Can you provide direct examples/proof of how the C.I.A helped remove the previous then Ukraine government and the U.S plans to use Ukraine to weaken Russia, these accusations are often thrown around without any substanceAbout Trump's final document and that $500bn bill...
"Ayuda que no se reduce a las armas y el dinero entregados desde la invasión rusa de Ucrania el 24 de febrero de 2022, sino que se remontan al menos hasta 2014, cuando los servicios de inteligencia de EEUU ayudaron a echar a los prorrusos del poder en Kiev y el Pentágono comenzó a armar al ejército ucraniano. E incluso antes, desde la caída de la URSS en 1991, cuando ya los planes de EEUU contemplaban en Ucrania una posible palanca para debilitar a Rusia. "
Trump obtiene los recursos naturales de Ucrania, pero no se compromete a defenderla de Rusia
El republicano logra el botín de los minerales estratégicos de Ucrania, no se compromete a defenderla en la guerra actual y sigue forjando su pacto de superpotencias con Putin...www.publico.es
That aid is not only money and weapons since 2022, but from 2014 when the CIA helped to remove (foreign interference?) a pro-Russian government and US started to equip the Ukrainian army. Even before that, since 1991, when US plans were to use Ukraine to weaken Russia.
It still treads softly...
"previsible derrota en la actual guerra"
"cómo asumir la derrota de facto de Ucrania"
"Ucrania se prefigura como la principal perdedora de esta guerra"
Probable defeat, how to face the de facto defeat, Ukraine as the losing side.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
So where does the weaponry come from? The trained troops? The ammunition? You're talking about spending more money in the short term than there are things to spend it on.
And why bomb Ireland?
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call
A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.
www.bbc.com
Since 2014 BBC already shown and talk how US active involvement on getting rid Yanucovych, including base on this Nuland phone leaks. Not saying Russian not involve on intervering with Ukranian Election, but US is not innocent party.
Before invasions there're talks in western media on Ukraine oppresion toward their Russian speaking population and political opposition. Suddenly after 22 it is with miracle gone from mainstream media, and Ukraine is now beacon of democracy. Perhaps Russia should help Yanucovych to establish Eastern Ukraine in his support base Kharkiv when he fleed there after Maydan. Perhaps it is better then this prolong war.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11,444
Something must be not getting across. First you confidently state that Ukraine will get more aid. Not "might", not "should", not "probably", will. Ok. Then you point at an obvious possible consequence of the current situation where Ukraine would not get more aid. Now you're just "cautiously optimistic" about this possibility? What is your position?
In theory it could work out that way. Or it could turn into Europe channeling most of that on internal needs, both to replace empty arsenals and to stand up new units, with aid to Ukraine dropping not increasing. What makes you think one scenario is more likely then another?
Except... these countries haven't been in a hurry to spend large amounts of money on aid to Ukraine. Poland and Romania, the two poster children for what you're talking about, have mostly handed over piles of whatever WarPac kit they had in surplus. But are they sending their shiny new RoK kit to Ukraine? No. The best Poland was willing to do was a tiny batch of Leo-2A4s, and a modest quantity of domestic Rosomak APCs and derivatives, but under some sort of commercial contract.
It depends on the nature of the deal and on the course of the war. If the deal involves predominantly resources far away from the current front line, and the front lines keeps moving relatively slowly, it could serve as an impetus for the US to force Ukraine to end the war before those areas become endangered. Now you mention survival, but I think that Ukraine's survival is reasonably well assured. The one thing that could seriously undermine that is if Ukraine fights to the point of collapse and Russia can take whatever they want. Then Ukraine's survival comes into question. But currently Ukraine could take all of Russia's terms, get a bunch of agreements on security from the EU and US (assuming they're willing to provide them in a binding format and this remains to be seen) and Ukraine survives, in mutual interest with America. So if the only goal is survival with presumably minimal losses (or at minimal cost, to put it another way), that's presumably the way forward. But that's not what Ukraine wants. Ukraine wants their territory back. All of it including Crimea. If not immediately, eventually.
Well of course you bomb Ireland. It sends a message. To me that's the part of the argument that's the most convincing. You can probably even get Trump on board.
No mention of C.I.A certainly diplomats arguing of the situation but this article goes into some depth Russias interferenceUkraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call
A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.www.bbc.com
Since 2014 BBC already shown and talk how US active involvement on getting rid Yanucovych, including base on this Nuland phone leaks. Not saying Russian not involve on intervering with Ukranian Election, but US is not innocent party.
Before invasions there're talks in western media on Ukraine oppresion toward their Russian speaking population and political opposition. Suddenly after 22 it is with miracle gone from mainstream media, and Ukraine is now beacon of democracy. Perhaps Russia should help Yanucovych to establish Eastern Ukraine in his support base Kharkiv when he fleed there after Maydan. Perhaps it is better then this prolong war.
Foreign interference in Ukraine's election
Ukraine conducted its presidential election in accordance with democratic standards, despite clear evidence of Russian interference.
www.atlanticcouncil.org
Helping people to defend themselves is prolonging a war?Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call
A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.www.bbc.com
Since 2014 BBC already shown and talk how US active involvement on getting rid Yanucovych, including base on this Nuland phone leaks. Not saying Russian not involve on intervering with Ukranian Election, but US is not innocent party.
Before invasions there're talks in western media on Ukraine oppresion toward their Russian speaking population and political opposition. Suddenly after 22 it is with miracle gone from mainstream media, and Ukraine is now beacon of democracy. Perhaps Russia should help Yanucovych to establish Eastern Ukraine in his support base Kharkiv when he fleed there after Maydan. Perhaps it is better then this prolong war.
So you would argue that the UK and other allied nations should have not supplied the USSR during Hitlers invasion in WW2? After all by doing so we prolonged the war whereas we should have simply told the USSR to give up, end the war and make peace with it's new conquers?
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Selling the natural resources deal to the electorate by Podolyak:
Serious talk about Trump baiting Russia into a trap. The trap being that Trump will first get access to the natural resources in Russia, which is why he is being nice to Russia right now, but once the access is secured, they will pressure Russia with the goal to humiliate it.
[…]President of the United States has the most pragmatic position and wants to get 3 things on a certain fall of Russia:
The deal is great for Ukraine because:
In exchange for minerals, Ukraine wants to receive real security guarantees. According to Podoliak, they include:
There is another component that is being discussed by our European partners. These are peacekeeping contingents that can be deployed either on the relevant parts of the front line or on infrastructure facilities. But there is also an additional load - European peacekeeping contingents are possible on the territory of Ukraine if the United States guarantees their support from the air, - emphasized the adviser to the head of the OPU.
According to him, these items, which relate specifically to the capabilities or obligations of the United States, should be included in the mineral deposits treaty.
Good luck and godspeed and may the force be with you is all I can say. But wait:
According to Podoliak, the United States seeks to finish Russia, get maximum profit, and only after that end the war, reaching a fair finale.
This last part is rather… well…
Source (video in Ukrainian, text in Russian, translated above via Google translate):
24tv.ua
Personally, I am still amazed this is a serious talk even as far as the natural resources and rare earths in particular are concerned. Air salesmen. Interestingly, there are at least three articles I saw today that discussed the subject of nonexistence of the resources Ukraine is selling. The one at Politico straight up said in the title that Trump is making a bad deal, lol, whatever the exact title was.
Edit: the article at Politico:
www.politico.eu
Serious talk about Trump baiting Russia into a trap. The trap being that Trump will first get access to the natural resources in Russia, which is why he is being nice to Russia right now, but once the access is secured, they will pressure Russia with the goal to humiliate it.
[…]President of the United States has the most pragmatic position and wants to get 3 things on a certain fall of Russia:
- almost monopolistic access to Russian resources;
- practically monopolistic control over these resources and foreign policy at a certain point;
- to completely humiliate Russia.[…]
The deal is great for Ukraine because:
In exchange for minerals, Ukraine wants to receive real security guarantees. According to Podoliak, they include:
- obtaining missile defense systems - requires from 15 to 25 systems with the appropriate number of anti-missiles;
- missile bases with the appropriate number of missiles, intelligence data, that is, targets that will be laid in missiles and immediately destroyed on the territory of Russia;
- re-equipment of our army. First of all, it should be increased quantitatively. The latest management systems, permit systems, etc. should also be introduced;
- military productions. We are talking about arms supplies today, until Ukraine reaches certain volumes of weapons production.
There is another component that is being discussed by our European partners. These are peacekeeping contingents that can be deployed either on the relevant parts of the front line or on infrastructure facilities. But there is also an additional load - European peacekeeping contingents are possible on the territory of Ukraine if the United States guarantees their support from the air, - emphasized the adviser to the head of the OPU.
According to him, these items, which relate specifically to the capabilities or obligations of the United States, should be included in the mineral deposits treaty.
Good luck and godspeed and may the force be with you is all I can say. But wait:
According to Podoliak, the United States seeks to finish Russia, get maximum profit, and only after that end the war, reaching a fair finale.
This last part is rather… well…
Source (video in Ukrainian, text in Russian, translated above via Google translate):
Путина заманивают в ловушку: главное из интервью с Подоляком об окончании войны
Из-за заявлений Дональда Трампа создается впечатление, что позиция США относительно войны в Украине является вполне пророссийской. Однако заявления американского президента имеют прагматическую основу.
Personally, I am still amazed this is a serious talk even as far as the natural resources and rare earths in particular are concerned. Air salesmen. Interestingly, there are at least three articles I saw today that discussed the subject of nonexistence of the resources Ukraine is selling. The one at Politico straight up said in the title that Trump is making a bad deal, lol, whatever the exact title was.
Edit: the article at Politico:
Donald Trump might have made a bad mineral deal with Ukraine
Estimates of Ukraine’s mineral wealth are based on outdated and incomplete assessments of difficult-to-access sites.
www.politico.eu
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Here's an easy way to spend the money:
1. Increase the pay to make military career attractive, and combat even more attractive.
2. Set aside money for full equipment and accommodation for however much manpower is needed.
3. Buy the equipment so it'll be ready by the time new recruits arrive.
4. Ammo is a big item. Fund acquisition of relevant quantities of ammo.
5. Proper IAMD for cities, bases, forward deployed areas, industry, and infrastructure.
6. Modernize all that's currently in service.
7. If rearmament is not necessary, set industry to wartime production and fund relevant equipment to be sent to Ukraine. If combined defense and aid budget is not in the 5-10% range, something is seriously wrong.
Even before you have a hundred thousand more men for combat, there's plenty to spend on.
Bombing Ireland is for fun and target practice.
I'd rather you not take every single word so literally.
I trust that Trump's plan, regardless of the method, is meant to strengthen Europe by forcing rearmament. And I trust that if such process were to succeed, Ukraine will benefit, at least in the long term, via direct and indirect improvements to aid capacity.
I don't think the US will disengage. I think it'll carefully navigate between upping Ukraine aid and incentivizing Europe to modernize and rearm.
Elevating Ukraine aid is not necessarily a matter of quantity. A lower quantity but higher quality aid may in fact be more effective, including and primarily a lifting on usage restrictions.
On a more macro level, a hawkish POTUS and more hawkish European leadership (Merz and hopefully others soon), is net good for Ukraine and it could manifest in any number of ways.
What Russian resources are you talking about?Selling the natural resources deal to the electorate by Podolyak:
Serious talk about Trump baiting Russia into a trap. The trap being that Trump will first get access to the natural resources in Russia, which is why he is being nice to Russia right now, but once the access is secured, they will pressure Russia with the goal to humiliate it.
[…]President of the United States has the most pragmatic position and wants to get 3 things on a certain fall of Russia:
Podolyak believes that Trump thinks he will get trillions of dollars worth of return in this scenario.
- almost monopolistic access to Russian resources;
- practically monopolistic control over these resources and foreign policy at a certain point;
- to completely humiliate Russia.[…]
The deal is great for Ukraine because:
In exchange for minerals, Ukraine wants to receive real security guarantees. According to Podoliak, they include:
Is that all? No, it is not:
- obtaining missile defense systems - requires from 15 to 25 systems with the appropriate number of anti-missiles;
- missile bases with the appropriate number of missiles, intelligence data, that is, targets that will be laid in missiles and immediately destroyed on the territory of Russia;
- re-equipment of our army. First of all, it should be increased quantitatively. The latest management systems, permit systems, etc. should also be introduced;
- military productions. We are talking about arms supplies today, until Ukraine reaches certain volumes of weapons production.
There is another component that is being discussed by our European partners. These are peacekeeping contingents that can be deployed either on the relevant parts of the front line or on infrastructure facilities. But there is also an additional load - European peacekeeping contingents are possible on the territory of Ukraine if the United States guarantees their support from the air, - emphasized the adviser to the head of the OPU.
According to him, these items, which relate specifically to the capabilities or obligations of the United States, should be included in the mineral deposits treaty.
Good luck and godspeed and may the force be with you is all I can say. But wait:
According to Podoliak, the United States seeks to finish Russia, get maximum profit, and only after that end the war, reaching a fair finale.
This last part is rather… well…
Source (video in Ukrainian, text in Russian, translated above via Google translate):
Путина заманивают в ловушку: главное из интервью с Подоляком об окончании войны
Из-за заявлений Дональда Трампа создается впечатление, что позиция США относительно войны в Украине является вполне пророссийской. Однако заявления американского президента имеют прагматическую основу.
Personally, I am still amazed this is a serious talk even as far as the natural resources and rare earths in particular are concerned. Air salesmen. Interestingly, there are at least three articles I saw today that discussed the subject of nonexistence of the resources Ukraine is selling. The one at Politico straight up said in the title that Trump is making a bad deal, lol, whatever the exact title was.
Edit: the article at Politico:
Donald Trump might have made a bad mineral deal with Ukraine
Estimates of Ukraine’s mineral wealth are based on outdated and incomplete assessments of difficult-to-access sites.
And on the subject of peacekeepers, the currently proposed 30k figure is inadequate, and sounds a lot like a repeat of the masters-of-retreat UN.
Most of that can't be done immediately. You can't buy equipment unless production lines exist. You can place orders, & make upfront payments to manufacturers so they can expand production capacity, but most of that's future spending, not immediate, & it takes time to deliver. Nor can you suddenly massively increase numbers of trained troops. Training takes time, & training pipelines have limited capacity. You need a plan to increase training capacity - & that will take time to have an effect.
The British army massively increased numbers from mid-1914 to mid-1916, but at the expense of quality. The soldiers who went over the top at the Somme were worse trained than those who fought in 1914, enough to limit the tactical options of commanders.
So WTF is the point of reading what you write?
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
In the short term it almost certainly means Ukraine getting somewhat less, but long term it could mean it getting more modern equipment. What Ukraine needs more of is munitions, not platforms. The opposite is true for Europe. They first need more platforms, while munitions production has already been drastically increased. So it could align well.
I think that was a legitimate decision. Poland already spends ~5% on defense, AFAIK. Why should it fund even more aid to Ukraine when some of the large Euro economies aren't even at 2% yet? (Looking hard at Italy here).
I understand your point. You say a lot's still missing. And I agree, it is missing. Otherwise I wouldn't be so Euro-critical. But the vector is right.
And some of the minerals Trump is so excited about are in Russia-controlled regions.Personally, I am still amazed this is a serious talk even as far as the natural resources and rare earths in particular are concerned. Air salesmen. Interestingly, there are at least three articles I saw today that discussed the subject of nonexistence of the resources Ukraine is selling. The one at Politico straight up said in the title that Trump is making a bad deal, lol, whatever the exact title was.
Edit: the article at Politico:
Donald Trump might have made a bad mineral deal with Ukraine
Estimates of Ukraine’s mineral wealth are based on outdated and incomplete assessments of difficult-to-access sites.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
If spending has substance, I don't mind it being less than 5%. That target is just a steady state for proper security. You're arguing over specifics when they're unique for every nation.
Training quality is a 2nd order issue. Fix troop numbers first, then train them better.
Remember that show about home renovations where some kid says "yeah I like horses or somth I guess idk" then they turn her whole room horse themed and install a carousel and deploy a trojan horse in the yard complete with troops ready to pillage?
Yeah, it's that. What I'm saying is don't look for specifics when talking concepts and future events.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
That's actually the neat part.
rsemmes
Member
You mean if publico.es can provide them? In Spanish it says Intelligence Services.
Publico is not themirror, my educated guess is that they do their job; you already got something else from the BBC, if you think that they do their job at the BBC.
What I can provide you is an old cable:
"Instructions from General Earle Wheeler (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to Lieutenant General Bruce Palmer. May 1, 1965.
Your announced mission is to save US lives. Your unannounced mission is to prevent the Dominican Republic from going Communist. The President has stated that he will not allow another Cuba you are to take all necessary measures to accomplish this mission. You will be given sufficient forces to do the job."
Using the CIA seems more subtle and in 60 years you will be able to read the emails about what it's been done today. Haven't you been able to read anything about US interference in Bulgarian elections after the fall of the Berlin Wall? It would make sense for Russia to do exactly the same thing.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11,455
Well it certainly could prolong a war in principle and likely does so here. What's implicit is the assumption that prolonging a war is a bad thing. And that's not always true. Your argument would not be that it doesn't prolong the war, that's silly. It obviously does by preventing Ukraine's defeat. Your argument would be that this is a good thing.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11,456
Now see that's what Russia thought about Ukraine but everyone got mad for some reason.
It's not every word. These are significant distinct positions and you seem to bounce back and forth between them with confident statements but no commitment to any of them.
Ukraine will get more aid. Ukraine probably will get more aid. Ukraine might get more aid. Ukraine could get more aid. Ukraine should get more aid. Ukraine will get comparable amounts of aid. Ukraine will probably get less aid. Ukraine will possibly get less aid. Ukraine will get less aid. These aren't semantic distinctions. They are all different positions on the future of aid to Ukraine, many of them mutually exclusive. I've bolded the positions you've taken in recent posts. Do you see the cause of the confusion?
Ok, I understand what you're saying here. Again I think it's a very generous reading of US foreign policy, and gives Trump and his team a lot of credit. I guess time will tell whether they will live up to this optimism.
I strongly disagree. Ukraine has problems with sufficient quantity of just about everything. Quality is also of course an issue but homeopathic quantities of modern equipment won't help. Europe's option isn't providing giant quantities of Leo-1s or smaller quantities of Leo-2A8s. Europe's option is providing small quantities of Leo-1s or tiny quantities of Leo-2A8s. You can't stop the Leo-1 transfer and use those funds to purchase 1 sad btln of Leo-2A8s per year and expect good outcomes.
In general terms, sure. But this isn't a generic "hawkish POTUS". It's Trump specifically.
Current conversations around peacekeeping are all very strange. One of the suggestions is what amounts to an allied expeditionary force to protect Ukrainian rear areas and assist with air defense. I don't know that we're talking about peacekeepers in the format they've historically been present in. The words here might mean something very different.
I think Ukraine absolutely needs more platforms. There are still plenty of Ukrainian army units whose main transports are unarmored civilian vehicles. Ukraine's artillery park is still in a sorry state, with many units continuing to use improvised MLRS or antiquated artillery. Moreover many artillery units are just lacking numbers. 4-gun batteries, 2-battery btlns, are all a reality of the AFU. Without creating new units, just to bring current formations up to TO&E strength requires a lot more aid, and the aid has to come at a rate greater than battlefield losses.
You've also just completely walked back your earlier argument. And by the way, I do agree with what you state here. Ukraine gets less in the short term, and could get more modern equipment in the long term assuming Europe decides to give it to them. This does nothing to address the problem of Ukraine's survival or achieving their objectives in this war and the lower quantities received in the short term could spell their doom.
I also think it's a legitimate decision (who in their right mind would claim otherwise? It's their money, it's their defense budget, they can spend it as they see fit). But what I'm pointing out is that the direction of movement is congruent to what you claim but the results aren't. In other words, the things you're advocating don't seem to lead to the outcomes you're expecting.
EDIT: Perfect illustration, the negotiations that just took place in the White House between Zelensky and Trump. Let's just say they did not go well. It doesn't look like Trump has a clever plan that ends with a Ukrainian victory. It looks like he expects Zelensky to pay the costs of US aid as defined by Trump&Co. while agreeing to a US-negotiated end to the war even if they don't like it.
Last edited:
This is not the case.
It's the last government coalition partner that blew up the German government and subsequently was voted out of parliament and self-destructed that is "demanding" that Merz should deliver Taurus.
Merz has repeatedly stated that while he is in principle willing to deliver Taurus missiles, doing so "should be a European decision" and "Germany should not act isolated". He has also sworn in his likely CDU ministers on this position during campaigning. The CDU election manifesto does not form a position on Taurus either way btw.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Zelenskyy leaves White House without signing minerals deal after Oval Office blow up
Zelenskyy's delegation is expected to sign a landmark economic agreement with the U.S. in Washington, aimed at financing the reconstruction of war-damaged Ukraine
apnews.com
Trump tells Zelensky 'make a deal or we're out' in angry White House meeting - follow live
A joint news conference is cancelled after the US president calls his Ukrainian counterpart "disrespectful" and says "make a deal or we're out".
www.bbc.com
Euro leader like Macron told before in media that taking the deal (minerals concesion) to US is good deal to ensure US still behind Ukraine back.
Zelensky leaves White House without signing minerals deal after heated exchange with Trump
Trump scolded Zelensky in a tense Oval Office exchange, telling him to be more 'thankful' and warning, 'make a deal with Russia or we're out.' Zelensky pushed back, insisting there should be 'no compromises with a killer on our territory.' The fallout derailed a planned minerals deal, which was...
www.lemonde.fr
This heated argument clearly shown Trump doesn't care of diplomatic niceties. He expect Zelensky come to Washington, sign the deal and follow US lead. While seems Zelensky still hoping US will back them against Russia without concesion to Putin. Something that anger Trump team and basically tell Zelensky to go.
Trump and team clearly want to shown not only to Zelensky but also Euro that if they don't follow US want, then fight Russia on their own. Trump clearly say he will not gamble US potential fighting Russia for WW 3 over Ukraine, and lash out to Zelensky that's what Ukraine wants and His administration will not tolerate that.
Put this from Indian media to shown what even outside US and Euro see this. See that Trump clearly don't want Zelensky come with Ukraine agenda. Trump clearly want to shown Zelensky his agenda is different then Biden and now folow us or else.
Last edited:
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Ugggg.....just when I think the theatre has died down, we get this.
Zelenskyy leaves White House without signing minerals deal after Oval Office blow up
Zelenskyy's delegation is expected to sign a landmark economic agreement with the U.S. in Washington, aimed at financing the reconstruction of war-damaged Ukraine
Trump tells Zelensky 'make a deal or we're out' in angry White House meeting - follow live
A joint news conference is cancelled after the US president calls his Ukrainian counterpart "disrespectful" and says "make a deal or we're out".www.bbc.com
Euro leader like Macron told before in media that taking the deal (minerals concesion) to US is good deal to ensure US still behind Ukraine back.
Zelensky leaves White House without signing minerals deal after heated exchange with Trump
Trump scolded Zelensky in a tense Oval Office exchange, telling him to be more 'thankful' and warning, 'make a deal with Russia or we're out.' Zelensky pushed back, insisting there should be 'no compromises with a killer on our territory.' The fallout derailed a planned minerals deal, which was...
This heated argument clearly shown Trump doesn't care of diplomatic niceties. He expect Zelensky come to Washington, sign the deal and follow US lead. While seems Zelensky still hoping US will back them against Russia without concesion to Putin. Something that anger Trump team and basically tell Zelensky to go.
Trump and team clearly want to shown not only to Zelensky but also Euro that if they don't follow US want, then fight Russia on their own. Trump clearly say he will not gamble US potential fighting Russia for WW 3 over Ukraine, and lash out to Zelensky that's what Ukraine wants and His administration will not tolerate that.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Well it is Trump being CEO of US Inc., and not US President. He's believed he has the biggest card over Ukraine (or even Euro in this matter) and he want others follow him in making deals as he is the one that having the biggest card. That's business CEO behavior when making commercial deals.
Add:
He already says during his campaign that the Ukraine war will not happen in 22 if he's still the President. He will make deal that will not push Putin to make invasion. He is shown to his constituents that he is different then Biden and will not put US money to Ukraine unless they follow US. This is more domestic US in my opinion then US foreign-policy. Afterall he already say time to time, under him is America first and what he lashing out to Zelensky for do not gambling WW3, it is his and his constituents believes what are puting Americans interest first even to Euro and Ukraine ones.
Last edited: