Here We Go Again: Self-Professed Tough Guy Says, We’ll Have To Wait and See. . .
[guest post by Dana]
In case you wondered what’s stopping Trump from imposing sanctions on Russia:
“Only the fact that if I think I’m close to getting a deal, I don’t wanna screw it up by doing that,” Trump responded. “Let me tell you, I’m a lot tougher than the people you’re talking about. But you have to know when to use that.”
The president went on to refer to the conflict as “Biden’s war, Zelensky’s war, and Putin’s war. This isn’t Trump’s war.”
Asked if he still believed Putin really wants to end the war, Trump sidestepped.
“I can’t tell you that,” Trump said. “But I’ll let you know in about two weeks. Within two weeks. We’re going to find out very soon. We’re going to find out whether or not he’s tapping us along or not. And if he is, we’ll respond a little bit differently. But it will take about a week and a half, two weeks.”
At what point do we call it straight up capitulation? Because I know, and you know that Putin doesn’t want to end the war. Frankly, he’s already had about three years to end the war. . . How can there really be any doubt about his intentions? Perhaps Trump should watch this video and see for himself what Putin wants. A ceasefire sure isn’t it. What Russia wants is a genocide against Ukraine and to subsume the country. An evil ethnic cleansing, so thorough that Ukraine, as we know it, no longer exists.
And so it goes: “Trump keeps giving Putin another two weeks and Congressional Republicans keep giving Trump another two weeks and Russia keeps murdering innocent Ukrainians week after week.”
—Dana
Hello.
Dana (6cda6c) — 5/28/2025 @ 10:45 pmDuring his first term, his totally phenomenal health care plan was always coming in two weeks.
Looks like this term it’ll be “tough” action against Putin that’s perpetually just around the corner.
It’s just stupid – what will be different two weeks from now, compared to two weeks or two months ago?
Dave (ffb911) — 5/29/2025 @ 12:03 amWhat will two weeks be different then now? Nato has taken off range restrictions on their weapons. Trump has been ambivalent on range restrictions. Putin is afraid of strikes on Moscow and is huffing and puffing. For the umpteenth time if Ukraine doesn’t lose it wins and if putin doesn’t win he loses! Ukraine like America in the revolutionary war, Vietnam and Afganistan isn’t going anywhere. Look at the beating Gaza is taking with 50,000 children dead and they are still fighting on. What makes you think putin who is in far worse shape will do any better?
asset (fc32ba) — 5/29/2025 @ 12:31 amI think it’s safe to say that Trump’s natural attention span is about a week and a half. He seems to think that two weeks is enough time for people to forget or to drive a change in the subject.
I kinda think he’s helping Russia just knocks Ukraine over so he can be done with the whole thing
Time123 (034d46) — 5/29/2025 @ 4:07 amOne thing to keep in mind is that the Chechnya war lasted 10 years. Even if Russia takes control of Ukraine it’s likely to result in a protracted guerrilla war. I think the proximity to western EU makes this more likely since it will be in the interests of other European border states to keep Russia bogged down in Ukraine and less able to threaten them directly.
So I doubt the killing stops any time soon even in Russia achieves a decisive military victory.
Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq, are all examples of how a determined resistance can deny a powerful invader a victory…and none of those were so close to western supply of arms.
Time (b58c41) — 5/29/2025 @ 5:07 amJust wait till Putin applies for a student visa to Harvard!
Then he’ll see! The whole world will see!
nk (8a608a) — 5/29/2025 @ 6:14 amSoft TACO says two weeks, but Witkoff is negotiating with Putin, who’s not going to extract any concessions from the terrorist.
Paul Montagu (07689a) — 5/29/2025 @ 6:18 amThis is a concept of a presidency.
Pee Wee Herman vs. Ming The Merciless In The Fifth Dementia.
nk (92e79e) — 5/29/2025 @ 6:59 amTrump seemed to believe the other day that Russia wasn’t even interested in a peace agreement like that of Munich in October 1938 or like the one that ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. That’s all that Trump is asking for from Putin for now.
Sammy Finkelman (2d7491) — 5/29/2025 @ 7:59 amThe EU, at this moment, lack any significant military capacity on their own but seems willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
What worries me, is that once that last Ukrainian soldier is killed off, the Europeans will advocate to fight Russia in Ukraine to the last American soldiers.
whembly (5e04d3) — 5/29/2025 @ 8:57 amI wouldn’t worry about it; the war will be over long before that happens.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/29/2025 @ 8:59 amRubbish, a classic MAGA trope that denies that Ukrainians have agency.
Paul Montagu (07689a) — 5/29/2025 @ 9:30 amwe should have suspected, after the Loser surrendered to the Taliban, that TACO was likely.
Jim Miller (7ecde3) — 5/29/2025 @ 9:50 am@12
Classic Paul purposely misreading what was posted.
At no point do I deny UKE’s own agency.
whembly (5e04d3) — 5/29/2025 @ 9:52 amThey do have agency. They absolutely have the right to fight to the last man if they want.
Joe (584b3d) — 5/29/2025 @ 9:58 amWe are under no obligation to help them.
Our deficit continues to grow, that is a bigger threat to us than Russia.
“The EU, at this moment, lack any significant military capacity on their own but seems willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.”
It’s as if the Ukrainians might actually prefer to fight and die rather than be conquered and subsumed. No one is making them fight for their country, their freedom, their democracy, their desire to join the EU capitalist markets, and to maintain their independence.
I’m sure they would welcome NATO boots and especially a no-fly zone, but they understand the practical limits of support. MAGA seems perfectly willing to give much of Ukraine to our geopolitical enemy because it stands for nothing.
AJ_Liberty (bd81a2) — 5/29/2025 @ 10:01 amYou just did. It’s classic xenophobic twaddle, straight from the MAGAs in Disqus comment sections.
Paul Montagu (07689a) — 5/29/2025 @ 10:32 amWe signed a Budapest Memorandum, which Trump appears ready to welsh just like Putin did.
Paul Montagu (07689a) — 5/29/2025 @ 10:34 amWas that a treaty?
Joe (584b3d) — 5/29/2025 @ 10:42 amI have been skeptical ever since Turkey refused us to use them as a staging base post 9-11. Would not respect Article V.
“The EU, at this moment, lack any significant military capacity.”
They have more capacity that Ukraine — aircraft, tanks, missiles people who know how to use them — and Ukraine has held off Russia for several years.
This is just crap, whembly.
NATO has the ability to both wipe the floor with Russia and its army of criminals and conscripts and to deter Russia from nuclear responses.
They might not have the will, but they are staring into the abyss if they don’t.
Kevin M (b56396) — 5/29/2025 @ 10:43 amWe are under no obligation to help them.
The “Nation of Assh0les” argument.
Kevin M (b56396) — 5/29/2025 @ 10:45 amNo, it was a signed agreement, with us and the UK and Russia and Ukraine as signatories. We’re either good on our word or we’re not.
BTW, regarding the EU, they’ve sent more military and overall aid to Ukraine than we have (seems like they do have some military capacity) and, thanks to Trump betraying our decades-long NATO allies, we’re going to see a major militarization of Europe the likes of which we’ve never seen before, not since the 1930s.
Paul Montagu (07689a) — 5/29/2025 @ 11:00 amNot without the US.
Rip Murdock (d6d95d) — 5/29/2025 @ 11:36 amNo I disagree. President Washington cautioned about “foreign entanglements” Not a source, but a reference i think. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/14319.htm
I do not see how refusing to get involved makes us assholes. Is Switzerland an asshole?
Joe (584b3d) — 5/29/2025 @ 11:37 amThe Budapest Memorandum (aka the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) was an exercise of “constructive ambiguity” which allows the parties to interpret what it means. Note that the official title only refers to “security assurances” and not “security guarantees,” which is a more substantial promise. But it is clear that the United States (and the United Kingdom) fulfilled their obligations under the Budapest Memorandum; while the Russian Federation has not.
The three countries committed themselves to:
My emphasis highlights the only substantive commitment made under the agreement.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/29/2025 @ 1:29 pm@17
I can’t help that you’re wrong.
I’m pointing out that the EU nations are more than happy to support UKE’s efforts against Russia.
My concerns are *if* UKE runs out of man power. Then what?
You tell me Paul… then what?
whembly (5e04d3) — 5/29/2025 @ 1:51 pm@18
Obama made sure that agreement has no teeth, Paul. It’s a dead letter.
whembly (5e04d3) — 5/29/2025 @ 1:53 pm@20
Tell that to the EU NATO countries currently struggling to field divisions on the grounds.
It’s because they don’t have the will to get there at the moment.
whembly (5e04d3) — 5/29/2025 @ 1:55 pmMake that Clinton, who actually signed the agreement. Obama was only the first in short-changing Ukraine after Putin started his war.
No, you’re wrong. That line about “…seems willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” has been isolationist trope for over three years, clearly inferring that [name proxy here] is directing the war from afar, without Ukrainian say-so, when the reality is that the victim gets a vote, and they’ve been voting to defend themselves from Putin’s attempts at conquest.
Regarding manpower, that’s why I keep advocating that Ukraine, for once, get the weapons they’ve been asking for.
Paul Montagu (07689a) — 5/29/2025 @ 2:15 pm“Meh! Those grapes are sour, anyway!”
nk (58cd73) — 5/29/2025 @ 2:32 pmAt the time the Budapest Memorandum was signed they were only interested in the immediate future, and it would take some time for Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons on its soil, so it was almost self-enforcing for awhile and then after that Ukraine was like Poland.
It got unquestioned Russian recognition of the independence and the boundaries of Ukraine.
But Boris Yeltsin was in charge then.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/29/2025 @ 2:38 pmCNN riffs on Trump’s eternal two-week plans.
Dave (60e4b7) — 5/29/2025 @ 2:46 pmThat would require time travel, since the agreement was signed in 1994.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/29/2025 @ 2:49 pmRip,
he’s saying Obama didn’t enforce the memorandum when Russia first invaded
Pretty obtuse not to get the reference.
NJRob (959cfa) — 5/29/2025 @ 2:55 pm@30
Sure, Clinton shares the blame.
But, Ukraine was invaded during the Obama administration. Obama had an opportunity to abide by the memorandum and for various reasons, chose not to.
whembly (5e04d3) — 5/29/2025 @ 3:07 pmThe memorandum required no action on the part of the US, unless nuclear weapons were used against Ukraine (and in that case, it only required seeking assistance through the UN).
Obama did more than what the memorandum required.
Dave (d3f316) — 5/29/2025 @ 3:26 pmNov. 2026 Ukraine gets reinforcements in congress. Nov. 2028 Ukraine wins. Both Britian and France have ICBM capable subs if putin tries to threaten. France has nuclear armed cruise missiles for their aircraft.
asset (0a52cb) — 5/29/2025 @ 3:52 pmAs I pointed out above, since 1994 the US has continually abided with all of its responsibilities under the Budapest Memorandum.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/29/2025 @ 4:01 pmWhich were:
Ukraine may have felt it was coerced to sign the mineral rights agreement with the Trump Administration, thereby violating the second bullet point.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/29/2025 @ 4:04 pmWill it happen?
It would take a sea change in Trump’s thinking to support Graham’s sanctions bill, let alone back more aid to Ukraine. Even if it passed the Senate, President Trump would need to do severe arm twisting to get it through the House. Speaker Mike Johnson would need to be protected from the pro-Putin caucus if he brought it to the floor, which could easily remove him from his Speaker’s chair.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 5/29/2025 @ 5:27 pmNo, not fair, Mr. Kellogg. I wonder if he’s trying to get his seat back at the table after Putin froze him out.
This is true, and Putin has flip-flopped on NATO, from okay with Ukraine entering the alliance in 2002…
…to using NATO as a pathetic excuse to invade in 2022.
Paul Montagu (92c87c) — 5/30/2025 @ 6:51 am[name proxy here] is directing the war from afar, without Ukrainian say-so, when the reality is that the victim gets a vote, and they’ve been voting to defend themselves from Putin’s attempts at conquest.
Indeed. Biden’s first move after Russia invaded was to send a plane to get Zelensky out before Russia crushed them in a short victorious war. Ween that plan failed, he moved on to sending them the first thing on his too little, too late list.
Kevin M (8b536b) — 5/30/2025 @ 8:00 amObama did more than what the memorandum required.
And less than what posterity will accept.
Kevin M (8b536b) — 5/30/2025 @ 8:02 amBoth Britian and France have ICBM capable subs
24 MIRVed Trident missiles would ruin Russia. In the US it would mean destroying every city lager than Boise. It’s a deterrent.
Kevin M (8b536b) — 5/30/2025 @ 8:12 amEvery US administration fulfilled their obligations under the Budapest Memorandum.
Rip Murdock (d6d95d) — 5/30/2025 @ 8:28 am@45
What about the spirit of their obligation?
What was the whole reason for that Memorandum?
whembly (09d73c) — 5/30/2025 @ 8:39 amTo induce Ukraine to send its nuclear weapons to Russia. Ukraine lacked the capability to use them in a militarily meaningful way, as they lacked the infrastructure to launch the missiles on their territory. It would have cost billions (that Ukraine didn’t have) and international isolation if they kept them.
Rip Murdock (4b2c27) — 5/30/2025 @ 8:53 amUkraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for not being again invaded and conquered by Russia. Clinton is at fault for not putting teeth into the deal.
Paul Montagu (92c87c) — 5/30/2025 @ 9:20 amWhen the memorandum was signed in late 1994, none of the former Warsaw Pact countries had yet joined NATO (Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were the first, in 1999), and the last Russian troops had withdrawn from the newly reunited Germany only a few months before.
A guarantee with “teeth” – committing the US to defend Ukraine’s borders – at that time would have been a radical move, and one the senate would have been unlikely to approve.
Dave (d64b7b) — 5/30/2025 @ 9:45 amIt was a three-way negotiation. Russia probably would not have accepted a US security guarantee for Ukraine, and was in a much better position to pressure Ukraine than the US.
I’ve never understood your desire to blame Clinton or Obama for Russia’s decisions to ignore its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum.
Rip Murdock (4b2c27) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:12 amWhich is why it remains a diplomatic agreement, and not a treaty obligation.
Rip Murdock (4b2c27) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:14 amThis is false. There are too many times to count where I’ve said that Putin gets the blame for welshing on the deal. That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize the structure of the deal.
Paul Montagu (92c87c) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:33 amEvery US administration fulfilled their obligations under the Budapest Memorandum.
Every US administration fulfilled their obligation to stop genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan and elsewhere. They did nothing, and were required to do nothing.
Does that make them good?
Kevin M (ba5d82) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:56 amand was in a much better position to pressure Ukraine than the US.
Considering that their puppets ruled Ukraine until 2014.
Kevin M (ba5d82) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:57 amUkraine lacked the capability to use them in a militarily meaningful way
No nation has the capability to use nuclear weapons in a militarily meaningful way. Unless you call “suicide” meaningful.
Kevin M (ba5d82) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:59 am@48
Obama had every opportunity to help Ukraine when Russia invaded in his term.
It took the following Trump administration to allow more lethal aids.
Obama shares blame here as well.
whembly (09d73c) — 5/30/2025 @ 11:13 amObama did help, but it was nowhere near enough, just like all his successors.
Trump sent Javelins to Ukraine, but told the Ukrainians to keep them in western Ukraine, hundreds of miles from the front, where they’d do no good.
Paul Montagu (92c87c) — 5/30/2025 @ 11:18 amUkraine has been short-changed at every turn since 2014, and Biden is no exception, and Trump is again shafting the country.
Fact-checking Trump’s claim that Obama gave Ukraine ‘pillows and sheets’
This article does show that Obama resisted calls from both parties to provide more lethal aid. In hindsight, that was clearly a mistake, but the arguments for de-escalation in the face of a fait accompli in 2015 seem a lot more reasonable than they do today, with Ukraine resisting a full-blown invasion.
Obama pressed on many fronts to arm Ukraine
Dave (d64b7b) — 5/30/2025 @ 11:33 amWhat treaty obligations required the US to intervene militarily in the genocides?
Rip Murdock (4b2c27) — 5/30/2025 @ 11:43 amIt’s crying over spilled milk to complain about a barely binding agreement signed 31 years ago. You might as complain over the Treaty of Versailles as the precursor to World War Two.
Rip Murdock (4b2c27) — 5/30/2025 @ 11:49 amActually yes, as it prevented the US from being bogged down in having to choose sides in civil wars.
Rip Murdock (4b2c27) — 5/30/2025 @ 11:52 amWhere there were no US interests.
Rip Murdock (4b2c27) — 5/30/2025 @ 11:53 am@58
Dave.
Democrats, during the Obama years, and even before then… were all soft on Russia.
That’s because Democrats were Russia-curious because of it’s adjacency to communism/socialisms.
From Hillary Clinton’s reset button…
to…
Obama telling Medevdev he’ll have flexibility after the elections…
I’m convince that some of the Russian/Putin hatred really stems from the belief that Russia “helped” Trump win his 1st term. That, it took Democrats to lose what they believed was a slamdunk election with Hillary Clinton… to really pivot against all things Russia.
It’s quite a journey to finally take a more antagonistic position against Russia, and likely for all the wrong reasons.
whembly (09d73c) — 5/30/2025 @ 11:53 amObama and the Democrats came to power in reaction to Bush’s aggressive foreign policy (which I fully supported at the time, and still fully support, BTW).
In 2009, hoping to build a constructive relationship with Russia was not completely crazy – Bush hoped for it too. If Russia had reciprocated, many of our interests – in the Middle-east, in Europe, and in Asia – would have benefitted. That it proved impossible is not due to any fundamental conflicts, but because Putin turned out to be an imperialist who refused to live within his country’s borders.
This is nonsense. In Obama’s time – and for almost two decades before – Russia was a capitalist oligarchy.
Communism only lingers in one place: North Korea. Remind me which president said he “fell in love” with that country’s brutal dictator?
Except Obama never delivered on his “promise”, and was actually stringing Medvedev and Putin along, buying time for the NATO missile defense system to be deployed on schedule, which it was.
Dave (d64b7b) — 5/30/2025 @ 12:31 pmKevin M (ba5d82) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:56 am
They didn’t do nothing, at least in the first two cases/ They facilitated it.
In the case of Cambodia, President Jimmy Carter stopped an invasion by Thailand (in response to provocations by the Khmer Rouge) in 1977, It only came to an end in 1979 with a invasion by Vietnam, and after that, for ten years, the United States took the position that the invasion by Vietnam had been wrong and supported recognition of the government led by Pol Pot in the United Nations (technically the U>S> was supporting his coalition)
(I remember reading that about Thailand but have not been able to find references)
In he case of Rwanda, President Clinton evacuated everybody (not following the example of Raoul Wallenberg, where he was not a target, just like in Rwanda foreigners were not a target) and also stopped France from helping. Susan Rice played a role in that.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB511
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/16/genocide-under-our-watch-rwanda-susan-rice-richard-clarke
Since this doesn’t fit into any traditional anti-American narrative (the most likely motive was placating China – which sold the hatchets used to kill people to Rwanda – ostensibly I’m sure by a private company like fentanyl) you don’t hear much about this.
International law is often on the side of the murderers and the torturers.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/30/2025 @ 12:48 pmThere was minor war fought on the edges of Cambodia from 1979 to 1989 – a war fought for the sake of a vote in the United Nations General Assembly.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/30/2025 @ 12:49 pmLater on, Clinton (to make himself look better) expressed regret)
From Foreign Policy:
Not following the model of Raoul Wallenberg at all.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/30/2025 @ 12:53 pm55. Kevin M (ba5d82) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:59 am
I think China is trying to prove that thesis wrong – but they want some other country to try the experiment first.
North Korea, Iran, Pakistan
If any country gets away with it, or of it doesn’t but the retaliation gets condemned and denounced, and Western countries swear that they would never do that, China then has a credible threat against Taiwan.
So far it’s not really working. No one wants to go first.
But Iran has hope.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 5/30/2025 @ 12:59 pmBS.
Paul Montagu (92c87c) — 5/30/2025 @ 10:14 pmNone of this is off-limits to criticism, notwithstanding your misleadingly calling it “crying”.