fought for some form of autonomy or independence from Kiev since 2014. You seem to be under the impression that the territory is ours to give or not give to Russia as a "reward." That's not the reality. You can't give up what you don't have.

---

No. Russia and a small number of pro-Russian separatists fought for Donbas.

---

It wasn't controversial at the time to classify it as a genuine civil war. That changed as Russia became more involved and the West began revising history. One thing is certain -- there are far more citizens of Donetsk and Luhansk fighting alongside Russian forces today than fighting against them (because the latter number is at or near zero).

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Donbas has fought for some form of autonomy or independence from Kiev since 2014. You seem to be under the impression that the territory is ours to give or not give to Russia as a "reward." That's not the reality. You can't give up what you don't have.

---

No. Russia and a small number of pro-Russian separatists fought for Donbas.

---

It wasn't controversial at the time to classify it as a genuine civil war. That changed as Russia became more involved and the West began revising history. One thing is certain -- there are far more citizens of Donetsk and Luhansk fighting alongside Russian forces today than fighting against them (because the latter number is at or near zero).

---

Russia admitted a good chunk of the early "separatists" were Russians who had crossed the border and mostly retired military or intel. And that's not even counting the actual Russian soldiers and equipment.

I don't know that your last statement is true. Are you saying no Ukrainians originally from Donbas are fighting for Ukraine? If so, that's crazy and demonstrably false.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Donbas has fought for some form of autonomy or independence from Kiev since 2014. You seem to be under the impression that the territory is ours to give or not give to Russia as a "reward." That's not the reality. You can't give up what you don't have.

---

No. Russia and a small number of pro-Russian separatists fought for Donbas.

---

It wasn't controversial at the time to classify it as a genuine civil war. That changed as Russia became more involved and the West began revising history. One thing is certain -- there are far more citizens of Donetsk and Luhansk fighting alongside Russian forces today than fighting against them (because the latter number is at or near zero).

---

Russia admitted a good chunk of the early "separatists" were Russians who had crossed the border and mostly retired military or intel. And that's not even counting the actual Russian soldiers and equipment.

I don't know that your last statement is true. Are you saying no Ukrainians originally from Donbas are fighting for Ukraine? If so, that's crazy and demonstrably false.

---

No, I'm saying there's none of the local resistance that one would expect against a foreign "occupation." The Russians are being welcomed by a population weary of aggression from Kiev.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Donbas has fought for some form of autonomy or independence from Kiev since 2014. You seem to be under the impression that the territory is ours to give or not give to Russia as a "reward." That's not the reality. You can't give up what you don't have.

---

No. Russia and a small number of pro-Russian separatists fought for Donbas.

---

It wasn't controversial at the time to classify it as a genuine civil war. That changed as Russia became more involved and the West began revising history. One thing is certain -- there are far more citizens of Donetsk and Luhansk fighting alongside Russian forces today than fighting against them (because the latter number is at or near zero).

---

Russia admitted a good chunk of the early "separatists" were Russians who had crossed the border and mostly retired military or intel. And that's not even counting the actual Russian soldiers and equipment.

I don't know that your last statement is true. Are you saying no Ukrainians originally from Donbas are fighting for Ukraine? If so, that's crazy and demonstrably false.

---

No, I'm saying there's none of the local resistance that one would expect against a foreign "occupation." The Russians are being welcomed by a population weary of aggression from Kyiv.

---

LMAO! Because those that resisted are dead, fled, or forced to fight by now, dumbnuts.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln was the greatest president in American history. Washington is a close second. Most others aren't even close.

---

There is another thread for that

But its should be sufficient to say that when your Presidency ends with 620,000 dead Americans and hundreds of cities and town put to the torch....and about a trillion dollars in modern money lost...plus changes Federal power and the Constitution forever.....that is NOT the greatest presidency in American history

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken

---

Lincoln didn't start the war. He defended the country & ended the war. He also ended slavery.

🚨BREAKING: The mask has slipped. Yesterday, @ZelenskyyUa had a shouting match with @realDonaldTrump & @JDVance1 in the White House.
For years, he was hailed a hero. Now he's exposed.
Here’s the history of the Ukraine & Zelenskyy you won't hear from the media: 🧵👇 1/22 pic.twitter.com/qQHtpXlBd0

— George Christensen (@NationFirstAust) March 1, 2025

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln was the greatest president in American history. Washington is a close second. Most others aren't even close.

---

There is another thread for that

But its should be sufficient to say that when your Presidency ends with 620,000 dead Americans and hundreds of cities and town put to the torch....and about a trillion dollars in modern money lost...plus changes Federal power and the Constitution forever.....that is NOT the greatest presidency in American history

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken

---

Lincoln didn't start the war. He defended the country & ended the war. He also ended slavery.

---

What years was Lincoln in the Ukraine?

The side discussion was about great presidents in US history.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The Donbas has fought for some form of autonomy or independence from Kiev since 2014. You seem to be under the impression that the territory is ours to give or not give to Russia as a "reward." That's not the reality. You can't give up what you don't have.

---

No. Russia and a small number of pro-Russian separatists fought for Donbas.

---

It wasn't controversial at the time to classify it as a genuine civil war. That changed as Russia became more involved and the West began revising history. One thing is certain -- there are far more citizens of Donetsk and Luhansk fighting alongside Russian forces today than fighting against them (because the latter number is at or near zero).

---

Russia admitted a good chunk of the early "separatists" were Russians who had crossed the border and mostly retired military or intel. And that's not even counting the actual Russian soldiers and equipment.

I don't know that your last statement is true. Are you saying no Ukrainians originally from Donbas are fighting for Ukraine? If so, that's crazy and demonstrably false.

---

No, I'm saying there's none of the local resistance that one would expect against a foreign "occupation." The Russians are being welcomed by a population weary of aggression from Kiev.

---

Sure, they either were murdered, imprisoned, forced out, or just plain left. Sure, I'll concede that between mid-2014 and 2022, most pro-Ukraine Donbas residents were gone.

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln was the greatest president in American history. Washington is a close second. Most others aren't even close.

---

There is another thread for that

But its should be sufficient to say that when your Presidency ends with 620,000 dead Americans and hundreds of cities and town put to the torch....and about a trillion dollars in modern money lost...plus changes Federal power and the Constitution forever.....that is NOT the greatest presidency in American history

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken

---

He also ended slavery.

---

No he didn't

A Constitutional amendment ended slavery

Lincoln's EP was carefully crafted to essentially free no slaves

Omitting the parts of the South that the Union was occupying…even though he could have freed them there. Nor freeing the slaves in the Union States

[Slavery was not abolished by the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The proclamation applied only to enslaved people in states that were in rebellion in 1863, namely South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Arkansas, and North Carolina. It exempted Tennessee and portions of Virginia and Louisiana that were occupied by the Union and left slavery untouched in the border states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri.]

The Emancipation Proclamation was the beginning of a process leading to the 13th amendment. It was all very political, as is most of what the government does. There's no way it would have happened then without presidential leadership. Because of Lincoln's Proclamation, the border states began freeing slaves before the war ended and before the 13th. They were exempted in the Proclamation because of careful wording.