Patterico's Pontifications

2/18/2025

Unbelievable: U.S. and Russia to Negotiate End of War Without Ukraine’s Participation

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:46 am

[guest post by Dana]

This is just preening, posturing, and simply ridiculous:

The United States and Russia agreed on four principles following talks that lasted more than four hours in Saudi Arabia, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday, including appointing a high-level team to help “negotiate and work through the end of the conflict in Ukraine” in a way that’s “acceptable to all the parties engaged.”

The U.S. continues to shame itself before the world as Russia, the hostile invader, mass kidnapper of Ukrainian children, murderous regime, and all-around evil thug, is given the a seat at the table, while Ukraine, the only victim in this nightmare, is not offered a seat. What a gift to Putin! He must love Trump so much. He is the gift who keeps on giving. . .to the mortal enemy of the United States (as we essentially shun ann ally-state).

Per President Zelensky:

“Russia attacked Ukraine and we had no choice but to take up arms and defend ourselves. And there was no diplomacy because Russia attacked, attacked Ukraine at night and Ukrainians took up arms and started to defend their country,” Zelensky said at a news conference in Turkey’s capital Ankara.

Zelensky said Moscow gave Ukraine an “ultimatum” shortly after launching its invasion, demanding that Ukraine reduce its troop numbers and allow Moscow to install “a pro-Russian leadership” in Ukraine.

“If we didn’t go for all these ultimatums at the most difficult moment, why do we have the feeling that Ukraine will do it now?” the president said.

Additionally:

Zelensky said he wants the war to end, “but we want it to be fair and that no one decides anything behind our backs.”

“You cannot make decisions without Ukraine on how to end the war in Ukraine, on any conditions,” he stressed.

—Dana

Comments (81)

81 Responses to “Unbelievable: U.S. and Russia to Negotiate End of War Without Ukraine’s Participation”

Maddening.
Dana (d4d33b) — 2/18/2025 @ 8:46 am
Trump knows that the other Bavarian megalomaniac before him was doing great for as long as he was still on good terms with Russia.

The Lavrov-Rubio Pact?
nk (c6bea6) — 2/18/2025 @ 8:53 am
Again, Europe needs to man up here and put forces into Ukraine now. Starting with air power. Taking out that bridge would be a good first step.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 8:54 am
I did read that England and Sweden have said that they are willing to send troops.
Dana (0df9ca) — 2/18/2025 @ 8:57 am
Yes, but only as peacekeepers after any agreement. If no one stands up now, that agreement will have little to offer Ukraine.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:01 am
This is exactly what Britain did to Czechoslovakia. It’s ironic that Slovakia is on board with it.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:02 am
This may thrill the ~~cowards~~ ~~Putinistas~~ appeasers among his supporters, but Trump is burning an incredible amount of political capital here. It will galvanize his opponents and add to their numbers.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:05 am
We already know the Ukrainian position, Now we talk to our military peer.

After some more back and forth in separate talks, we can have them together. Right any face to face talks would likely devolve into more entrenched positions.
IF Europe wants to help Ukraine’s bargaining position, now is the time.. They won’t in my view- so US gets to see that card. Europe doesn’t care enough to send arms to root out Russians, then we know the future of Ukraine is Russia
steveg (c55fba) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:13 am
QUESTION: The Ukrainians and the Europeans have suggested they feel very sidelined about how the process has played out so far. How do you intend to address their concerns? Will they be incorporated in future meetings in a multilateral way?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, the comment I would have on that is that for three and a half years while this conflict has raged, the three years while it’s raged, no one else has been able to bring something together like what we saw today, because Donald Trump is the only leader in the world that can. So no one is being sidelined here. But President Trump is in a position that he campaigned on to initiate a process that could bring about an end to this conflict, and from that could emerge some very positive things for the United States, for Europe, for Ukraine, for the world. But first it begins by the end of this conflict.

And so the only thing President Trump’s trying to do is bring about peace. It’s what he campaigned on. It’s something the world should be thanking President Trump for doing. He was able – he’s been able to achieve what for three – two and a half, three years no one else has been able to achieve, which is to bring – to begin this process, a serious process. Obviously, a lot of work remains before we have a result. But President Trump’s the only one that can do it.

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WALTZ: I think it – look, it’s common sense. If you’re going to bring both sides together, you have to talk to both sides. And we’ll continue to remind everyone literally within minutes of President Trump hanging up with President Putin he called and spoke with President Zelenskyy. So shuttle diplomacy has happened throughout history, it’s happened all over the world. We are absolutely talking to both sides. The Secretary of State just met with President Zelenskyy days ago, along with the Vice President, seven Cabinet members in Europe at the same time – really showing the importance of engaging our allies. President Trump spoke with President Macron just yesterday. Prime Minister Starmer is coming to Washington next week.

So I think we’ll – the facts – we’ll continue to push back on this notion that our allies haven’t been consulted. They’re being – they are being consulted literally almost on a daily basis. And we’ll continue to do so

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff with Jennifer Hansler of CNN and Matthew Lee of the Associated Press

INTERVIEW

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE

DIRIYAH PALACE

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA

FEBRUARY 18, 2025

I thought the AP was banned??
BuDuh (525c92) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:34 am
European feathers are all afluffle over the US positioning because they are being cut out and called out.
It is put up or shut up time.
If I was appointed czar of the conflict by the EU, I’d say now is the time to give Ukraine everything it needs to improve its bargaining position (even though the best time likely passed by at least a year).
Instead, the EU are probably going to maintain the trickle that has incremental Russian gains.
The Poles have a will to fight, but a large number of Poles really don’t like Ukrainians.
steveg (c55fba) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:57 am
3 and 7, Kevin- But the EU hasn’t done that, and their lack of readiness shows that they are very squeamish about doing anything like it.

Many in the US project a misty-eyed strength and resolve onto NATO that they wish NATO still had, but anyone with eyes can see it does not, and has chosen not to have. Britain has mentioned troops, but it does not have what is needed: Britain’s fleet is smaller than in 1982. Germany has barely 128 fighters, only some operable. A french “baguette battalion” will – -well, maybe it can make meals.

NATO’s dismal lack of readiness was clear in 2018–when many here were indignantly excoriating the Orange Man for being “rude” to “our allies,” by telling them to up their military budgets. (Maybe they should have supported him instead.) He saw what many here still don’t/can’t see. An ally that can barely get off the couch is not much of an ally, no matter how mush shared heritage, warm feelings etc we have.

Absent a US backed guarantee, NATO is not going to venture into a brush war with Putin. We’re talking about the US confronting Putin. All pretense and warm feelings aside, NATO can’t hack it on its own. 500 million people in the EU and it still needs the US. We’re 3,000 miles away. We’re running low ourselves on 155 mm artillery shells. Logistics of just getting troops and supplie there are daunting.

And again, have you talked to the Army about its state of readiness after 4 years of pronouns? And since we’re borrowing about $2T a year, how much more to station US troops to buffer the Ukraine? Will the “anything for Ukraine” here be joining the troops there if fighting breaks out? (just kidding–we all know that’s a job for someone else).

Putin is not a good man. We were right to help Ukraine. I’m sorry they don’t have 100 million people. But its time to cut a deal. Maybe Germany can use the time to stop going green and up its military. Maybe all those Ukrainain refugees can go back and fight or at least enlist

Agree that the rush to deal is not the best look, and if Putin reneges, Trump will be the man “who lost Ukraine.” But outside the people who defend Taiwan, Ukraine (but not our own border), I’m not seeing support for more fighting.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:10 am
I did read that England and Sweden have said that they are willing to send troops.

Dana (0df9ca) — 2/18/2025 @ 8:57 am

But only if the US acts as a backstop and as long as others (including the US) participate. Not likely to happen.

Sir Keir Starmer has said any Ukraine peace deal would require a “US backstop” to deter Russia from attacking its neighbour again.

Speaking after a hastily convened meeting with European leaders in Paris, he said a “US security guarantee was the only way to effectively deter Russia”, and vowed to discuss the “key elements” of a peace deal with US President Donald Trump in Washington next week.
……….
He avoided explaining exactly what he meant by a “backstop” – but his allies suggest this could involve air support, logistics and intelligence capabilities.
……….
Sir Keir has indicated any troop contributions from the UK would be part of a multinational force to police the border between Ukrainian-held and Russian-held territory.

But experts say to do so effectively would be a massive undertaking that would require a large increase in defence spending.

Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, said that, unlike UN peacekeeping forces there to observe, if the force being proposed was intended to deter Russian attacks, it would be a “whole different matter altogether”.

“You need credible, well-armed forces – and you not only need frontline forces, you need back-up forces, and air forces, and so on,” he told the BBC. “That’s a much bigger ask.”

General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, a former Nato commander, said: “This cannot be a token force, it cannot be something that observes bad behaviour and stands on the sideline.”

The former head of the British Army, Lord Dannatt, previously estimated such a force would need around 100,000 troops – with the UK contributing about two-fifths.
………..
Poland’s Tusk has already indicated his nation would not send troops into Ukraine, but would continue to support it with military, financial and humanitarian aid.
………..
British diplomats do not believe every nation would need to commit to contributing troops – but some would. And whatever Europe’s eventual role, US involvement would still be required.

Prof Chalmers said: “Having significant numbers of Nato troops on Ukrainian soil after a ceasefire would be a failure for Russia, so it’s hard for me at this point to see Russia accepting such a presence as a part of the deal.”

Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:15 am
I thought the AP was banned??

Only from the White House and Air Force One.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:17 am
The Poles have a will to fight, but a large number of Poles really don’t like Ukrainians.

steveg (c55fba) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:57 am

Apparently Poland will not be sending any troops to Ukraine.

“As for Poland’s support, I think the matter is settled. Poland will continue to support Ukraine as it has done so far, in terms of organization, finance, humanitarian aid and military assistance. We do not foresee sending Polish soldiers to Ukrainian territory,” Tusk said before leaving for Paris.

He added that Warsaw would also support – “both in terms of logistics and political support” – countries that might want to provide such guarantees in the future.
………..
He also said that Poland, Ukraine, and the entire region need support from both Europe and the United States for their security. “There is no reason why allies –despite disagreements– should not find a common position on the most important issues,” he said.

A similar stance was expressed by Defence Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz (PSL, EPP). “We do not plan to send Polish soldiers to Ukraine, and we are not preparing to that,” he said.
………..
In mid-2024, 71% of Poles opposed sending troops to Ukraine, while only 9% supported such an engagement, and a fifth had no specified opinion, according to a poll by SW Research for Rzeczpospolita daily.
######
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:28 am
@7

This may thrill the cowards Putinistas appeasers among his supporters, but Trump is burning an incredible amount of political capital here. It will galvanize his opponents and add to their numbers.

Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:05 am

Not really.

If the peacekeepers are only those of EU countries…and the war stops, that’s a win.

My guess: The Donbass, Lusken Oblast (sp?) and Crimea would remain in Russian control.

Ukraine joins the EU bloc, but not NATO, with a European peacekeeping force.

Long term, that may be the best of a bad situation, especially since the EU is now rumbling about building a EU army (NATO-lite).
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:29 am
Whembly, seems likely that Putin will win at least what you’ve described. It willl not surprise me if Trump gives him even more.
Time123 (f16156) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:51 am
If the peacekeepers are only those of EU countries…and the war stops, that’s a win.

No, it isn’t. It’s exactly what they said after Munich in 1938. Here’s the progression of events that followed “Peace in our Time”:

On 30 September [1938], Czechoslovakia submitted to the combination of military pressure by Germany, Poland, and Hungary, and diplomatic pressure by Britain and France, and agreed to surrender territory to Germany following the Munich terms.

The Munich Agreement was soon followed by the First Vienna Award on 2 November 1938, separating largely Hungarian inhabited territories in southern Slovakia and southern Subcarpathian Rus’ from Czechoslovakia. On 30 November 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland small patches of land in the Spiš and Orava regions.

In March 1939, the First Slovak Republic, a German puppet state, proclaimed its independence. Shortly afterwards, Hitler reneged on his promises to respect the integrity of Czechoslovakia by occupying the remainder of the country and creating the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The conquered nation’s significant military arsenal played an important role in Germany’s invasions of Poland and France in 1939 and 1940.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:57 am
It will not be hard for the Democrats and the MSM (birm) to jam this down Trump’s throat. By 2028 the whole deal will have collapsed and Ukraine will be wholly Russian, more so after the ethnic cleansing. If you think Trump is vindictive, Putin is far worse.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 11:00 am
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:57 am

Who do you see as the present day Konrad Henlein?
BuDuh (525c92) — 2/18/2025 @ 11:08 am
Trump is burning an incredible amount of political capital here. It will galvanize his opponents and add to their numbers.

Trump isn’t losing any political capital, he actually may gain some as he is fulfilling a campaign promise. As I’ve said before, and polling confirms it, Americans really don’t care about Ukraine.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 12:00 pm
It will not be hard for the Democrats and the MSM (birm) to jam this down Trump’s throat. By 2028 the whole deal will have collapsed and Ukraine will be wholly Russian, more so after the ethnic cleansing. If you think Trump is vindictive, Putin is far worse.

Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 11:00 am

I agree that “by 2028 the whole deal will have collapsed”, I expect it will be a lot sooner (2026 midterms?); but I doubt the 2028 election will turn on “who lost Ukraine.”
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 12:15 pm
20. They care. They suported money and arms. But when hubristic types yearn for US troops and US-backed confrontations, its an empty room
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 2/18/2025 @ 12:21 pm
BuDuh (525c92) — 2/18/2025 @ 9:34 am

I thought the AP was banned??

Only from Air Force One and the Oval Office. But not the briefing room.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 2/18/2025 @ 1:35 pm
Trump knows that can only negotiate a proposal.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 2/18/2025 @ 1:37 pm
Munich 1938 nuff said.
asset (b78259) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:04 pm
Americans really don’t care about Ukraine

They never remember what they said after TSHTF. Then it’s “Who’s at fault?”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:28 pm
Public opinion strongly favored the Iraq War on the eve of the invasion. In the end, it destroyed W.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:31 pm
Who do you see as the present day Konrad Henlein?

We won’t know until Ukraine’s government is a Moscow puppet.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:34 pm
They never remember what they said after TSHTF. Then it’s “Who’s at fault?”

Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:28 pm

No, it will be “good riddance.” The polling for “ending the war quickly” versus “going long” have steadily risen in favor of “ending quickly” (even among Demorcrats.)

I’m not sure why you think that Americans will care more after Ukraine has fallen than before. By that time it will be too late to do anything (except to point fingers, a useless exercise.)
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:35 pm
Public opinion strongly favored the Iraq War on the eve of the invasion. In the end, it destroyed W.

Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:31 pm

Bush started the war but failed to end it favorably. If anything, the Ukraine-Russia War didn’t begin on Trump’s watch, but he means to end at any cost.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:38 pm
Public opinion strongly favored the Iraq War on the eve of the invasion. In the end, it destroyed W.

Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:31 pm

Again, so what? That was 14 years ago. The public’s mood has changed. History doesn’t always repeat itself.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:40 pm
The Iraq War started 22 years ago with a different electorate than today and ended 14 years ago. Nobody cares about it anymore.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:41 pm
Trump lies through his teeth again about Ukraine:

“I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it’s going well. But today I heard, ‘Oh well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you been there for three years. You should’ve ended it after three years. You should’ve never started it. You could’ve made a deal,” Trump falsely claimed about Ukraine.

He is a liar, through and through. If he’s playing games with the war in order to get in Putin’s good graces, it doesn’t matter. He is still a massive liar.
Dana (ebcebc) — 2/18/2025 @ 2:57 pm
This is ridiculous, a lie, a big fat lie, Trump saying that Zelenskyy started Putin’s War Against Ukraine. It’s hard to put into words Trump’s betrayal of a friend and democracy, and him putting Putin’s terrorist regime in a more positive light.
Paul Montagu (c36845) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:07 pm
“And again, have you talked to the Army about its state of readiness after 4 years of pronouns?”

You’re an idiot.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:12 pm
Speculation: First, I am not a medical professional, and I suspect even those who are have much to learn about long COVID. But I have been worrying about this possibility for a couple of months now:

The Loser had a very serious case of COVID. Those who have had COVID sometimes have medical problems long afterward. Which can include mental illness.

Repeat, that is speculation.
Jim Miller (c8b337) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:24 pm
@16

Whembly, seems likely that Putin will win at least what you’ve described. It willl not surprise me if Trump gives him even more.

Time123 (f16156) — 2/18/2025 @ 10:51 am

Doesn’t Ukraine “win” too? That the hostilities end, joins the EU block and will be under military shield of future EU army?

Before you answer this, do some quick research of the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements, here’s one:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2022-02-21/
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:29 pm
There is a “model” to follow based on historical events.

The 38th parallel separating North and South Korea.

Now, with Ukraine/Russia, there’s no parallel or the likes to use, but with a new border after the cessation of hostilities, the West ought to follow the South Korean model. Turn Ukraine into a bustling city to effectively turn it into a “trip wire” for the rest of Europe.

Basically, turn it into an European gem of a city with massive investments to “counter” Moscow. Build an new EU bloc army and station a base near the new Ukraine/Russian border.
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:36 pm
This version of America would have been an Axis power in WWII.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:46 pm
Doesn’t Ukraine “win” too? That the hostilities end, joins the EU block and will be under military shield of future EU army?

Only if Putin abides by the deal, but he has a history of welshing on agreements, from Budapest to a 1997 treaty with Ukraine, to the Minsk agreements, to the Geneva Conventions, to UN Article 51. There’s no assurance that the terrorist warcrimer won’t welsh again.
Paul Montagu (c36845) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:49 pm
@34

This is ridiculous, a lie, a big fat lie, Trump saying that Zelenskyy started Putin’s War Against Ukraine. It’s hard to put into words Trump’s betrayal of a friend and democracy, and him putting Putin’s terrorist regime in a more positive light.

Paul Montagu (c36845) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:07 pm

I’m not sure I totally disagree with Trump there.

There surely a deal to be had.

The problem, is the HALF MEASURES efforts. If Ukraine wanted to fight Russian, they obviously need help from US/EU. However, the US/EU half heartedly gave them assets in fear of poking the Russian Bear too much.

HALF MEASURES is possiby the worse possible way to approach this war. Because right now, you’re seeing Russian, over time, getting even more entrenched in Donbass, Luskan and Crimea. It would have to take a peer of Russia to expel them.

Who’s that peer?
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/18/2025 @ 4:29 pm
@39

This version of America would have been an Axis power in WWII.

Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:46 pm

Congratulations, this is in the Runnings for the the dumbest post in 2025! Hey, it’s early, but it should have staying power!

Congrats!
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/18/2025 @ 4:30 pm
@40

Only if Putin abides by the deal, but he has a history of welshing on agreements, from Budapest to a 1997 treaty with Ukraine, to the Minsk agreements, to the Geneva Conventions, to UN Article 51. There’s no assurance that the terrorist warcrimer won’t welsh again.

Paul Montagu (c36845) — 2/18/2025 @ 3:49 pm

That’s why you build in a tripwire of sorts, that would engage every EU nation against Putin.

A) Admit Ukraine into EU.
B) Station european peacekeeping.
C) Eventually station EU block’s army there.
D) Invest in Ukraine to be the “Seoul” if Europe.
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/18/2025 @ 4:32 pm
Another thing that contributed to the mid0air collision near Reagan National Airport:

https://www.wsj.com/video/helicopter-crew-may-not-have-heard-key-instructions-before-dc-crash/5CEF95F7-766C-4C3C-B282-E7BBBB61D0EE?mod=us-news_videos_pos3

They used old fashioned radio communication that doesn’t allow two people to speak at the same time.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 2/18/2025 @ 4:38 pm
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/helicopter-crew-may-not-have-heard-air-traffic-instruction-before-collision-4abf2e47

Jennifer Homendy, the safety board’s chairman, said on Friday that the crew flying the Black Hawk helicopter potentially missed an instruction to “pass behind the” jet roughly 17 seconds before the accident. Based on a readout from the cockpit-voice recorder, those words were “stepped on,” she said, as the Black Hawk pilots started their own transmission back to the control tower at that exact moment.

The jet was making a circling approach to a runway at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Seconds after that air-traffic transmission, the Black Hawk responded that it could see the traffic and requested for the second time to take responsibility for avoiding the jet under visual-separation rules, which the air-traffic controller approved, according to the safety board. An instructor pilot told the pilot who was flying the helicopter they believed the controller wanted them to move left toward the Potomac’s east bank.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 2/18/2025 @ 4:44 pm
EU wants any EU armed forces to be observers of the peace such as it may be- no doubt intending to courageously take angrily penned, voluminous notes of their observances of Russian excesses. All the way to the left bank of the Dnieper River- well actually the EU would probably prefer to watch from Kyiv. Better food, nightlife than the countryside. The Poles still hate the Ukrainians for the genocide in ’43 but they’d barge in if Russia tried to cross the river- I think that is the Poles red line
steveg (c55fba) — 2/18/2025 @ 4:53 pm
Wembley, I think there might be a philosophical difference here. If the war ends and you have less land than when you started, you didn’t win.
Time123 (cbd27d) — 2/18/2025 @ 4:57 pm
@47

Wembley, I think there might be a philosophical difference here. If the war ends and you have less land than when you started, you didn’t win.

Time123 (cbd27d) — 2/18/2025 @ 4:57 pm

We probably do.

Next question: How does Ukraine win to get their land back?

How far are you willing to go?

Please be specific.
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/18/2025 @ 5:04 pm
35: Very helpful Dave. You can read these (or maybe have them read to you). Readiness for a potential war is not something to be casual about. You see we don’t get the WWI “year to get ready” again.

https://www.gao.gov/military-readiness; https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4813894-fix-military-recruiting-deficits-through-compulsory-national-service/#:~:text=Army%20recruiting%20fell%20approximately%2015%2C000,last%20year's%20actual%2055%2C000%20number.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 2/18/2025 @ 5:25 pm
30: Yes, we saw what a limited war we were not really a part of (until we were), did to LBJ and the country.

And all the armchair toughness of the D.C. generals, the assurances of the Sec of Defense, and the “behind the lines in air conditioned offices in saigon while their uniforms were pressed” ranking officers was for nought. They left the real soldiers bleeding in the mud.

No one would bomb Hanoi then, and no one is going to bomb Moscow now. The idea of another war of attrition for a distant country between two nuclear tipped countries is a non-starter.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 2/18/2025 @ 5:35 pm
C) Eventually station EU block’s army there.

But please not to call it NATO. Mainly because NATO is now dead. Trump has killed it.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 5:49 pm
Please be specific.

It involves a time machine.

Better, impeach Biden now for being a feckless boob. Although he had more balls than some of the people here.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 5:51 pm
wanted them to move left toward the Potomac’s east bank.

Where they were supposed to be, but weren’t.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/18/2025 @ 5:53 pm
51. Sorry Kevin. If NATO still has ramshackle militaries despite being urged, kicked and yelled at from 2017-2020 to step it up, and urged politely by Obama to do the same thing from 2012-2106, and then seeing Putin act in 2022, then what was NATO? A gauzy fantasy that died in 1989?

I mean Europe is anice place, great people. But NATO? What do you think Trump killed? Especially when he was trying to get them to keep NATO viable!

Blame the EU -it prefererd a welfare state with a age 62 retirement age over defense. Always good at enjoying freedom, but not defending it
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 2/18/2025 @ 6:53 pm
44 -45: Sammy: i thought they ended that after the Tenerife collision. That is something.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (bc8284) — 2/18/2025 @ 8:03 pm
This gambit might be Trump’s only shot at getting a Nobel Peace Prize.
John Boddie (dcf99c) — 2/18/2025 @ 8:13 pm
@@Davethulu HFM doesn’t know anything about NATO and thinks that changing the y in Bobby to an ie or Jimmy to Jamie costs as much as a weapons system. Unlike everyone else in the US (except Rappers and Bob Dole) he also apparently doesn’t use pronouns.

(I would like to note that outside a school setting, most of the transwomen I’ve run into are terribly awkward middle-aged tech industry people who make me want to go “Oh, honey, let me help” and fix their presentation a little. Honestly, there needs to be some kind of “Welcome to normal femme presentation” package that comes with their first dose of HRT.)

(Transmascs are often harder to tell esp if they have top surgery because once they start HRT, they get facial hair and start to bulk up a little pretty quickly)
Nic (120c94) — 2/19/2025 @ 2:41 am
I’m not sure I totally disagree with Trump there.

Surprise, surprise.
This “poking the Russian Bear too much” is rank bullsh-t. Putin has wanted Ukraine under his thumb for decades, notably in 2004 when he poisoned Yushchenko (whose opponent was none other than Yanukovych) and rigged their election so badly that their highest court ordered a re-do.

Putin made his intentions clear in his July 2021 essay (which was before Biden’s botched cut-and-run from Afghanistan), when he declared that Ukraine didn’t exist and was actually Russia.

There’s no “poking the Russian bear” with NATO. Putin is using NATO as an excuse to illegally invade his neighbor. Neither NATO nor Ukraine ever threatened Russian border, and NATO has always been a defensive alliance wrt Russia.
Paul Montagu (c36845) — 2/19/2025 @ 5:52 am
@58

Surprise, surprise.
This “poking the Russian Bear too much” is rank bullsh-t. Putin has wanted Ukraine under his thumb for decades, notably in 2004 when he poisoned Yushchenko (whose opponent was none other than Yanukovych) and rigged their election so badly that their highest court ordered a re-do.

Putin made his intentions clear in his July 2021 essay (which was before Biden’s botched cut-and-run from Afghanistan), when he declared that Ukraine didn’t exist and was actually Russia.

There’s no “poking the Russian bear” with NATO. Putin is using NATO as an excuse to illegally invade his neighbor. Neither NATO nor Ukraine ever threatened Russian border, and NATO has always been a defensive alliance wrt Russia.

Paul Montagu (c36845) — 2/19/2025 @ 5:52 am

Surprise, surprise… I think you missed my point.

Trump lambasted Zelensky/Ukraine for fighting this war against overwhelming odds.

Now, I’m not 100% onboard Trump’s sentiment, but there’s a kernel there that I think he’s right to highlight.

If Ukraine wasn’t going to get all the necessary armament/equipement/funding to fend off Russia, ie, HALF MEASURES, then the end results are prolonged conflicts that every day longer increases the chances of another World War. (only have to see WW1 as an example).

You may be 100% right that NATO wasn’t “poking the bear”.

You may be 100% right that NATO was simply a pretext for Putin’s ultimate goal.

However, the fact remains is that Putin started this, so, Putins get’s a “say” on how this ends.

So, once again, how does Ukraine win?

No monday morning quarter backing… how does Ukraine win now?

Because if the Ukrainian winning condition is to reclaim lost territories from Russia, then NATO with US backing must engage, including US troops.

Guess what, then: we’re at war with a near peer rival with nuclear arms.

Is that what you want?
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/19/2025 @ 8:22 am
Wembley, there’s another approach. We could continue to support Ukraine with military resources, as well as aid for their civilian population. We could signal that this support is essentially endless, and that the US is willing to continue it for as long as it takes until Russia is willing to come to the negotiating table or Ukraine indicates that they are no longer willing to continue fighting. We could slowly increase the amount of aid and the way we let Ukraine use that aid in their defense against the Russian invasion.

This creates a potential downside risk for Putin because it puts him in a situation where he might lose not a situation where the Ukrainian army is marching on Moscow or even pushing Russia out of Crimea, but a situation where he has to bleed resources into a war of attrition against an industrial complex that Russia has never been able to even come close to matching at some point this creates political problems for him, and if he sees his alternatives between negotiating a piece that Ukraine will accept for fighting an endless war that likely results in his loss of power due to political discontent. It provides some incentive for him.

There are countless factors That I’m not competent to really understand. I speak neither Ukrainian nor Russian. I’m not an expert on the part of the world, but there are a host of alternatives between we give up and let Russia turn Ukraine into another province and we send US troops to fight on Ukraine’s behalf to force Russia out.
Time123 (7d8467) — 2/19/2025 @ 9:07 am
Trump lambasted Zelensky/Ukraine for fighting this war against overwhelming odds.

Trump’s lambasting is contemptible, as Zelenskyy has every right to defend itself and Putin had no right to invade.
The US and NATO have the resources to beat back the Russian terrorist state.
Paul Montagu (d055f8) — 2/19/2025 @ 9:14 am
@60

Wembley, there’s another approach. We could continue to support Ukraine with military resources, as well as aid for their civilian population. We could signal that this support is essentially endless, and that the US is willing to continue it for as long as it takes until Russia is willing to come to the negotiating table or Ukraine indicates that they are no longer willing to continue fighting. We could slowly increase the amount of aid and the way we let Ukraine use that aid in their defense against the Russian invasion.

Isn’t this the current status quo?

How isn’t this characterized as another Half Measure™ mindset that we’ve seen since the Vietnam war?

Europe and the US has the means to end this war quickly (while bringing the war dangerously close to a nuclear conflict).

A) Economically – the US appears to be the only nation interested in sanctioning Russia, as the EU and the rest of the world seems to be glad to take US’ place as a trader to Russia. If we and Europe in particular cannot enforce severe economic sanctions with our allies, then this tactic is moot.

B) Ending the war quickly where by Ukraine wins means some peer nation’s army would need to root out and kick out Russia out of Ukrainian territory. That war is going to be like the wars we’ve seen in WW2 and possible Korea.

This creates a potential downside risk for Putin because it puts him in a situation where he might lose not a situation where the Ukrainian army is marching on Moscow or even pushing Russia out of Crimea, but a situation where he has to bleed resources into a war of attrition against an industrial complex that Russia has never been able to even come close to matching at some point this creates political problems for him, and if he sees his alternatives between negotiating a piece that Ukraine will accept for fighting an endless war that likely results in his loss of power due to political discontent. It provides some incentive for him.

Isn’t this current state as well?

We’ve seen Putin willing to drag this war out. In fact, that’s the one good thing you can say about the Russians… they’re stubborn, and they don’t retreat unless they have to.

There are countless factors That I’m not competent to really understand. I speak neither Ukrainian nor Russian. I’m not an expert on the part of the world, but there are a host of alternatives between we give up and let Russia turn Ukraine into another province and we send US troops to fight on Ukraine’s behalf to force Russia out.

Time123 (7d8467) — 2/19/2025 @ 9:07 am

Hey, I’m of two minds here:
1) If Ukraine will wants to keep on fighting, I’m okay with giving them help. But, there needs to be more transparency here. Furthermore, the EU must do more as this is their backyard.

2) There is a point where its honorable to retreat and save what can be saved, so that Ukraine would continue to exist. Because prolonging a war such as this, puts the Ukrainian nation and people at risk to lose everything. At such a point, it may be the least bad situation to redraw the border, and do everything possible to strengthen your position from this point forward.

The real question is this: Are we at or coming close to that point? Honestly, only the Ukrainian people can tell us.
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/19/2025 @ 9:35 am
“You can read these (or maybe have them read to you). Readiness for a potential war is not something to be casual about. You see we don’t get the WWI “year to get ready” again.”

The reason recruiting is in the toilet is that for most of the 21st century we have been involved in deeply unpopular wars. The diversity stuff is one way that the military is attempts to improve that.

I was in the air force in the 80s. My son is currently in the navy, in a NATO assignment in Italy right now. The idpol “pronouns” stuff is propaganda made by sh*theads, for the consumption by morons.
Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 2/19/2025 @ 9:47 am
Right now Putin is in a terrible position. He’s in a meat-grinder of a war that he cannot win any time soon, and cannot seem to end. He’s forced to make nice with China as China makes a list of what parts of Russia to plunder. All of his connections to the rest of the world go through greedy middlemen like India and even his client states are backing away (of falling to rebels).

Then along comes Trump.

Now, a smart if amoral president (e.g. Nixon or Clinton) would use this as an opportunity to force an actually fair peace bargain:

Russia can keep Crimea, but withdraws from everything else;
Ukraine withdraws from Kursk;
Russia is welcomed back into western trade, all sanctions dropped;
Russian energy exports resume, with a 5% tax to rebuild Ukraine;
The US forgives Ukraine’s war debt;
All individual sanctions and indictments dropped;
The West to provide military security and guarantee Ukraine’s borders;
Russia to formally recognize Ukraine’s borders;
The US and Ukraine enter into a formal defense treaty, with a side agreement about minerals.

One of the unstated goals is to wean Russia away from China, leaving the West as China’s only game.

Trump will do none of this.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/19/2025 @ 9:55 am
Now you might ask why Trump, with the whip hand, is giving away the store to Putin. Or maybe you don’t need to.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/19/2025 @ 10:04 am
@64

Right now Putin is in a terrible position. He’s in a meat-grinder of a war that he cannot win any time soon, and cannot seem to end. He’s forced to make nice with China as China makes a list of what parts of Russia to plunder. All of his connections to the rest of the world go through greedy middlemen like India and even his client states are backing away (of falling to rebels).

Not really, because if its truly bad, then they are on the verge of collapse.

I don’t see it.

It appears they’re happy to maintain the status quo for as long as it takes.

Then along comes Trump.

Now, a smart if amoral president (e.g. Nixon or Clinton) would use this as an opportunity to force an actually fair peace bargain:

Russia can keep Crimea, but withdraws from everything else;
Ukraine withdraws from Kursk;
Russia is welcomed back into western trade, all sanctions dropped;
Russian energy exports resume, with a 5% tax to rebuild Ukraine;
The US forgives Ukraine’s war debt;
All individual sanctions and indictments dropped;
The West to provide military security and guarantee Ukraine’s borders;
Russia to formally recognize Ukraine’s borders;
The US and Ukraine enter into a formal defense treaty, with a side agreement about minerals.

One of the unstated goals is to wean Russia away from China, leaving the West as China’s only game.

Trump will do none of this.

Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/19/2025 @ 9:55 am

You don’t know that with 100% certainty.

One thing people continue ignore about Trump is that he’s transactional.

He’s not going to “give away the store”.

Him and his people are going to find some outcome that won’t satisfy everyone, but may bring an end to the war.

What we do know, for a fact, is that Joe Biden didn’t do sh!t…and god forbid Harris won the election.
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/19/2025 @ 10:22 am
Not really, because if its truly bad, then they are on the verge of collapse

Only China is propping them up, and talk about transactional…
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/19/2025 @ 10:27 am
I would rather have Nixon in charge right now. He may have been a crook, but he was also a patriot.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/19/2025 @ 10:29 am
@67

Not really, because if its truly bad, then they are on the verge of collapse

Only China is propping them up, and talk about transactional…

Kevin M (a9545f) — 2/19/2025 @ 10:27 am

Yup, materially.

China will continue doing so because this is a proxy war between empires, and over a million people have died for basically nothing. China is all too happy to prop up Russia if it means the US is spend vast sums of money while ignoring the Pacific.
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/19/2025 @ 10:29 am
Munich II? A Moral Inversion on Ukraine

………..Blaming the Ukrainians for being invaded is something else.

That’s what Donald Trump appeared to say yesterday, and it’s not the first time he’s suggested it. Trump has tried to arrange peace talks with Russia but appears to have frozen Ukraine out of the process. Volodymyr Zelensky has canceled his trip to Saudi Arabia to protest what amounts to an ex parte proceeding. When asked about it, Trump responded:

“Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it—three years. You should have never been there. You should have never started it. You should have made a deal.”

Been where? In their own country? And what deal did Putin offer them, except subjugation to Moscow?
……….
My friend John Podhoretz — no fan of Trump anyway — is understandably outraged over this moral inversion:

………..What madness, what cravenness, what repulsive factitiousness, is this? Volodymyr Zelenskyy offended him by raising the perfectly logical problem of a negotiation that included him out, and so Trump began talking about Ukraine’s leader as though he were Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, who hasn’t permitted a vote on his leadership in two decades. “Well, we haven’t had an election there,” Trump said by way of explaining why he is insisting that Ukraine go to the polls as part of the peace deal Ukraine is not even involved with! We all assumed this was a Putin condition, but no, Trump said it was his idea. Zelenskyy became president of Ukraine in 2019. He was elected to a five-year term. The Russians invaded in February 2022. ……….

Anyway, what does Trump care whether there are elections there or not? His claim is effectively that Zelenskyy is illegitimate; according to Trump, Zelenskyy has a 4 percent approval rating. That’s a near-psychotic lie. The last poll, for whatever a poll in the middle of a war is worth, had the Ukrainian leader at 52 percent. Trump wants an election there because he feels Zelenskyy is standing in the way of his effort to see that people stop being killed in this war.

………(John Hinderaker at Power Line is a big fan of Trump, and he) can’t quite grasp why Trump is acting as though Ukraine was the aggressor in this conflict either. John looks at the terms that Trump proposes to impose on Ukraine and concludes that they are worse than the Versailles treaty that the Allies imposed on their enemies:

If this draft were accepted, Trump’s demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty, later whittled down at the London Conference in 1921, and by the Dawes Plan in 1924. At the same time, he seems willing to let Russia off the hook entirely.

…………
………… The Brits and the French sidelined Czechoslovakia (in 1938) in those talks too, and treated them as the problem rather than the victim of Nazi aggression. The UK and France forced them to sign what turned out to be their death warrant by threatening to end their security arrangements altogether if the Czechoslovakians refused. Six months later, the Nazis invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia, and the West didn’t lift a finger to save their ally — and the strategic position it occupied, which would have been very useful in the war that came six months after that.
…………
This is dangerous ground for another reason. In 1994, we guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereign territorial integrity in the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for the transfer of nuclear weapons back to Russia. We didn’t explicitly commit to US military intervention, but we didn’t exclude it either……..

This has nothing to do with whether Ukraine is corrupt or Zelensky should have held an election last year. It has to do with keeping our word when we benefit from an exchange, and having the moral clarity about who invaded whom in this war. ………

We don’t need another Munich. And we don’t need a moral inversion to settle the war — and if we did, then the war wouldn’t end anyway, as Munich I taught us.
########
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/19/2025 @ 11:58 am
The price of peace:

Donald Trump’s demand for a $500bn (£400bn) “payback” from Ukraine goes far beyond US control over the country’s critical minerals. It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country.

The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky’s office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. ……..
…………
The agreement covers the “economic value associated with resources of Ukraine”, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)”, leaving it unclear what else might be encompassed. ……..

The US will take 50pc of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50pc of the financial value of “all new licences issued to third parties” for the future monetisation of resources. There will be “a lien on such revenues” in favour of the US……….

It states that “for all future licences, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals”. Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine’s commodity and resource economy. The fund “shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions” of all future licences and projects. ………

President Zelensky himself proposed the idea of giving the US a direct stake in Ukraine’s rare earth elements and critical minerals on a visit to Trump Tower in September, hoping to smooth the way for continued arms deliveries.
……….
He probably did not expect to be confronted with terms normally imposed on aggressor states defeated in war. They are worse than the financial penalties imposed on Germany and Japan after their defeat in 1945. ………

If this draft were accepted, Trump’s demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty, later whittled down at the London Conference in 1921, and by the Dawes Plan in 1924. At the same time, he seems willing to let Russia off the hook entirely.
……….
Talk of Ukraine’s resource wealth has become surreal. A figure of $26 trillion is being cast around for combined mineral reserves and hydrocarbons reserves. The sums are make-believe.
……….
Ukraine cannot possibly meet his $500bn demand in any meaningful timeframe, leaving aside the larger matter of whether it is honourable to treat a victim nation in this fashion after it has held the battle line for the liberal democracies at enormous sacrifice for three years. Who really has a debt to whom, may one ask?
……….
……….(Zyelensky) has to pick between the military violation of Ukraine by Putin, and the economic violation of Ukraine by his own ally.
#########
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/19/2025 @ 12:11 pm
Before Donald Trump’s latest missive, Zelensky accused Donald Trump of wanting a quick ceasefire (which he is not happy with) and of saying things that Putin would like in order to get it.

He also said that Donald Trump was living in a “disinformation bubble” (but this gives Donald Trump too much credit.)
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 2/19/2025 @ 1:42 pm
Zelensky is gambling quite a bit with his public spat with Trump, who’s key to continue the massive funding windfall Ukraine is getting.

Makes you wonder what’s happening behind the scenes…
whembly (b7cc46) — 2/19/2025 @ 1:46 pm
Zelensky is gambling quite a bit with his public spat with Trump, who’s key to continue the massive funding windfall Ukraine is getting.

I doubt there will be another Ukraine funding bill ever again. It’s over.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/19/2025 @ 1:54 pm
63. Davethulu- Good for you and your son. But no, you don’t get a “I was in the military” block on other opinions.

First, my older bro was in Vietnam (real combat not some staff or SEATO job or in Italy) in the 60’s and 70’s and he and like minded people he knows agree with me not you. I trust him not you. (sorry).

Two, the data seems to at the very least, logically support me. I know you aren’t big on sources, but the army appears to have suffered its material manpower recruitment failures in the last two years. Not the last century etc. What was happening inthe lst 2 years? Hmmmm.

(“The Army has failed to meet its manpower goals for the last two years and missed its 2023 target by 10,000 soldiers, a 20 percent shortfall. Today, the active-duty Army stands at 445,000 soldiers, 41,000 fewer than in 2021 and the smallest it has been since 1940.Sep 1, 2024.”) (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368528/us-military-army-navy-recruit-numbers) I don’t know what has been going on for the last 2 years but it has not been unpopular wars has it?

Three, aside from pronouns, the services are not ready: not enough 155 shells and a crimped capacity to make more; Germany has almost no main battle tanks (less than 300 I belive), compared to what it used to have in the cold war. etc., etc.

Dude, you’re going to need to soberly assess readiness before you go off pledging to defend places in Europe and Taiwan.

Three,

Three,
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 2/19/2025 @ 3:33 pm
68 Kevin: he was the Man.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 2/19/2025 @ 3:35 pm
Here’s a mischievous thought: Zelenskyy should offer Mar-a-Lago (and a Tesla) to Putin, in return for Putin returning all the kidnapped Ukrainian children, and withdrawing all Russian forces from Ukraine.

That’s not a perfect solution, which would include trials for war criminals, but it would be a good start.
Jim Miller (9186e5) — 2/19/2025 @ 3:37 pm
How many have died in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Wikipedia has some estimates, while admitting that no one really knows.

For example:

In August 2024, Haaretz estimated 172,000 people had died in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[563] In September 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that there were now one million Ukrainians and Russians who were killed or wounded.

In general, here are, typically, far more wounded than killed, in modern battles, especially if combatants have quick access to the right kind of care.

A million killed seems unlikely, given that WSJ estimate.
Jim Miller (9186e5) — 2/19/2025 @ 3:52 pm
US estimates available online have 1.2M killed and wounded, total, both sides. Obviously neither side is being 100% transparent about losses
steveg (c55fba) — 2/19/2025 @ 5:34 pm
I think Trump is currently over doing it, but it was a dumb move by Zelensky, biting Uncle Sugars hand. Be interesting to compare today with future actual results.
Ambassador Volker has quite a job ahead of him
steveg (c55fba) — 2/19/2025 @ 5:38 pm
Ambassador Volker has quite a job ahead of him

Yeah, it’s going to be hard to find more things to give Putin.

How stupid Hitler forces Ukraine to agree to surrendering everything east of Lviv is a challenge, but I’m sure he’s up to it.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 2/19/2025 @ 7:27 pm

2/18/2025

Unbelievable: U.S. and Russia to Negotiate End of War Without Ukraine’s Participation

81 Responses to “Unbelievable: U.S. and Russia to Negotiate End of War Without Ukraine’s Participation”

Leave a Reply

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out